First Financial Bankshares, Inc. (FFIN) Business

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2025, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, all of which are headquartered in Abilene, Texas, were:

•

First Financial Bank;

•

First Technology Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company; and

•

First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2025, we had 79 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, five locations in Bryan/College Station, three locations in Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Franklin, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Lumberton, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park. Additionally, we operate mortgage loan offices in Austin and Addison, as well as Trust offices in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the non-customer facing operations, such as managing investment securities, accounting, check processing, compliance and credit administration, risk management, treasury management, marketing, customer contact center, technology, training and human resources, which improved our efficiency and allows the regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 31.7 million residents as of December 31, 2024, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 17.60% from 2014-2024 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Bridgeport and Wise County 31.7 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 14.6 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 19.5 % Granbury and Hood County 28.5 % Cleburne and Johnson County 34.3 % Stephenville and Erath County 9.8 % Conroe and Montgomery County 45.0 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 47.1 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution, lumber and fishing.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to benefit from the growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-bank concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Table of Contents

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $15.45 billion as of December 31, 2025. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually evaluate branch locations in our current communities as well as new markets and we remain interested in pursuing opportunities to acquire high quality banks in the future.

When considering banks for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable and align with our corporate culture. We have traditionally served rural and suburban communities and seek to enter growing communities consistent with our legacy markets. Generally we focus on non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas as well as in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $1.0 billion and $5.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a cultural and financial fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Our bank and subsidiaries have separate boards and the regions of the bank are guided by advisory boards of directors who are selected by the Company's board of directors.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, insurance, finance and accounting, strategic planning, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, capital planning, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third-parties, oversight of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and recommend approval to the board for potential locations for new branch offices by the bank. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management and oversight of its board of directors and officers. Our eight banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regions regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”), drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, funds transfer, and performing other customary commercial banking services. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through our trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company. Our trust company has nine locations, which are all located in Texas in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Sweetwater. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, oil and gas management, farm and ranch, property management, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of interest rates paid or charged, scope of services offered, prices charged for such services, and personalized customer service delivered at the local level. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations,

Table of Contents

small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, Fintech, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking and related services to consumers, small businesses, corporations, non-profits, governmental entities, and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our lines of business and operational support areas within the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Executive Chairman, who has spent over forty-nine years with the Company, and our recently appointed President and CEO, who has tenure with the Company of twenty-two years. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of our strategy, customer service delivery, and local decision-making, across our eight regions. On average, our thirteen Regional or Divisional CEOs and Presidents have approximately twenty-seven years of banking experience and fifteen years of service with the Company.

On December 31, 2025, the Company employed approximately 1,600 employees. Approximately 1,500 were full-time and 100 were part-time. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a day-to-day basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21 Non-Negotiables of Customer Service, which were developed by management with the assistance of Horst Schulze, the founder of The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company and an independent consultant to the Company for the last seven years. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, most lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). For potential future management, we require this group to attend a graduate school of banking, TBA Leadership course and FFIN University, which is our year long internal course which teaches how to manage a high-performing bank. The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, eight of our current CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture that attracts, recruits, retains, develops, and promotes employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. By promoting and fostering a workforce that we believe is reflective of our customers and communities, we seek to better understand the financial needs of our prospects and customers and provide them with relevant financial service products.

We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our Regional and Divisional CEO/Presidents, three are women. To properly serve our diverse customer base and communities, 69% of our employees are female and 48% of our employees are minorities, veterans and/or self-identify as disabled.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including athletic club membership, medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and paid time off (vacation, holidays and sick time). Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as a retention vehicle for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately six years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2025 and 2024, the Company incurred expenses totaling $35.23 million and $30.00 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Table of Contents

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. We strive every day to improve the quality of life in every community that we serve. We support schools, cities, counties and churches with the latest in financial services, as well as our time and money. We provide leadership to our local nonprofits and churches by being on their boards, volunteering to raise money, as well as helping them provide services. In many cases, our employees chair their boards, raises and contribute funds and give of their time freely. In addition to our continuous involvement, we perform an annual Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities in which we live and serve. In 2025, this amounted to approximately 6,000 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company, which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining, and communicating our culture to employees. Currently, our board is comprised of thirteen members, including one Hispanic, one African-American and two females.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (the “FDIC”). The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, our subsidiary bank must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and provide fair access to financial products and services. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger

Table of Contents

or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

First Financial Bank is a Texas banking association and organized under Texas laws. As a Texas banking association, First Financial Bank is subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Board. As a result, the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Board supervise, regulate and regularly examine the following subsidiaries:

•

First Financial Bank;

•

First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

The supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. Accordingly, Texas and Federal Law:

•

requires each banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

•

restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

•

restricts investments and other activities.

As a Texas trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management is subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay deposit insurance assessments (or premiums) to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past. In the fourth quarter of 2023, and first quarter of 2024, the FDIC imposed a special assessment to a total of $2.06 million to our Bank in response to the FDIC-insured financial institutions that failed in March 2023. The special assessment

Table of Contents

was accrued and expensed at the time it was imposed and is being paid over ten quarters beginning in the second quarter of 2024. In December 2025, based upon the first six quarterly collections of the special assessment and anticipated collections for the seventh quarterly special assessment, the FDIC issued an interim final rule to amend the collection of the special assessment to reduce the eighth quarterly assessment rate from 3.36 basis points to 2.97 basis points. Because the cumulative amount collected through the initial eight quarter special assessment period is projected to equal the FDIC's loss estimate, the additional two quarter extend assessment period was removed. The interim final run also requires the FDIC to provide an offset to regular deposit insurance assessments for institutions subject to the special assessment if the aggregate amount collected exceeds estimated losses following the resolution of pending litigation, and again following the termination of the receiverships. As provided for in the special assessment rule, if losses as the termination of the receiverships exceeds the amount collected, the FDIC will implement a one-time final shortfall special assessment to ensure the full amount of actual losses is recovered as required by law. The extent to which any such future offsets or a future one-time shortfall special assessment will impact our future deposit insurance expense is currently uncertain.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize future credits, if any, to offset its FDIC assessment.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, for institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank's capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution's ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval by the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the Texas Department of Banking, and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” Additionally, the maximum payout amount paid by our Company and subsidiary bank is restricted if regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice.

As a state-member bank, our bank subsidiary is required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board if the total of all dividends declared by a state-member bank in any calendar year would exceed the sum of the bank's net profits for that year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years.

Table of Contents

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary bank must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines and comply with the general requirements applicable to a Texas corporation. Generally, a Texas corporation may not pay a dividend to its shareholders if (i) after giving effect to the dividend, the corporation would be insolvent, or (ii) the amount of the dividend would exceed the surplus of the corporation. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Texas Department of Banking, and the OCC have each indicated that paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve, the Texas Department of Banking, the OCC and the FDIC expect that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to the Company of $149.40 million in 2025 and $55.50 million in 2024. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2025, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $366.54 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their non-depository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

•

the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

•

the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

•

the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the Texas Department of Banking, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary are

Table of Contents

based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel III Rules”).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2025, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, were permitted to make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the applicable federal banking regulators for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios are:

•

A minimum CET1 ratio to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" that is composed entirely of CET1 capital (resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%);

•

A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%);

•

A minimum ratio of total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital ) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and

•

A minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the "leverage ratio").

An institution that fails to meet the effective minimum ratios after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, as detailed above, will be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2025, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 21.17%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 19.99%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 19.99% and a leverage ratio of 12.55%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution

Table of Contents

may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2025.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such requirement, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the FDIA, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million, subject to adjustment for inflation, for each day the activity continues.

In October 2025, the FDIC and OCC issued a proposed rule that would define the term "unsafe or unsound practice" for purposes of their enforcement powers under the FDIA. The proposed definition would focus on whether the practice is likely to materially harm, or already has materially harmed, the financial condition of an institution. The Federal Reserve has not issued a similar proposal.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

Table of Contents

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low-and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Outstanding” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by the Federal Reserve Board.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

•

to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

•

to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

•

to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

•

to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

•

the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

•

the designation of a compliance officer;

•

an ongoing employee training program; and

•

an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In October 2022, the SEC adopted a final rule directing national securities exchanges and associations, including the NYSE, to implement listing standards that require listed companies to adopt policies mandating the recovery of "clawback" of excessive incentive-based compensation earned by a current or former executive officer during the three fiscal years preceding the date the listed company is required to prepare an accounting restatement, including to correct an error that would result in a material misstatement if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected in the current period. The NYSE's listing standards pursuant to the SEC's rule became effective on October 2, 2023. We adopted a compensation recovery policy pursuant to the NYSE listing standards on October 23, 2018. The policy is included as Exhibit 97.1 to this Form 10-K.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations. Violations of consumer protection laws and regulations can result in significant potential liability, including actual damages, restitution and injunctive relief from litigation brought by customers, state attorney generals, the Department of Justice and other plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by banking regulators and reputational harm.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Given our subsidiary bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets, it is subject to regulation by the CFPB. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

In October 2024, the CFPB issued a final rule that requires a provider of payment accounts or products, such as a bank, to make data available to consumers, free upon request, regarding the products or services they obtain from the provider. Any such data available to third parties, with the consumer's express authorization and through an interface that satisfies formatting, performance, and security standards, for the purposes of such third parties providing the consumer with financial products or services requested by the consumer. Data required to be made available under the rule includes transaction information, account balance, account and routing numbers, terms and conditions, upcoming bill information, and certain account verification.

Table of Contents

During 2025, the CFPB reduced its staff by over 80%. The reduction in force is the subject of litigation, and the staffing cuts are currently stayed pending the federal circuit court's en banc rehearing of the case. The impact of these developments on banking organizations subject to the CFPB regulation and supervision, including us, is uncertain. States and state attorneys general may increase regulatory, investigative and enforcement activity with respect to consumer protection, in response to changes in regulation, supervision and enforcement of consumer protection laws by federal regulators.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of consumer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a consumer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Table of Contents

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Fair Access to Financial Services

In recent years, certain states have enacted, or have proposed to enact, statutes, regulations or policies that prohibit financial institutions from denying or canceling products or services to a person or business, or otherwise discriminating against a person or business, or otherwise discriminating against a person in making available products or services, on the basis of certain social or political factors or other activities. In August 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14331, "Guaranteeing Fair Banking Access for All Americans," which states that it is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views. The Executive Order directs the Treasury Secretary and federal banking regulators to address politicized or unlawful debanking activities.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

•

creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

•

elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

•

prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

•

requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations had crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim

Table of Contents

final rule, these banks generally had until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act. The Company has continued to exceed $10 billion in assets and as such, the restrictions became effective July 1, 2022. In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled to vacate the Federal Reserve's current interchange rules but simultaneously stayed its own vacatur pending appeal to the circuit court. The outcome of this litigation could significantly and adversely affect the fees banks can charge on debit card transactions; and

•

restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Several of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is https://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit, compensation, executive, nominating, and risk committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2024, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, all of which are headquartered in Abilene, Texas, were:

•

First Financial Bank;

•

First Technology Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company; and

•

First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2024, we had 79 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, five locations in Bryan/College Station, three locations in Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Franklin, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Lumberton, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park. Additionally, we operate mortgage loan offices in Austin and Addison, as well as Trust offices in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the non-customer facing operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, credit administration, risk management, treasury management, marketing, customer contact center, technology, training and human resources, which improved our efficiency and allows the regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 31.3 million residents as of December 31, 2023, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 18.17% from 2013-2023 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Bridgeport and Wise County 28.0 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 14.1 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 19.9 % Granbury and Hood County 28.2 % Cleburne and Johnson County 31.3 % Stephenville and Erath County 10.8 % Conroe and Montgomery County 42.7 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 44.8 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution, lumber and fishing.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-bank concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Table of Contents

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $13.98 billion as of December 31, 2024. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for better branch locations so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We continue to evaluate opportunities to acquire high quality banks in the future.

When considering banks for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable and align with our corporate culture. We have traditionally served rural and suburban communities and seek to enter growing communities consistent with our legacy markets. Generally we focus on non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas as well as in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $500 million and $3.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a cultural and financial fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Our bank and subsidiaries have separate boards and the regions of the bank are guided by advisory boards of directors who are selected by the Company's board of directors.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, insurance, finance and accounting, strategic planning, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third-parties, oversight of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and recommend approval to the board for potential locations for new branch offices by the bank. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management and oversight of its board of directors and officers. Our eight banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regions regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”), drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, funds transfer, and performing other customary commercial banking services. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through our trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company. Our trust company has nine locations, which are all located in Texas in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, oil and gas management, farm and ranch, property management, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of interest rates paid or charged, scope of services offered, prices charged for such services, and personalized customer service delivered at the local level. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations,

Table of Contents

small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, Fintech, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking and related services to consumers, small businesses, corporations, non-profits, governmental entities, and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our lines of business and operational support areas within the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Chairman, CEO and President who has over forty-eight years with the Company. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of our strategy, customer service, and local decision-making, across our eight regions. On average, our sixteen Regional or Divisional CEOs and Presidents have approximately twenty-six years of banking experience and fourteen years of service with the Company.

On December 31, 2024, the Company employed approximately 1,500 employees. Approximately 1,400 were full-time and 100 were part-time. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a day-to-day basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21 Non-Negotiables of Customer Service, which were developed by management with the assistance of Horst Schulze, the founder of The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company and an independent consultant to the Company for the last six years. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, most lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). For potential future management, we require this group to attend a graduate school of banking, TBA Leadership course and FFIN University, which is our year long internal course which teaches how to manage a high-performing bank. The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, eight of our current CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture that attracts, recruits, retains, develops, and promotes employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. By promoting and fostering a workforce that we believe is reflective of our customers and communities, we seek to better understand the financial needs of our prospects and customers and provide them with relevant financial service products.

We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our Regional and Divisional CEO/Presidents, four are women. To properly serve our diverse customer base and communities, 1,063, or 70%, of our employees are female and 697 or 46%, of our employees are minorities, veterans and/or self-identify as disabled.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including athletic club membership, medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and paid time off (vacation, holidays and sick time). Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as a retention vehicle for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately seven years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2024 and 2023, the Company incurred expenses totaling approximately $30.00 million and $19.19 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Table of Contents

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. We strive every day to improve the quality of life in every community that we serve. We support schools, cities, counties and churches with the latest in financial services, as well as our time and money. We provide leadership to our local nonprofits and churches by being on their boards, volunteering to raise money, as well as helping them provide services. In many cases, our employees chair their boards, raises and contribute funds and give of their time freely. In addition to our continuous involvement, we perform an annual Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities in which we live and serve. In 2024, this amounted to approximately 5,000 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company, which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining, and communicating our culture to employees. Currently, our board is comprised of twelve members, including one Hispanic, one African-American and three females.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (the “FDIC”). The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, our subsidiary bank must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and provide fair access to financial products and services. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger

Table of Contents

or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

First Financial Bank is a Texas banking association and organized under Texas laws. First Financial Bank was originally organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act, but converted to a Texas state charter in April 2024. As a Texas banking association, First Financial Bank is subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Board. As a result, the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Board now supervise, regulate and regularly examine the following subsidiaries:

•

First Financial Bank;

•

First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank)

The supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. Accordingly, Texas and Federal Law:

•

requires each banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

•

restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

•

restricts investments and other activities.

In addition, First Financial Trust & Asset Management converted from a national association limited to trust powers to a Texas trust company in April 2024. As a Texas trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management is subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay deposit insurance assessments (or premiums) to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF

Table of Contents

and has imposed special assessments in the past. In the fourth quarter of 2023, the FDIC imposed a $1.75 million special assessment on the Bank in response to the FDIC-insured financial institutions that failed in March 2023. In the first quarter of 2024, the FDIC updated the special assessment to a total of $2.06 million. The special assessment will be paid over ten quarters beginning in the second quarter of 2024.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize future credits, if any, to offset its FDIC assessment.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, for institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank's capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution's ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval by the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the Texas Department of Banking, and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” Additionally, the maximum payout amount paid by our Company and subsidiary bank is restricted if regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice.

Our bank subsidiary, which was a national banking association until April 22, 2024, and a member of the Federal Reserve System, was required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus, or (3) its regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. As a state-member bank, our bank subsidiary is required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board if the total of all dividends declared by a state-member bank in any calendar year would exceed the sum of the bank's net profits for that year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary bank must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines and comply with the general requirements applicable to a Texas corporation. Generally, a Texas corporation may not pay a dividend to its shareholders if (i) after giving effect to the dividend, the corporation would be insolvent, or (ii) the amount of the dividend would exceed the surplus of the corporation. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the authority may require, after notice and

Table of Contents

hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Texas Department of Banking, and the OCC have each indicated that paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve, the Texas Department of Banking, the OCC and the FDIC expect that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $55.50 million in 2024 and $133.50 million in 2023. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2024, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $428.66 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their non-depository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

•

the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

•

the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

•

the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board, the Texas Department of Banking and, until April 22, 2024, the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel III Rules”).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common

Table of Contents

form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2024, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, were permitted to make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board and OCC for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios are:

•

A minimum CET1 ratio to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" that is composed entirely of CET1 capital (resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%);

•

A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%);

•

A minimum ratio of total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital ) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and

•

A minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the "leverage ratio").

An institution that fails to meet the effective minimum ratios after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, as detailed above, will be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2024, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 20.00%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 18.83%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.83% and a leverage ratio of 12.49%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2024.

Table of Contents

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such requirement, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the FDIA, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million, subject to adjustment for inflation, for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low-and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Outstanding” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by the Fed.

Table of Contents

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

•

to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

•

to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

•

to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

•

to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

•

the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

•

the designation of a compliance officer;

•

an ongoing employee training program; and

•

an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve Board, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires

Table of Contents

implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations. Violations of consumer protection laws and regulations can result in significant potential liability, including actual damages, restitution and injunctive relief from litigation brought by customers, state attorney generals, the Department of Justice and other plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by banking regulators and reputational harm.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Given our subsidiary bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets, it is subject to regulation by the CFPB. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to

Table of Contents

prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of consumer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a consumer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Table of Contents

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

•

creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

•

elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

•

prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

•

requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations had crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim final rule, these banks generally had until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act. The Company has continued to exceed $10 billion in assets and as such, the restrictions became effective July 1, 2022; and

•

restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Several of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is https://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual,

Table of Contents

quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit, compensation, executive and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2023, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, all of which are headquartered in Abilene, Texas, were:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Technology Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2023, we had 79 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, five locations in Bryan/College Station, three locations in Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Franklin, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Lumberton, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park. Additionally, we operate mortgage loan offices in Austin and Addison, as well as Trust offices in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the non-customer facing operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, credit administration, risk management, treasury management, marketing, customer contact center, technology, training and human resources, which improved our efficiency and allows the regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 30.5 million residents as of December 31, 2022, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 16.94% from 2012-2022 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Bridgeport and Wise County 24.0 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 14.5 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 20.8 % Granbury and Hood County 27.3 % Cleburne and Johnson County 27.5 % Stephenville and Erath County 11.4 % Conroe and Montgomery County 40.1 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 38.8 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-bank concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Table of Contents

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $13.11 billion as of December 31, 2023. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for better branch locations so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We continue to evaluate opportunities to acquire high quality banks in the future.

When considering banks for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable and align with our corporate culture. We have traditionally served rural and suburban communities and seek to enter growing communities consistent with our legacy markets. Generally we focus on non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas as well as in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $500 million and $3.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a cultural and financial fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Our bank and subsidiaries have separate boards and the regions of the bank are guided by advisory boards of directors who are selected by the Company's board of directors.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, insurance, finance and accounting, strategic planning, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third-parties, oversight of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and recommend approval to the board for potential locations for new branch offices by the bank. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, N.A., is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management and oversight of its board of directors and officers. Our 12 banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regions regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”), drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, funds transfer, and performing other customary commercial banking services. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through our trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A. Our trust company has nine locations, which are all located in Texas in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, oil and gas management, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of interest rates paid or charged, scope of services offered, prices charged for such services, and personalized customer service delivered at the local level. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations,

Table of Contents

small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, Fintech, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking and related services to consumers, small businesses, corporations, non-profits, governmental entities, and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our lines of business and operational support areas within the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Chairman, CEO and President who has over forty-seven years with the Company. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of our strategy, customer service, and local decision-making, across our twelve regions. On average, our fourteen Regional or Divisional CEOs and Presidents have approximately twenty-seven years of banking experience and twelve years of service with the Company.

On December 31, 2023, the Company employed approximately 1,500 employees. Approximately 1,400 were full-time and 100 were part-time. All employees are located in the State of Texas. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a day-to-day basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21 Non-Negotiables of Customer Service, which were developed by management with the assistance of Horst Schulze, the founder of The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company and an independent consultant to the Company for the last five years. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, most lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). For potential future management we require this group to attend a graduate school of banking, TBA Leadership course and FFIN University, which is our year long internal course which teaches how to manage a high performing bank. The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, six of our current Regional CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion to attract, recruit, retain, develop, and promote employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. By promoting and fostering a workforce that we believe is reflective of our customers and communities, we seek to better understand the financial needs of our prospects and customers and provide them with relevant financial service products.

We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our Regional and Divisional CEO/Presidents, four are women. Additionally, 1,058, or 71%, of our employees are female and 651, or 44%, of our employees are minorities, veterans and/or self-identify as disabled.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including athletic club membership, medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and paid time off (vacation, holidays and sick time). Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as a retention vehicle for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately six years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2023 and 2022, the Company incurred expenses totaling approximately $19.19 million and $22.42 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Table of Contents

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. We strive every day to improve the quality of life in every community that we serve. We support schools, cities, counties and churches with the latest in financial services, as well as our time and money. We provide leadership to our local nonprofits and churches by being on their boards, volunteering to raise money, as well as helping them provide services. In many cases, our employees chair their boards and give of their time freely. In addition to our continuous involvement, we perform an annual Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities in which we live and serve. In 2023, this amounted to approximately 7,400 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company, which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining, and communicating our culture to employees. Currently, our board is comprised of eleven members, including two females one of which is Hispanic, and one of which is an African-American male.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (the "FDIC"). The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, our subsidiary bank must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and provide fair access to financial products and services. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger

Table of Contents

or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

•

FFB Investment Paris Fund, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

•

FFB Portfolio Management, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

•

requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

•

restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

•

restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay deposit insurance assessments (or premiums) to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past. In the fourth quarter of 2023, the FDIC imposed a $1.75 million special assessment on the Bank in response to the FDIC-insured financial institutions that failed in March 2023.

Table of Contents

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize future credits, if any, to offset its FDIC assessment.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, for institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank's capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution's ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval by the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” Additionally, the maximum payout amount paid by our Company and subsidiary bank is restricted if regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus, or (3) its regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $133.50 million in 2023 and $67.50 million in 2022. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2023, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $387.33 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their non-depository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or

Table of Contents

extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

•

the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

•

the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

•

the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel III Rules”).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2023, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, were permitted to make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board and OCC for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios are:

Table of Contents

•

A minimum CET1 ratio to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" that is composed entirely of CET1 capital (resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%);

•

A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%);

•

A minimum ratio of total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital ) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and

•

A minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the "leverage ratio").

An institution that fails to meet the effective minimum ratios after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, as detailed above, will be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2023, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 19.62%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 18.50%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.50% and a leverage ratio of 12.06%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2023.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such requirement, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the FDIA, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year,

Table of Contents

is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low-and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Satisfactory” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by the OCC.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

•

to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

•

to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

Table of Contents

•

to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

•

to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

•

the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

•

the designation of a compliance officer;

•

an ongoing employee training program; and

•

an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve Board, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not

Table of Contents

be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations. Violations of consumer protection laws and regulations can result in significant potential liability, including actual damages, restitution and injunctive relief from litigation brought by customers, state attorney generals, the Department of Justice and other plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by banking regulators and reputational harm.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Given our subsidiary bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets, it is subject to regulation by the CFPB. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of consumer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a consumer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability

Table of Contents

to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or

Table of Contents

regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

•

creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

•

elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

•

prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

•

requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations had crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim final rule, these banks generally had until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act. The Company has continued to exceed $10 billion in assets and as such, the restrictions became effective July 1, 2022; and

•

restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Several of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is https://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit, compensation, executive and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2022, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, all of which are headquartered in Abilene, Texas, were:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Technology Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

FB Investment Paris Fund, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2022, we had 79 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, five locations in Bryan/College Station, three locations in Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Lumberton, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park. Additionally, we operate mortgage loan offices in Austin and Addison, as well as Trust offices in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the non-customer facing operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, credit administration, risk management, treasury management, marketing, customer contact center, technology, training and human resources, which improved our efficiency and allows the regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 30 million residents as of December 31, 2021, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 17.09% from 2011-2021 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Bridgeport and Wise County 19.6 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 15.1 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 20.0 % Granbury and Hood County 24.6 % Cleburne and Johnson County 23.2 % Stephenville and Erath County 11.4 % Conroe and Montgomery County 37.6 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 32.5 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-bank concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $12.97 billion as of

Table of Contents

December 31, 2022. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for better branch locations so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We continue to evaluate opportunities to acquire high quality banks in the future.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable and align with our corporate culture. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas as well as in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $500 million and $3.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a cultural and financial fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Our bank and subsidiaries have separate boards and the regions of the bank are guided by advisory boards of directors who are selected by the Company's board of directors.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, insurance, finance and accounting, strategic planning, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third-parties, oversight of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and recommend approval to the board for potential locations for new branch offices by the bank. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, N.A., is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management and oversight of its board of directors and officers. Our 12 banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regions regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”), drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, funds transfer, and performing other customary commercial banking services. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through our trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A. Our trust company has ten locations, which are all located in Texas in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, oil and gas management, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of interest rates paid or charged; scope of services offered; prices charged for such services; and personalized customer service delivered at the local level. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, Fintech, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Table of Contents

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

During March 2020, the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019, commonly referred to as COVID, was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and a national emergency by the President of the United States. The spread of COVID created a global public health crisis resulting in unprecedented uncertainty, volatility, and disruption in financial markets and in governmental, commercial and consumer activity in the United States and globally, including the markets that we serve across the State of Texas.

In 2022, restrictive measures related to the COVID pandemic continued to ease, both on a national level and more specifically in the Company's markets in Texas. Most businesses have returned to full capacity, which has increased commercial and consumer activity. The overall outlook has improved due to the availability of vaccines, although uncertainty remains as new variants emerge and ongoing vaccine effectiveness is undetermined. The Company continues to monitor the impact of COVID on its customers, the communities it serves and the economy as a whole; however, the extent to which the pandemic will continue to impact operations and financial results into 2023 is undetermined.

In March of 2020, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target rate to a range of between zero to 0.25%, which negatively impacted our net interest income, our primary source of earnings. As the pandemic eased through 2021 and inflation increased, the Federal Reserve aggressively raised the federal funds target rate to 4.25-4.50% by the end of 2022. These actions positively impacted growth in net interest income in 2022 but the higher rates could negatively impact loan customers in a slowing economy.

Our financial position and results of operations are particularly susceptible to the ability of our loan customers to meet loan obligations, the availability of our workforce, the availability of our vendors and the decline in the value of assets held by us. While its effects continue to improve, the COVID pandemic has resulted in temporary disruptions to the labor force due to absences as well as the overall supply chain which may continue to cause our customers (including affected businesses and individuals), vendors and counterparties to be unable to meet obligations to us.

The U.S. government enacted certain fiscal stimulus measures in several phases to counteract the economic disruption caused by COVID. Many of these measures have expired at this point.

During 2020 and 2021, we funded approximately 9,700 Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans totaling $970.87 million. At December 31, 2022, the Company’s PPP loans have an outstanding balance remaining of $169 thousand following repayments and forgiveness by the SBA.

Throughout the COVID pandemic during 2020 and 2021, our Company took significant actions to address the impact of COVID on our employees and customers with the stated goal of protecting all parties during the pandemic. We continue to monitor ongoing issues from COVID and adjust our employee protocols as needed to protect the health of our employees and customers as well as addressing the financial needs of our communities.

Notwithstanding the foregoing actions, the COVID outbreak could still, among other things, greatly affect our routine and essential operations due to staff absenteeism, particularly among key personnel, further limit access to or result in further closures of our branch facilities and other physical offices, exacerbate operational, technical, or security-related risks arising from a remote workforce, and result in adverse government or regulatory agency orders. The business and operations of our third-party service providers, many of whom perform critical services for our business, could also be significantly impacted, which in turn could impact us. As a result, we are currently unable to fully assess or predict the extent of the continuous effects of COVID on our operations as the ultimate impact will depend on factors that are currently unknown and/or beyond our control.

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking and related services to consumers, small businesses, corporations, non-profits, governmental entities, and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our lines of business and operational support areas within the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Chairman, CEO and President who has over forty-six years with the Company. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of

Table of Contents

our strategy, customer service, and local decision-making, across our twelve regions. On average, our fourteen Regional or Divisional CEOs and Presidents have approximately twenty-six years of banking experience and eleven years of service with the Company.

On December 31, 2022, the Company employed 1,501 employees, approximately 1,400 full-time and 100 part-time, all located in the State of Texas. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a day-to-day basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21 Non-Negotiables of Customer Service, which were developed by management with the assistance of Horst Schulze, the founder of The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company and an independent consultant to the Company for the last four years. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, most lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, six of our current Regional CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion to attract, recruit, retain, develop, and promote employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. By promoting and fostering a workforce that we believe is reflective of our customers and communities, we seek to better understand the financial needs of our prospects and customers and provide them with relevant financial service products.

We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our Regional and Divisional CEO/Presidents, four are women (three of whom were promoted to these positions during the last three years). Additionally, 1,082, or approximately 72 percent, of our employees are female and 638, or approximately 43 percent, of our employees are minorities, veterans and/or self-identify as disabled.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and paid time off (vacation, holidays and sick time). Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as a retention vehicle for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately six years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2022 and 2021, the Company incurred expenses totaling approximately $22.42 million and $27.41 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. We strive every day to improve the quality of life in every community that we are in. We support schools, cities, counties and churches with the latest in financial services, as well as our time and money. We provide leadership to our local nonprofits and churches by being on their boards, volunteering to raise money, as well as helping them provide services. In many cases, our employees chair their boards and give of their time freely. In addition to our continuous involvement, we perform an annual Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities in which we live and serve. In 2022, this amounted to approximately 8,200 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company, which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining, and communicating our culture to employees. Currently, our board is comprised of eleven members, including two females with one being Hispanic, and one African-American male.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Table of Contents

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, our subsidiary bank must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and provide fair access to financial products and services. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Table of Contents

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

•

FB Investment Paris Fund, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

•

requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

•

restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

•

restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay deposit insurance assessments (or premiums) to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. In September 2018, the reserve ratio reached 1.36% at which time banks with assets of less than $10 billion were awarded assessment credits for their portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from 1.15% to 1.35%. When the reserve ratio reached 1.40% in June 2019, the FDIC applied these credits to the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019, March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2020 assessment invoices. Our subsidiary bank’s assessment credit totaled $1.85 million of which $522 thousand, $525 thousand, $541 thousand and $264 thousand, respectively, were used to fully offset the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020 assessment invoices while the June 30, 2020 assessment invoice was significantly reduced by the remaining credits. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize future credits, if any, to offset its FDIC assessment.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, for institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank's capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution's ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval by the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” Additionally, the maximum payout amount paid by our Company and subsidiary bank is restricted if regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus, or (3) its regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $67.50 million in 2022 and $96.50 million in 2021. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2022, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $437.16 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their non-depository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

•

the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

Table of Contents

•

the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

•

the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel III Rules”).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2022, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board and OCC for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

•

A minimum CET1 ratio to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" that is composed entirely of CET1 capital (resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%);

•

A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%);

•

A minimum ratio of total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital ) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and

•

A minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tire 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the "leverage ratio").

An institution that fails to meet the effective minimum ratios after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, as detailed above, will be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive offers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2022, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 19.29%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 18.22%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.22% and a leverage ratio of 10.96%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2022.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such requirement, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

Table of Contents

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low-and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Satisfactory” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by the OCC.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

•

to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

•

to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

•

to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

•

to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

•

the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

•

the designation of a compliance officer;

•

an ongoing employee training program; and

•

an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Table of Contents

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations. Violations of consumer protection laws and regulations can result in significant potential liability,

Table of Contents

including actual damages, restitution and injunctive relief from litigation brought by customers, state attorney generals, the Department of Justice and other plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by banking regulators and reputational harm.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Given the Bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets, the Bank is subject to regulation by the CFPB. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of consumer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a consumer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third-parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third-parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third-parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third-party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

Table of Contents

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

•

creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

•

elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

•

prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

•

requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank

Table of Contents

regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations had crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim final rule, these banks generally had until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act. The Company has continued to exceed $10 billion in assets and as such, the restrictions became effective July 1, 2022; and

•

restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Several of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is https://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit, compensation, executive and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2021, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, all of which are headquartered in Abilene, Texas, were:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Technology Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

FB Investment Paris Fund, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2021, we had 78 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in Bryan and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, College Station, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park. Additionally, we operate mortgage loan offices in Austin and Dallas, as well as Trust offices in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, credit administration, risk management, treasury management, marketing, call center, technology, training and human resources, which improved our efficiency and freed management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 29.5 million residents as of December 31, 2020, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 17.43% from 2010-2020 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Bridgeport and Wise County 16.1 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 16.7 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 20.0 % Granbury and Hood County 20.4 % Cleburne and Johnson County 19.2 % Stephenville and Erath County 12.3 % Conroe and Montgomery County 36.1 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 26.8 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Table of Contents

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $13.10 billion as of December 31, 2021. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for better branch locations so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable and aligns with our corporate culture. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas as well as in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $500 million and $3.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a cultural and financial fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Our bank and subsidiaries have separate boards and regions of the bank are guided by advisory boards of directors who are selected by the Company's board of directors.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, insurance, finance and accounting, planning, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, oversight of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and recommend approval to the board for potential locations for new branch offices by the bank. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, N.A. is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management and oversight of its board of directors and officers. Our 12 banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regions regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”), drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through our trust company, First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A. Our trust company has ten locations, which are all located in Texas in Abilene, Beaumont, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of interest rates paid or charged; scope of services offered; prices charged for such services; and personalized

Table of Contents

customer service delivered at the local level. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, Fintech, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

During March 2020, the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019, commonly referred to as COVID, was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and a national emergency by the President of the United States. The spread of COVID created a global public health crisis resulting in unprecedented uncertainty, volatility, and disruption in financial markets and in governmental, commercial and consumer activity in the United States and globally, including the markets that we serve across the State of Texas.

National, state, and local governmental responses to the pandemic have included orders to close or limit businesses activity not deemed essential and directing individuals to limit their movements and travel, observe social distancing, and shelter in place. These actions, together with responses to the pandemic by businesses and individuals, resulted in overall temporary decreases in commercial and consumer activity. These responses and restrictions led to a loss of revenues for certain industries and a sudden increase in unemployment, volatility in oil and gas prices and in business valuations, market downturns and volatility, changes in consumer behaviors, related emergency response legislation and an expectation that Federal Reserve policy will maintain a low interest rate environment for the foreseeable future.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target rate to a range of between zero to 0.25%, which has negatively impacted our net interest income, our primary source of earnings. Recently, the Federal Reserve has indicated their intent to increase the federal funds target rate during 2022.

Our financial position and results of operations are particularly susceptible to the ability of our loan customers to meet loan obligations, the availability of our workforce, the availability of our vendors and the decline in the value of assets held by us. While its effects continue to improve, the COVID pandemic has resulted in temporary disruptions to the labor force due to absences as well as the overall supply chain which may continue to cause our customers (including affected businesses and individuals), vendors and counterparties to be unable to meet existing payment or other obligations to us. See further information related to the risk exposure of our loan portfolio, including industries impacted by COVID and existence of loan deferral programs to assist our borrowers under the sections captioned “Loans” and “Allowance for Credit Losses” included in Note 3 and on pages 43-44.

The U.S. government enacted certain fiscal stimulus measures in several phases to counteract the economic disruption caused by COVID. Many of these measures have expired at this point, although Congress continues to discuss the situation and additional approaches to address the impact of COVID on the overall economy and impact on overall healthcare. We are continuing to monitor the potential development of additional legislation and further actions taken by the U.S. government.

During 2020 and 2021, we funded approximately 9,700 Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans totaling $970.87 million. At December 31, 2021, the Company’s PPP loans have an outstanding balance remaining of $52.79 million following repayments and forgiveness by the SBA.

Throughout the COVID pandemic during 2020 and 2021, our Company took significant actions to address the impact of COVID on our employees and customers with the stated goal of protecting all parties during the pandemic. We continue to monitor ongoing issues from COVID and adjust our employee protocols as needed to protect the health of our employees and customers as well as addressing the financial needs of our communities.

Notwithstanding the foregoing actions, the COVID outbreak could still, among other things, greatly affect our routine and essential operations due to staff absenteeism, particularly among key personnel, further limit access to or result in further closures of our branch facilities and other physical offices, exacerbate operational, technical, or security-related risks arising from a remote workforce, and result in adverse government or regulatory agency orders. The business and operations of our third-party service providers, many of whom perform critical services for our business, could also be significantly impacted, which in turn could impact us. As a result, we are

Table of Contents

currently unable to fully assess or predict the extent of the continuous effects of COVID on our operations as the ultimate impact will depend on factors that are currently unknown and/or beyond our control.

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking and related services to consumers, small businesses, corporations, non-profits, governmental entities, and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our line of business and operational areas of the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Chairman, CEO and President who has over forty-five years with the Company. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of our strategy, customer service, and local decision-making, across our twelve regions. On average, our fifteen Regional or Divisional CEOs and Presidents have approximately twenty-eight years of banking experience and thirteen years of service with the Company.

On December 31, 2021, the Company employed 1,484 employees, approximately 1,400 full-time and 100 part-time, all located in the State of Texas. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a day-to-day basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21 Non-Negotiables of Customer Service, which were developed by management with the assistance of Horst Schulze, the founder of The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company and an independent consultant to the Company for the last three years. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, most lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, seven of our current Regional CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion to attract, recruit, retain, develop, and promote employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our Regional and Divisional CEO/Presidents, four are women (three of whom were promoted to these positions during the last two years), and one is Hispanic. Additionally, 1,065, or approximately 72 percent, of our employees are female and 553, or approximately 37 percent, of our employees are minorities, veterans and/or self-identify as disabled.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and paid time off (vacation, holidays and sick time). Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as retention vehicles for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately six years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2021 and 2020, the Company incurred expenses totaling approximately $27.41 million and $27.20 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. Annually, we perform a Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities in which we live and serve. In 2021, this amounted to over approximately 8,200 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company, which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining, and communicating our culture to employees. Currently, our board is comprised of twelve members, including two female with one being Hispanic, and one African-American male.

Table of Contents

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, our subsidiary bank must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and provide fair access to financial products and services. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

Table of Contents

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

•

First Financial Bank, N.A.;

•

First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

•

First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

•

FB Investment Paris Fund, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

•

requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

•

restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

•

restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay deposit insurance assessments (or premiums) to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. In September 2018, the reserve ratio reached 1.36% at which time banks with assets of less than $10 billion were awarded assessment credits for their portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from 1.15% to 1.35%. When the reserve ratio reached 1.40% in June 2019, the FDIC applied these credits to the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019, March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2020 assessment invoices. Our subsidiary bank’s assessment credit totaled $1.85 million of which $522 thousand, $525 thousand, $541 thousand and $264 thousand, respectively, were used to fully offset the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020 assessment invoices while the June 30, 2020 assessment invoice was significantly reduced by the remaining credits. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize future credits, if any, to offset its FDIC assessment.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured

Table of Contents

subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” Additionally, the maximum payout amount paid by our Company and subsidiary bank is restricted if regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus, or (3) its regulatory capital ratios fall below capital conservation buffers. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $96.50 million in 2021 and $87.50 million in 2020. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2021, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $348.57 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their non-depository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited

Table of Contents

from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

•

the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

•

the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

•

the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel III Rules”).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2021, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board and OCC for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

•

A minimum CET1 ratio to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" that is composed entirely of CET1 capital (resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%);

•

A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%);

Table of Contents

•

A minimum ratio of total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital ) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and

•

A minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tire 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the "leverage ratio").

An institution that fails to meet the effective minimum ratios after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, as detailed above, will be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive offers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2021, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 20.34%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 19.35%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 19.35% and a leverage ratio of 11.13%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2021.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any

Table of Contents

law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low-and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Satisfactory” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by the OCC.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

•

to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

•

to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

Table of Contents

•

to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

•

to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

•

the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

•

the designation of a compliance officer;

•

an ongoing employee training program; and

•

an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive

Table of Contents

arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Given the Bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets, the Bank is subject to regulation by the CFPB. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of consumer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a consumer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and

Table of Contents

restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

•

creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

•

elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

•

prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

•

requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations that have crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim final rule, these banks will generally have until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act. However, the Company has continued to exceed $10 billion in assets and as such, the restrictions will apply effective July 1, 2022; and

•

restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Several of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

General

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. As of December 31, 2020, our wholly-owned subsidiaries were:

• First Financial Bank, N.A., Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

On January 1, 2020, we acquired TB&T Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, The Bank & Trust of Bryan/College Station, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2020, we had 78 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in Bryan and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, College Station, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local regional presidents and local decision-making processes. We have consolidated substantially all of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, credit administration, risk management, marketing, call center, technology and human resources, which improved our efficiency and freed management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

We have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 29.0 million residents as of December 31, 2019, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 17.1% from 2009-2019 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2009-2019 by City and County*

Bridgeport and Wise County 16.8 % Bryan/College Station and Brazos County 26.7 % Cleburne and Johnson County 11.9 % Conroe and Montgomery County 36.1 % *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

Fort Worth and Tarrant County 16.8 % Granbury and Hood County 19.1 % Stephenville and Erath County 17.7 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 23.8 %

Table of Contents

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, technology, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and

mid-size

markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed fourteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $10.90 billion as of December 31, 2020. We also have a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, such as our latest branch opened in Spring, Texas which opened in January 2019, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer

non-metropolitan

markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $500 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our financial condition and operating results appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the

day-to-day

management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting and forecasting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• capital expenditures;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

Table of Contents

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal and external audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit, issuance of common stock to the acquired company’s shareholders and future debt or equity offerings.

Services Offered by Our Subsidiaries

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, N.A. is a separate legal entity that operates under the

day-to-day

management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate regional advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, offering automated teller machines (“ATMs”),

drive-in

and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services.

We also provide full-service trust and wealth management activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A., our trust company. Our trust company has ten locations which are located in Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. The Company has been providing trust services since 1927. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through an arrangement with an unrelated third-party in our Abilene and San Angelo regions.

Competition

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent a smaller segment of the market share in Texas. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services; as well as personalized customer service. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we

Table of Contents

are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Overview of the Impact from the COVID Pandemic

During March 2020, the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and a national emergency by the President of the United States. The spread of COVID has created a global public health crisis that has resulted in unprecedented uncertainty, volatility and disruption in financial markets and in governmental, commercial and consumer activity in the United States and globally, including the markets that we serve across the State of Texas. National, state and local governmental responses to the pandemic have included orders to close or limit businesses activity not deemed essential and directing individuals to limit their movements and travel, observe social distancing, and shelter in place. These actions, together with responses to the pandemic by businesses and individuals, have resulted in overall temporary decreases in commercial and consumer activity. These responses and restrictions have led to a loss of revenues for certain industries and a sudden increase in unemployment, volatility in oil and gas prices and in business valuations, market downturns and volatility, changes in consumer behaviors, related emergency response legislation and an expectation that Federal Reserve policy will maintain a low interest rate environment for the foreseeable future.

Effective March 16, 2020, in an emergency response to stem the economic impact of COVID, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target rate to a range of between zero to 0.25%. This action followed a prior reduction of the federal funds target rate to a range of 1.0% to 1.25% effective on March 4, 2020. Our earnings and related cash flows are largely dependent upon our net interest income representing the difference between interest income received on interest-earning assets, primarily loans and investment securities, and the interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities, primarily customer deposits and borrowed funds. As our balance sheet is more asset sensitive, our earnings are more adversely affected by decreases in market interest rates as the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly and to a larger degree than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings. The decline in interest rates has already led to low yields across all maturity periods. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it expects to maintain the targeted federal funds rate at current levels until such time that labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Federal Open Market Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2% and is on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time. However, should the Federal Reserve decrease the targeted federal funds rates even further in response to the economic effects of COVID, overall interest rates will decline further, which will likely negatively impact our net interest income and further compress our net interest margin.

Other actions taken by the Federal Reserve to provide monetary stimulus to counteract the economic disruption caused by COVID include:

• Expanded reverse repo operations, adding liquidity to the banking system.

• Restarted quantitative easing.

• Lowered the interest rate on the discount window by 150 basis points to 25 basis points.

• Reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent.

• Encouraged banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers to lend.

• Participated in the Main Street Loan Program.

• Introduced and expanded several new programs that will operate on a temporary basis to help preserve market liquidity.

Table of Contents

Our financial position and results of operations are particularly susceptible to the ability of our loan customers to meet loan obligations, the availability of our workforce, the availability of our vendors and the decline in the value of assets held by us. While its effects continue to materialize, the COVID pandemic has resulted in a decrease in commercial activity throughout the State of Texas as well as nationally. This decrease in commercial activity has caused and may continue to cause our customers (including affected businesses and individuals), vendors and counterparties to be unable to meet existing payment or other obligations to us. The resulting economic pressure on consumers and uncertainty regarding the sustainability of any economic improvements has impacted the creditworthiness of potential and current borrowers. Borrower loan defaults that adversely affect our earnings correlate with deteriorating economic conditions (such as the unemployment rate), which, in turn, are likely to impact our borrowers’ creditworthiness. See further information related to the risk exposure of our loan portfolio, including industries impacted by COVID and existence of loan deferral programs to assist our borrowers under the sections captioned “Loans” and “Allowance for Credit Losses” included in Note 3.

Although financial markets have rebounded from significant declines, many of the effects which emerged after the onset of the COVID pandemic have persisted through the end of the year. These changes have had and are likely to continue to impact our markets and the resulting demand for our products and services. See “Risk Factors-Other Risks” beginning on page 22.

The U.S. government has also enacted certain fiscal stimulus measures in several phases to counteract the economic disruption caused by COVID. The initial legislation, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, was enacted on March 6, 2020 and, among other things, authorized funding for research and development of vaccines and allocated money to state and local governments to aid containment and response measures. The next phase of legislation, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, was enacted on March 18, 2020 and provides for paid sick/medical leave, establishes

no-cost

coverage for coronavirus testing, expands unemployment benefits, expands food assistance, and provides additional funding to states for the ongoing economic consequences of the pandemic, among other provisions. The following phase of legislation, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), was enacted on March 27, 2020. Among other provisions, the CARES Act (i) authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to make loans, loan guarantees and other investments, up to $500 billion, for assistance to eligible businesses, states and municipalities with limited, targeted relief for passenger air carriers, cargo air carriers, and businesses critical to maintaining national security, (ii) created a $349 billion loan program called the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) for loans to small businesses guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) for, among other things, payroll, group health care benefit costs and qualifying mortgage, rent and utility payments, (iii) provided certain credits against the 2020 personal income tax for eligible individuals and their dependents, (iv) expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance and provided eligible recipients with an additional $600 per week on top of the unemployment amount determined by each State and (v) expanded tele-health services in Medicare. This legislation was amended by the Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act of 2020 (the “PPPHE Act”), which was enacted on April 24, 2020. Among other things, the PPPHE Act provided an additional $310 billion of funding for the PPP of which, $30 billion is specifically allocated for use by banks and other insured depository institutions that have assets between $10 billion and $50 billion. On July 4, 2020, Congress enacted a new law that extended the deadline for applying for a PPP loan to August 8, 2020.

In December 2020, the Bipartisan-Bicameral Omnibus COVID Relief Deal, included as a component of appropriations legislation, was enacted to provide economic stimulus to individuals and businesses in further response to the economic distress caused by the COVID pandemic. Among other things, the legislation includes (i) payments of $600 for individuals making up to $75,000 per year, (ii) extension of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program to include a $300 weekly enhancement in unemployment benefits beginning after December 26, 2020 up to March 14, 2021, (iii) a temporary and targeted rental assistance program, and extends the eviction moratorium through January 31, 2021, (iv) targeted funding related to transportation, education, agriculture, nutrition and other public health measures and (v) approximately $325 billion for small business relief, including approximately $284 billion for a second round of PPP loans and a new simplified forgiveness procedure for PPP loans of $150,000 or less.

We are continuing to monitor the potential development of additional legislation and further actions taken by the U.S. government. The Federal Reserve created various additional lending facilities and expanded existing facilities to help provide financing in response to the financial disruptions caused by COVID. The programs include,

Table of Contents

among others, the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (the “PPP Facility”), which is intended to extend loans to banks making PPP loans. The Federal Reserve announced extensions through March 31, 2021 for several of its lending facilities, including the PPP Facility, that were generally scheduled to expire on or around December 31, 2020.

Through December 31, 2020, we had funded approximately 6,500 PPP loans totaling $703.73 million. At December 31, 2020, the Company’s PPP loans have an outstanding balance of $483.66 million following repayments and forgiveness by the SBA. We did not participate in the PPP Facility program during 2020. Currently, the Company is assisting borrowers in the round 2 of the PPP under the December 2020 Relief Deal.

Among other things, our Company has taken significant actions to address the impact of COVID on our employees and customers with the stated goal of protecting all parties during the pandemic:

• Established daily, at first, then weekly meetings of our management team to monitor and address COVID developments on our business and the impact to our customers and associates.

• Implemented an internal communications plan to ensure our employees, customers and critical vendors are kept abreast of developments affecting our operations.

• Restricted all non-essential travel and large external gatherings and instituted mandatory quarantine period for anyone that has known exposure to COVID.

• We kept our branch locations open following the onset of COVID, except where the employees of the branch had direct COVID exposure. Each branch was deep cleaned daily and following potential exposure at a branch, the facility was sprayed to disinfect for the virus.

• Expanded remote-access availability so that nearly all our workforce has the capability to work from home or other remote locations, if needed. All remotes access was provided in accordance with our compliance and information security policies designed to ensure customer data and other information is properly safeguarded. Much of our remote workforce has returned to the office.

• Instituted mandatory social distancing policies for those employees not working remotely. Members of certain operations teams were split into separate buildings or locations to create redundancy for key functions across the organization.

• The Company provided testing, free of charge, to all employees and we required testing of any employees with direct COVID exposure. Employees exposed were placed on quarantine based on the applicable CDC Guidelines.

• We required employees and customers to wear masks, prior to the state mandates and publicly assisted in communicating that message to the public to increase awareness of the benefits of wearing masks.

• We provided a vitamin and supplement package for employees to help build their immune systems as well as recover from the virus.

• We are encouraging our employees to take the COVID vaccinations when available.

We also implemented a short-term loan modification process in late March 2020 to provide temporary payment relief to borrowers who meet certain qualifications. This program allows for a deferral of payments for 90 days, which we may extend for an additional 90 days, for a maximum of 180 days on a cumulative basis. The deferred payments along with interest accrued during the deferral period are due and payable on the maturity date of the existing loan. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information on the impact of the COVID pandemic to our financial statements and results of operations, as well as our business operations.

Table of Contents

Notwithstanding the foregoing actions, the COVID outbreak could still, among other things, greatly affect our routine and essential operations due to staff absenteeism, particularly among key personnel, further limit access to or result in further closures of our branch facilities and other physical offices, exacerbate operational, technical or security-related risks arising from a remote workforce, and result in adverse government or regulatory agency orders. The business and operations of our third-party service providers, many of whom perform critical services for our business, could also be significantly impacted, which in turn could impact us. As a result, we are currently unable to fully assess or predict the extent of the effects of COVID on our operations as the ultimate impact will depend on factors that are currently unknown and/or beyond our control.

Human Capital

We operate as a community bank offering a wide range of commercial banking services to consumers, small businesses, corporations,

non-profits,

governmental entities and others. A cornerstone of our operating model is based on personal relationships with our customers. Therefore, our model is heavily dependent on our personnel to execute our strategy within each region supported by our line of business and operational areas of the Company. Our executive leadership is critical to the success of our Company as each executive participates in developing our corporate strategy, policy setting, and oversight of each of their respective operating areas. The executive officers have significant banking experience and/or tenure with the Company, including our Chairman, CEO and President who will have forty-five years with the Company later this year. Our regional operating philosophy is heavily dependent on our Regional CEOs/Presidents who drive the daily execution of our strategy, customer service, and local decision-making, across our twelve regions. On average, our seventeen Regional CEOs/Presidents have approximately twenty-five years of banking experience and twelve years of service with the Company.

At December 31, 2020, the Company employed approximately 1,400 full-time and 100 part-time employees all located in the state of Texas. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements.

We seek to attract the best bankers in the markets we serve as well as key managers and associates to serve and build relationships with our customers. On a

day-to-day

basis, these associates execute on our “Excellence in Customer Service” culture, including our 21

Non-Negotiables

of Customer Service. Initially, each new associate attends New Employee Orientation to gain an understanding of our culture, including our customer service approach, our organization, and our operating and other policies. From there, associates also receive specific training for their applicable area of service.

We then provide a number of internally developed training programs and encourage associates to attend selected external programs. We require certain areas (lending, trust, risk, operations) to obtain certifications for their current and future roles in the organization (for example, lenders are required to obtain the Credit Risk Certification from the Risk Management Association). The Company also provides educational assistance for employees to further their professional development. In fact, seven of our Regional CEO/Presidents started their careers with the Company and progressed to their current levels over time.

We embrace and promote a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion to attract, recruit, retain, develop, and promote employees who represent the diverse communities we serve. Our employees bring their own unique backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and experiences to our organization. We celebrate our diverse and inclusive workplace as it brings new ideas, perspectives, and ways to enhance our overall customer and employee experience. Of our seventeen Regional CEO/Presidents, four are women (three of whom were promoted to these positions during their last eighteen months) and one is Hispanic.

The Company provides, in addition to competitive salaries, either at the Company’s expense or through employee deductions, benefits to its associates to help protect their health and well-being, including medical, dental, vision, employee assistance, short and long-term disability, life insurance, and vacation. Additionally, through our 401(k) retirement benefits, and profit-sharing contributions (which also contains an employee stock ownership plan or ESOP feature), the Company facilitates its associate’s future financial well-being. These benefits when combined with incentive compensation programs, both cash and equity based, serve as rewards for performance but also as retention vehicles for our employee base. The Company has strong relationships with its employee base leading to an average tenure of approximately six years with the Company (including its predecessor banks). During 2020 and 2019, the Company incurred expenses totaling approximately $27.20 million and $22.38 million, respectively, for these benefits.

Table of Contents

Understanding and supporting our communities has been a critical part of our Company’s success. Annually, we perform a Company-wide day of service to help improve the communities we live in and serve. In 2020, this amounted to over approximately 5,000 hours of community service across our footprint.

Overall, the attraction, development and retention of our executives, regional presidents and associates are integral to the performance of our Company which ultimately drives value to our shareholders in the form of dividends and price appreciation of our common stock. Accordingly, our Board of Directors participates in the oversight of our employment practices and policies, through the Compensation Committee. Our board sets the overall “tone at the top” and holds executive management accountable for embodying, maintaining and communicating our culture to employees.

Supervision and Regulation

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many

Depression-era

restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Table of Contents

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class, (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, N.A.;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, N.A.; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, N.A.)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Table of Contents

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reached 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. On April 26, 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule amending pricing for deposit insurance for institutions with less than $10 billion in assets effective the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reached 1.15%. The fund reserve ratio reached 1.15% effective as of June 30, 2016. As a result, our subsidiary bank’s assessment rate was decreased to the rate stated above effective July 1, 2016. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. In September 2018, the reserve ratio reached 1.36% at which time banks with assets of less than $10 billion were awarded assessment credits for their portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from 1.15% to 1.35%. When the reserve ratio reached 1.40% in June 2019, the FDIC applied these credits to the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019, March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2020 assessment invoices. Our subsidiary bank’s assessment credit totaled $1.85 million of which $522 thousand, $525 thousand, $541 thousand and $264 thousand, respectively, were used to fully offset the September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020 assessment invoices while the June 30, 2020 assessment invoice was significantly reduced by the remaining credits. As a result of our subsidiary bank exceeding $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiary bank is no longer eligible to utilize credits to offset its FDIC assessment.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period, as opposed to solely considering deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $87.50 million in 2020 and $84.50 million in 2019. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2020, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of $289.68 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Federal Income Tax

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law with sweeping modifications to the Internal Revenue Code. The primary change for the Company was to lower the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. The Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities were

re-measured

based on the income tax rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, which is generally 21%. The provisional amount recorded related to the

re-measurement

of the Company’s deferred tax liability balance was $7.65 million, a reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017. The Company subsequently updated its estimate of the impact to our deferred tax balances based on the proposed regulations issued to date and recorded an additional reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2018 of $664 thousand. No additional adjustment amounts were recorded for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their

non-depository

affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as an investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a

non-depository

affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their

non-depository

affiliates are limited to the following

Table of Contents

amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain

tie-in

arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be

pre-approved

by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary, parts of which are currently in the process of being

phased-in,

are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules (the “Basel III Rules”) implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries. The Basel III Rules became effective for us and our subsidiary bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a

phase-in

period for certain provisions).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) total capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital elements. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is

non-cumulative

perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for credit losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2020, we do not have any

non-cumulative

perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage capital ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Table of Contents

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however,

“non-advanced

approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a

one-time

permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its

one-time,

permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board and OCC for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

• 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;

• 6.0% tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets;

• 8.0% total capital to risk-weighted assets; and

• 4.0% tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets (known as the “leverage ratio”).

The Basel III Rules established a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, resulted in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increased by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. At December 31, 2020, the required capital conservation buffer was 2.5%. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2020, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 22.03%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 20.79%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 20.79% and a leverage ratio of 11.86%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2020.

Table of Contents

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from

out-of-state

banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Table of Contents

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including

low-

and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial

Non-Compliance.”

Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank meets the credit needs of the communities in which it operates. Our subsidiary bank received a “Satisfactory” rating in its most recent assessment of its performance under the CRA by federal regulators.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Table of Contents

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, Securities and Exchanges Commission (“SEC”) and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a

non-binding

vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on

so-called

“golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Table of Contents

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. Given the Bank has exceeded $10 billion in assets for each of the last three quarterly periods and expects to exceed $10 billion for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, the Bank will be subject to regulation by the CFPB going forward. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and

opt-out

requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are

Table of Contents

authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an

opt-out

notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and

non-farm

residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue

cease-and-desist

orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Table of Contents

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The restrictions on interchange fees apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10 billion or more; however, on November 20, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced an interim final rule that provides temporary relief for certain community banking organizations that have crossed the threshold as of December 31, 2020 if they had less than $10 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019. Under the interim final rule, these banks will generally have until 2022 to either reduce their size to below $10 billion in assets, or to prepare for the regulatory and reporting standards under the Dodd Frank Act; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company initially had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions. In 2018, banks smaller than $10 billion in assets were provided with an exception to the Volcker Rule. However, the Company is now subject to the Volcker Rule now that it has exceeded $10 billion in assets.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at

www.sec.gov

. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is

http://www.ffin.com

. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at

www.ffin.com

. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form

10-K

or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

General

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. On January 1, 2020, we acquired TB&T Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, The Bank & Trust of Bryan/College Station, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, our subsidiaries were:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Table of Contents

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of January 1, 2020, we had 78 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in Bryan and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, College Station, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2012, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-makers. We have consolidated substantially all of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improved our efficiency and freed management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 29.0 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 20.7% from 2008-2018 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2008-2018*

Bridgeport and Wise County 21.4 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 18.2 % Cleburne and Johnson County 15.2 % Granbury and Hood County 16.8 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 34.1 %

Stephenville and Erath County 15.6 % Conroe and Montgomery County 43.3 % Bryan/College Station 27.4 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and

mid-size

markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed thirteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $8.26 billion as of December 31, 2019. We also have a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust and Asset Management Company, National Association operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, such as our newest branch in Spring, Texas which opened in January 2019, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer

non-metropolitan

markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $300 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Table of Contents

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the

day-to-day

management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Services Offered by Our Subsidiaries

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas is a separate legal entity that operates under the

day-to-day

management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of

Table of Contents

our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines,

drive-in

and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full-service trust and wealth management activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Our trust company has nine locations which are located in Abilene, Fort Worth, Houston, Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo, San Antonio, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs.

The Company has been providing trust services since 1927.

In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, San Angelo and Weatherford banking regions.

Competition

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Employees

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed 1,345 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2019. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled

Table of Contents

many

Depression-era

restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Table of Contents

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250 thousand per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. Through December 31, 2019, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 3.00% of the assessment base per annum. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. On April 26, 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule amending pricing for deposit insurance for institutions with less than $10 billion in assets effective the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reached 1.15%. The fund reserve ratio reached 1.15% effective as of June 30, 2016. As a result, our subsidiary bank’s assessment rate was decreased to the rate stated above effective July 1, 2016. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the our subsidiary bank. In September 2018, the reserve ratio reached 1.36% at which time banks with assets of less than $10 billion were awarded assessment credits for their portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from 1.15% to 1.35%. When the reserve ratio reached 1.40% in June 2019, the FDIC applied these credits to the September 30, 2019 assessment invoice and then again to the December 31, 2019 assessment invoice. Our subsidiary’s bank’s assessment credit totaled $1.84 million of which $522 thousand and $525 thousand, respectively, were used to zero out the September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019 assessment invoices. As of December 31, 2019, $791 thousand remains in available credits, which our subsidiary bank expects to be applied to the March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2020 assessment invoices.

Table of Contents

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period, as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $84.50 million in 2019 and $74.10 million in 2018. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2019, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $261.42 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Table of Contents

Federal Income Tax

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law with sweeping modifications to the Internal Revenue Code. The primary change for the Company was to lower the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. The Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities were

re-measured

based on the income tax rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, which is generally 21%. The provisional amount recorded related to the

re-measurement

of the Company’s deferred tax balance was $7.65 million, a reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017. At December 31, 2018, final regulations for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were still pending; however, the Company updated its estimate of the impact to our deferred tax balances based on the proposed regulations issued to date and recorded an additional reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2018 of $664 thousand. No additional adjustment amounts were recorded for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the Company does not anticipate significant revision will be necessary.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their

non-depository

affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a

non-depository

affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their

non-depository

affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain

tie-in

arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Table of Contents

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be

pre-approved

by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary, parts of which are currently in the process of being

phased-in,

are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules (the “Basel III Rules”) implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries. The Basel III Rules became effective for us and our subsidiary bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a

phase-in

period for certain provisions).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is

non-cumulative

perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan and lease losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2019, we do not have any

non-cumulative

perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however,

“non-advanced

approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a

one-time

permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its

one-time,

permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

• 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;

• 6.0% tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets;

• 8.0% total capital to risk-weighted assets; and

• 4.0% tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the “leverage ratio”).

The Basel III Rules established a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, resulted in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increased by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. At December 31, 2019, the required capital conservation buffer was 2.5%. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

Table of Contents

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2019, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 21.13%, a tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 20.06%, a CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 20.06% and a leverage ratio of 12.60%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III Rules.

In November 2019, the federal banking regulators published final rules implementing a simplified measure of capital adequacy for certain banking organizations that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Under the final rules, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and meet other qualifying criteria, including a leverage ratio of greater than 9%,

off-balance-sheet

exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets and trading assets plus trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets, are deemed “qualifying community banking organizations” and are eligible to opt into the “community bank leverage ratio framework.” A qualifying community banking organization that elects to use the community bank leverage ratio framework and that maintains a leverage ratio of greater than 9% is considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements under the Basel III Rules and, if applicable, is considered to have met the “well capitalized” ratio requirements for purposes of its primary federal regulator’s prompt corrective action rules, discussed below. The final rules include a

two-quarter

grace period during which a qualifying community banking organization that temporarily fails to meet any of the qualifying criteria, including the greater-

than-9%

leverage capital ratio requirement, is generally still deemed “well capitalized” so long as the banking organization maintains a leverage capital ratio greater than 8%. A banking organization that fails to maintain a leverage capital ratio greater than 8% is not permitted to use the grace period and must comply with the generally applicable requirements under the Basel III Rules and file the appropriate regulatory reports. The Company and our subsidiary bank do not have any immediate plans to elect to use the community bank leverage ratio framework but may make such an election in the future.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2019.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits

Table of Contents

and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from

out-of-state

banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including

low-

and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire

Table of Contents

community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial

Non-Compliance.”

Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and our subsidiary bank received a “Satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance,

Table of Contents

which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1.0 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a

non-binding

vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on

so-called

“golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Table of Contents

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the

asset-size

exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final

“Ability-to-Repay/Qualified

Mortgage” rules, which amended the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final amended rule implemented sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an

open-end

credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implemented section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and

Table of Contents

confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and

opt-out

requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an

opt-out

notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and

non-farm

residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Table of Contents

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue

cease-and-desist

orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at

www.sec.gov

. You may obtain copies of our filings on the SEC website. Our website is

http://www.ffin.com

. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our website. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at

www.ffin.com

. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form

10-K

or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. On January 1, 2018, we acquired Commercial Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Commercial State Bank, Kingwood, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Table of Contents

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2018, we had 73 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, San Angelo, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, El Campo, Fort Worth, Fulshear, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Kingwood, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Palacios, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Spring, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park, all in Texas. On January 1, 2018, we completed our acquisition of Commercial Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned bank subsidiary, Commercial State Bank and, as a result, added branch locations in Kingwood, Fulshear, El Campo and Palacios.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter in 2013, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-makers. We have consolidated substantially all of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improved our efficiency and freed management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. On January 1, 2016, we combined our Huntsville and Conroe Regions and our Abilene, Sweetwater and Eastland Regions and established a Fort Worth Region that previously was a branch of our Weatherford Region. On January 1, 2018, we combined our Mineral Wells and Stephenville Regions.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 28.8 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 20.5% from 2007-2017 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2007-2017*

Bridgeport and Wise County 20.4% Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 33.1% Fort Worth and Tarrant County 19.1% Stephenville and Erath County 14.8% Cleburne and Johnson County 13.4% Conroe and Montgomery County 41.7% Granbury and Hood County 15.9% *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed thirteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $7.73 billion as of December 31, 2018. We also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust and Asset Management Company, National Association operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, such as our newest branch in Spring, Texas which opened in January 2019, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers. We are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

Table of Contents

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $300 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Table of Contents

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, National Association, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust and wealth management activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Our trust company has eight locations which are located in Abilene, Fort Worth, Kingwood, Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, San Angelo and Weatherford banking regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,350 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2018. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Table of Contents

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

Table of Contents

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. Through December 31, 2018, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 3.00% of the assessment base per annum. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. On April 26, 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule amending pricing for deposit insurance for institutions with less than $10 billion in assets effective the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reached 1.15%. As of June 30, 2016, the FDIC announced that the fund reserve ratio had reached 1.15%. As a result, the Company’s assessment rate was decreased to the rate stated above. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

Table of Contents

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $74.10 million in 2018 and $30.08 million in 2017. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2018, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $233.96 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Table of Contents

Federal Income Tax

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law with sweeping modifications to the Internal Revenue Code. The primary change for the Company was to lower the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. The Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities were re-measured based on the income tax rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, which is generally 21%. The provisional amount recorded related to the re-measurement of the Company’s deferred tax balance was $7.65 million, a reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017. In 2018, the Company continued to analyze certain aspects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act resulting in refinement of the calculation and recorded an additional reduction in its deferred tax balance of $664 thousand, a reduction of income tax expense for year ended December 31, 2018.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Table of Contents

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary, parts of which are currently in the process of being phased-in, are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules (the “Basel III Rules”) implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries. The Basel III Rules became effective for us and our subsidiary bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan and lease losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2018, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Capital Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our Tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

• 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;

• 6.0% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets;

• 8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets; and

• 4.0% Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the “leverage ratio”).

The Basel III Rules established a fully-phased “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, resulted in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increased by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. At December 31, 2018, the required capital conservation buffer was 1.875%. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribed a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

Table of Contents

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2018, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 20.61%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 19.47%, a common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 19.47% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 11.85%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under the Basel III rules.

In November 2018, the banking regulators issued a proposal for a depository institution with assets less than $10 billion. The proposal would establish a Community Bank Leverage Ratio (CBLR) defined as total bank equity capital, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income, deferred tax assets and other intangible assets, divided by the average total consolidated assets. If the CBLR ratio is maintained at greater than nine percent, the depository organization will be considered to be in compliance with the Basel III capital requirements and exempt from calculating existing risk-based capital ratio requirements.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2018.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

Table of Contents

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Table of Contents

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In April and May 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Table of Contents

The CFPB has finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amended the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final amended rule implemented sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implemented section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Table of Contents

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

Table of Contents

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. On January 1, 2018, we acquired Commercial Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Commercial State Bank, Kingwood, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. On July 31, 2015, we acquired FBC Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, First Bank, N.A., Conroe, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. We also completed an asset purchase of 4Trust Mortgage, Inc. on June 1, 2015 that significantly increased our residential mortgages/loan originations that are sold in the secondary market. On January 1, 2015, our technology subsidiary, First Technology Services, Inc., was contributed to our bank subsidiary, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas, and therefore became an indirect subsidiary of the Company. As of December 31, 2017, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

Table of Contents

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2017, we had 69 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in San Angelo and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park, all in Texas. On January 1, 2018, we completed our acquisition of Commercial Bancshares, Inc. and its wholly owned bank subsidiary, Commercial State Bank and, as a result, added branch locations in Kingwood, Fulshear, El Campo and Palacios.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-makers. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. On January 1, 2016, we combined our Huntsville and Conroe Regions and our Abilene, Sweetwater and Eastland Regions and established a Fort Worth Region that previously was a branch of our Weatherford Region. On January 1, 2018, we combined our Mineral Wells and Stephenville Regions.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 27.9 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 19.3% from 2006-2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2006-2016*

Bridgeport and Wise County 13.5% Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 23.6% Fort Worth and Tarrant County 21.5% Stephenville and Erath County 18.0% Cleburne and Johnson County 11.7% Conroe and Montgomery County 41.3% Granbury and Hood County 31.1% *Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed thirteen bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $7.25 billion as of December 31, 2017. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust and Asset Management Company, National

Table of Contents

Association operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $300 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

Table of Contents

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, National Association, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Our trust company has seven locations which are located in Abilene, Fort Worth, Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, Cleburne, San Angelo and Weatherford banking regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,300 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2017. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Table of Contents

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

Table of Contents

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. Through June 30, 2017, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 3.00% of the assessment base per annum. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF and has imposed special assessments in the past.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. On April 26, 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule amending pricing for deposit insurance for institutions with less than $10 billion in assets effective the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reached 1.15%. As of June 30, 2016, the FDIC announced that the fund reserve ratio had reached 1.15%. As a result, the Company’s assessment rate was decreased to the rate stated above. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

Table of Contents

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $30.8 million in 2017 and $48.8 million in 2016. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2017, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $205.75 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Table of Contents

Federal Income Tax

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law with sweeping modifications to the Internal Revenue Code. The primary change for the Company was to lower the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. The Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities were re-measured based on the income tax rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, which is generally 21%. However, the Company continues to analyze certain aspects of the Act resulting in refinement of the calculation which could potentially affect the measurement of these balances or potentially give rise to new deferred tax amounts. The provisional amount recorded related to the re-measurement of the Company’s deferred tax balance was $7.65 million, a reduction of income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Table of Contents

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary, parts of which are currently in the process of being phased-in, are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules (the “Basel III Rules”) implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries. The Basel III Rules became effective for us and our subsidiary bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan and lease losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2017, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Capital Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our Tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

• 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;

• 6.0% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets;

• 8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets; and

• 4.0% Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the “leverage ratio”).

The Basel III Rules also establish a fully-phased “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, results in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. At December 31, 2017, the required capital conservation buffer was 1.50%. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

Table of Contents

The Basel III Rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2017, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 19.85%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 18.66%, a common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.66% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 11.09%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under Basel III rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2017.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Texas Department of Banking “Banking Department” accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

Table of Contents

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Table of Contents

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In April and May 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary

Table of Contents

enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amended the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final amended rule implemented sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implemented section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Table of Contents

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

Table of Contents

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. On July 31, 2015, we acquired FBC Bancshares, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, First Bank, N.A., Conroe, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. We also completed an asset purchase of 4Trust Mortgage, Inc. on June 1, 2015 that significantly increased our residential mortgages/loan originations that are sold in the secondary market. On January 1, 2015, our technology subsidiary, First Technology Services, Inc., was contributed to our bank subsidiary, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas, and therefore became an indirect subsidiary of the Company. As of December 31, 2016, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

Table of Contents

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2016, we had 69 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in San Angelo and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-making. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. On January 1, 2016, we combined our Huntsville and Conroe Regions and our Abilene, Sweetwater and Eastland Regions. Also, the Company established a Fort Worth Region that previously was a branch of our Weatherford Region.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 27.7 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 21.1% from 2005-2015 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2005-2015*

Bridgeport and Wise County 20.1 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 20.9 % Cleburne and Johnson County 14.6 % Granbury and Hood County 18.0 %

Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 31.8 % Stephenville and Erath County 16.3 % Conroe and Montgomery County 46.0 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing organically, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed twelve bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $6.81 billion as of December 31, 2016. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust and Asset Management Company, National Association operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We seek to enter growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around

Table of Contents

Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $300 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and technology services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Table of Contents

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, National Association, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Our trust company has eight locations which are located in Abilene, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include wealth management, the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, Cleburne, San Angelo, Southlake, Stephenville and Weatherford banking regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,300 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2016. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries. Recent political developments, including the change in administration of the United States federal government, have added additional uncertainty in the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

Table of Contents

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, provide merchant banking services, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group

Table of Contents

acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. Through June 30, 2016, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 5.00% of the assessment base per annum. Effective for the third and fourth quarters of 2016, in connection with the DIF reaching the required percentage levels, our assessment rate per annum was reduced to 3.00%, the current lowest risk-based premium available.

In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF. The FDIC required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009 their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. (The three basis point increase was later cancelled under the Restoration Plan described below.) The Company’s prepayment amount on December 31, 2009 totaled $11.60 million in the aggregate and was expensed based on quarterly assessment calculations. In June 2013, the unused portion of our prepaid assessment totaling $3.72 million was refunded by FDIC to our subsidiary bank.

Table of Contents

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. On April 26, 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule amending pricing for deposit insurance for institutions with less than $10 billion in assets effective the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reached 1.15%. As of June 30, 2016, the FDIC announced that the fund reserve ratio had reached 1.15%. As a result, the Company’s assessment rate was decreased to the rate stated above. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Table of Contents

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $48.8 million in 2016 and $51.20 million in 2015. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2016, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $170.73 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a non-depository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their non-depository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Table of Contents

Capital

We and our bank subsidiary are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC, respectively. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to us and our bank subsidiary, parts of which are currently in the process of being phased-in, are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules (the “Basel III Rules”) implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries. The Basel III Rules became effective for us and our subsidiary bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions).

The Basel III Rules established three components of regulatory capital: (1) common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”), (2) additional tier 1 capital, and (3) tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is the sum of CET1 and additional tier 1 capital instruments meeting certain revised requirements. Total capital is the sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital. Under the Basel III Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan and lease losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Rules’ specific requirements. As of December 31, 2016, we do not have any non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock or subordinated notes. CET1, tier 1 capital, and total capital serve as the numerators for the three prescribed regulatory capital ratios. Risk-weighted assets, calculated using the standardized approach in the Basel III Capital Rules for us and our subsidiary bank, provide the denominator for such ratios. There is also a leverage ratio that compares tier 1 capital to average total assets.

Pursuant to the Basel III Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss (“AOCI”) items are not excluded; however, “non-advanced approaches banking organizations,” including us and our subsidiary bank, could make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company made its a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude AOCI from capital in its filing with the Federal Reserve Board for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Basel III Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, from inclusion in our Tier 1 capital, subject to grandfathering in the case of companies, such as us, that had less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009.

Under the Basel III Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective as of January 1, 2015 are:

• 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;

• 6.0% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets;

• 8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets; and

• 4.0% Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the “leverage ratio”).

Table of Contents

The Basel III Rules also establish a fully-phased “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, results in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the general risk-based capital rules to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

With respect to our bank subsidiary, the Basel III Rules also revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

As of December 31, 2016, we had a total risk-based capital ratio of 18.45%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted asset ratio of 17.30%, a common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 17.30% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 10.71%. These regulatory capital ratios were calculated under Basel III rules.

Prompt Corrective Action.

A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2016.

Table of Contents

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Table of Contents

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opted out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Banking Department accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

Table of Contents

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. In April and May 2016, the Federal Reserve, jointly with five other federal regulators, published a proposed rule in response to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires implementation of regulations or guidelines to: (1) prohibit

Table of Contents

incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss, and (2) require those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate federal regulator.

The proposed rule identifies three categories of institutions that would be covered by these regulations based on average total consolidated assets, applying less prescriptive incentive-based compensation program requirements to the smallest covered institutions (Level 3) and progressively more rigorous requirements to the larger covered institutions (Level 1). Under the proposed rule, we would fall into the smallest category (Level 3), which applies to financial institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion. The proposed rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered entities, which would include (i) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (ii) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (iv) requiring board of director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (v) mandating appropriate recordkeeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements applicable to such institutions’ “senior executive officers” and “significant risk-takers.” These additional requirements would not be applicable to us because we currently have less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Comments on the proposed rule were due by July 22, 2016. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to

Table of Contents

adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amended the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final amended rule implemented sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implemented section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent

Table of Contents

100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. In addition, on May 31, 2013, we acquired Orange Savings Bank, SSB and merged Orange Savings Bank, SSB with and into First Financial Bank, National Association, our subsidiary bank. On July 31, 2015, we acquired FBC Bancshares, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, First Bank, N.A., Conroe, Texas and merged these entities with and into the Company and our subsidiary bank, respectively. We also completed an asset purchase of 4Trust Mortgage, Inc. on June 1, 2015 that significantly increased our residential mortgages/loan originations that are sold in the secondary market. On January 1, 2015, our technology subsidiary, First Technology Services, Inc., was contributed to our bank subsidiary, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas, and therefore became an indirect subsidiary of the Company. As of December 31, 2015, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas, wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Investments, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2015, we had 70 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in San Angelo and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Conroe, Huntsville, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany,

Table of Contents

Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Cut and Shoot, Decatur, Eastland, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Keller, Magnolia, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Montgomery, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Sweetwater, Tomball, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, Willis and Willow Park, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter, we continue to regionally manage our operations with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-making. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. On December 1, 2015, we announced that we have combined, effective January 1, 2016, our Huntsville and Conroe Regions and our Abilene, Sweetwater and Eastland Regions. Also, the Company established a Fort Worth Region that previously was a branch of our Weatherford Region.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 26.9 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 20.1% from 2004-2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2004-2014*

Bridgeport and Wise County 19.4 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 21.4 % Cleburne and Johnson County 14.4 % Granbury and Hood County 19.6 %

Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 30.3 % Stephenville and Erath County 15.9 % Conroe and Montgomery County 47.0 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed twelve bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $6.67 billion as of December 31, 2015. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company. First Financial Trust and Asset Management Company, National Association operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and First Technology Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be well managed and profitable, while being located in the type of community that fits our profile. We like growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas, the Texas Hill Country area or in states contiguous to Texas. Banks between $300 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we would consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Table of Contents

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• loan analysis;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank, First Financial Bank, National Association, is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our multiple banking regions, which operate under our subsidiary bank, each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset

Table of Contents

Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Our trust company has nine locations which are located in Abilene, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Odessa, Beaumont, Hereford, San Angelo, Stephenville and Sweetwater, all in Texas. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, Cleburne, San Angelo, Southlake, Stephenville and Weatherford banking regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,270 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2015. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

Table of Contents

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Table of Contents

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our then eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of First Financial Bank, National Association)

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. As of December 31, 2015, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 5.00% of the assessment base per annum.

In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF. The FDIC required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009 their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. (The three basis point increase was later cancelled under the Restoration Plan described below.) The Company’s prepayment amount on December 31, 2009 totaled $11.60 million in the aggregate and was expensed based on quarterly assessment calculations. In June 2013, the unused portion of our prepaid assessment totaling $3.72 million was refunded by FDIC to our subsidiary bank.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Table of Contents

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation).

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends to us of $51.20 million in 2015 and $34.00 million in 2014. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2015, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $129.31 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such

Table of Contents

an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Under these guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves. These guidelines will change over the next several years as the new Basel III rules are implemented. See “Capital Adequacy Requirements under Basel III” below.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required

Table of Contents

to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2015, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 15.90%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 16.97%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 9.96%. At December 31, 2015, we had a Common Equity Tier 1 to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio of 15.90%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The various regulatory agencies, including the OCC, have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five categories identified by FDICIA, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios as relevant capital measures. Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2015.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness practices.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

Table of Contents

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

Capital Adequacy Requirements Under Basel III

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, and on July 9, 2013, the FDIC and OCC, adopted a final rule that implements the Basel III changes to the international regulatory capital framework, referred to as the “Basel III Rules.” The Basel III Rules apply to both depository institutions and (subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the Company) their holding companies. Although parts of the Basel III Rules apply only to large, complex financial institutions, substantial portions of the Basel III Rules apply to the Company and our subsidiary bank. The Basel III Rules include requirements contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as certain standards initially adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2010.

The Basel III Rules include new risk-based and leverage capital ratio requirements which refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Company and our subsidiary bank under the Basel III Rules are: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. Common equity Tier 1 capital will consist of retained earnings and common stock instruments, subject to certain adjustments.

The Basel III Rules also establish a fully-phased “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, results in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is to be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules also revise the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including our subsidiary bank, if their capital levels do not meet certain thresholds. These revisions were effective January 1, 2015. The prompt corrective action rules were modified to include a common equity Tier 1 capital component and to increase certain other capital requirements for the various thresholds. For example, under the proposed prompt corrective action rules, insured depository institutions are required to meet the following capital levels in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (unchanged from current rules).

The Basel III Rules set forth certain changes in the methods of calculating certain risk-weighted assets, which in turn affect the calculation of risk based ratios. Under the Basel III Rules, higher or more sensitive risk weights are assigned to various categories of assets, including, certain credit facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property, certain exposures or credits that are 90 days past due or on nonaccrual, foreign exposures and certain corporate exposures. In addition, the Basel III Rules include (i) alternative standards of credit worthiness consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) greater recognition of collateral and guarantees; and (iii) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions.

In addition, the final rule includes certain exemptions to address concerns about the regulatory burden on community banks. For example, banking organizations with less than $15 billion in consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009 are permitted to include in Tier 1 capital trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued and included in Tier 1 capital prior to May 19, 2010 on a permanent basis, without any phase out. Community banks were required to make this election by their March 31, 2015 quarterly financial filings with the appropriate federal regulator to opt-out of the requirement to include most accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) components in the calculation of CET1 capital and, in effect, retain the AOCI treatment under the

Table of Contents

current capital rules. The Company made in its March 31, 2015 quarterly filing, a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude accumulated other comprehensive income from capital. If the Company would not have made this election, unrealized gains and losses would have been included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. Overall, the rule provides some important concessions for smaller, less complex financial institutions.

The Basel III Rules generally became effective beginning January 1, 2015. The conservation buffer began to be phased in beginning in January 2016 and will take full effect on January 1, 2019. Certain calculations under the Basel III Rules also have phase-in periods. The Company has complied with the final Basel III Rules since January 1, 2015.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opts out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

Table of Contents

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Banking Department accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

Table of Contents

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. On April 14, 2011, these regulators published a joint proposed rulemaking to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act for depository institutions, their holding companies and various other financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets. The proposed rule would (i) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would encourage inappropriate risks by providing excess compensation; (ii) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would expose the institution to inappropriate risks by providing compensation that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) require policies and procedures for incentive-based compensation arrangements that are commensurate with the size and complexity of the institutions; and (iv) require annual reports on incentive compensation structures to the institution’s appropriate federal regulator. The comment period to the proposed rule ended on March 31, 2011. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Table of Contents

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has already finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These new rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amended the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final amended rule implemented sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implemented section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and

Table of Contents

confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Recently, banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Table of Contents

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.21 per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company had until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Up to December 30, 2012, we owned eleven separately chartered banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into our Abilene bank charter, First Financial Bank, National Association, to reduce certain operating costs and to make our our technology and compliance operations more efficient. In addition, on May 31, 2013, we acquired Orange Savings Bank, SSB and merged Orange Savings Bank, SSB with and into our subsidiary bank. As of December 31, 2014, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2014, we had 62 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in San Angelo and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Beaumont, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Decatur, Eastland, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Lubbock, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Moran, New Waverly, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Sweetwater, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, and Willow Park, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter, we continue to operate as twelve bank regions (effective May 31, 2013, we added our twelfth region in Orange, Texas) with local advisory

Table of Contents

boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-making. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, twelve regions” concept.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 26.5 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 20.1% from 2003-2013 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are also experiencing positive growth as shown below:

Population Growth 2003-2013*

Bridgeport and Wise County 13.2 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 23.2 % Cleburne and Johnson County 12.0 % Granbury and Hood County 18.2 %

Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 25.6 % Stephenville and Erath County 17.9 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, wind energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed twelve bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $5.85 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be located in the type of community that fits our profile, which is well managed and profitable. We like growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas or the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $100 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management, technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

Table of Contents

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our twelve bank regions operating under our subsidiary bank each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, San Angelo, Cleburne, Stephenville, Eastland and Weatherford banking regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Table of Contents

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below, under the heading “Supervision and Regulation – Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders.”

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,140 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2014. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new

Table of Contents

financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits;

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

Table of Contents

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking (the “Banking Department”). Prior to December 30, 2012, the Banking Department regulated, supervised and regularly examined our two subsidiary state banks, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville. The Banking Department’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged; and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville were non-member banks of the Federal Reserve, and as such their federal regulator was the FDIC and were subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. As of December 31, 2014, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 5.00% of the assessment base per annum.

In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF. The FDIC required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009 their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. (The three basis point increase was later cancelled under the Restoration Plan described below.) The Company’s prepayment amount on December 31, 2009 totaled $11.60 million in the aggregate and was expensed based on quarterly assessment calculations. In June 2013, the unused portion of our prepaid assessment totaling $3.72 million was refunded by FDIC to our subsidiary bank.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

Table of Contents

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). Prior to December 30, 2012, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville, as Texas state banking associations, could not pay a dividend that would reduce its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Banking Department.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $34.00 million in 2014 and approximately $64.20 million in 2013. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2014, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $93.16 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and

Table of Contents

securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Under these guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves. These guidelines will change over the next several years as the new Basel III rules are implemented. See “New Capital Adequacy Requirements under Basel III” below.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis

Table of Contents

points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2014, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 16.05%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.16%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 9.89%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The various regulatory agencies, including the OCC, have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five categories identified by FDICIA, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios as relevant capital measures. Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2014.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness practices.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

Table of Contents

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. Prior to December 30, 2012, our two Texas-chartered banks exceeded the minimum ratios applied to them.

New Capital Adequacy Requirements Under Basel III

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, and on July 9, 2013, the FDIC and OCC, adopted a final rule that implements the Basel III changes to the international regulatory capital framework, referred to as the “Basel III Rules.” The Basel III Rules apply to both depository institutions and (subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the Company) their holding companies. Although parts of the Basel III Rules apply only to large, complex financial institutions, substantial portions of the Basel III Rules apply to the Company and our subsidiary bank. The Basel III Rules include requirements contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as certain standards initially adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2010.

The Basel III Rules include new risk-based and leverage capital ratio requirements which refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Company and our subsidiary bank under the Basel III Rules are: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. Common equity Tier 1 capital will consist of retained earnings and common stock instruments, subject to certain adjustments.

The Basel III Rules will also establish a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, will result in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is to be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution would be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules also revise the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including our subsidiary bank, if their capital levels do not meet certain thresholds. These revisions are to be effective January 1, 2015. The prompt corrective action rules will be modified to include a common equity Tier 1 capital component and to increase certain other capital requirements for the various thresholds. For example, under the proposed prompt corrective action rules, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following capital levels in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (unchanged from current rules).

The Basel III Rules set forth certain changes in the methods of calculating certain risk-weighted assets, which in turn will affect the calculation of risk based ratios. Under the Basel III Rules, higher or more sensitive risk weights would be assigned to various categories of assets, including, certain credit facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property, certain exposures or credits that are 90 days past due or on nonaccrual, foreign exposures and certain corporate exposures. In addition, the Basel III Rules include (i) alternative standards of credit worthiness consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) greater recognition of collateral and guarantees; and (iii) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions.

In addition, the final rule includes certain exemptions to address concerns about the regulatory burden on community banks. For example, banking organizations with less than $15 billion in consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009 are permitted to include in Tier 1 capital trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued and included in Tier 1 capital prior to May 19, 2010 on a permanent basis, without any phase

Table of Contents

out. Community banks may also elect on a one time basis in their March 31, 2015 quarterly financial filings with the appropriate federal regulator to opt-out out of the requirement to include most accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) components in the calculation of CET1 capital and, in effect, retain the AOCI treatment under the current capital rules. Under the Final Capital Rule, the Company may make a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude accumulated other comprehensive income from capital. If the Company does not make this election, unrealized gains and losses would be included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. The Company expects to make this election in their March 31, 2015 quarterly financial filings. Overall, the rule provides some important concessions for smaller, less complex financial institutions.

The Basel III Rules generally become effective beginning January 1, 2015. The conservation buffer will be phased in beginning in 2016 and will take full effect on January 1, 2019. Certain calculations under the Basel III Rules will also have phase-in periods. The Company must comply with the final Basel III Rules beginning on January 1, 2015.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opts out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

Table of Contents

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Banking Department accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

Table of Contents

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. On April 14, 2011, these regulators published a joint proposed rulemaking to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act for depository institutions, their holding companies and various other financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets. The proposed rule would (i) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would encourage inappropriate risks by providing excess compensation; (ii) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would expose the institution to inappropriate risks by providing compensation that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) require policies and procedures for incentive-based compensation arrangements that are commensurate with the size and complexity of the institutions; and (iv) require annual reports on incentive compensation structures to the institution’s appropriate federal regulator. The comment period to the proposed rule ended on March 31, 2011. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates

Table of Contents

using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has already finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These new rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amend the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z currently prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final rule implements sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implements section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks,

Table of Contents

particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Recently, banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Table of Contents

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.24 per transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company has until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Table of Contents

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other bank regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Up to December 30, 2012, we owned eleven banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into our Abilene bank charter, First Financial Bank, National Association, to reduce certain operating costs and make more efficient our technology and compliance operations. In addition, on May 31, 2013, we acquired Orange Savings Bank, SSB and merged Orange Savings Bank, SSB with and into our subsidiary bank. As of December 31, 2013, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central, Southeast and West Texas. As of December 31, 2013, we had 60 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, three locations in San Angelo and Weatherford, two locations in Cleburne, Stephenville, and Granbury, and one location each in Acton, Albany, Aledo, Alvarado, Boyd, Bridgeport, Brock, Burleson, Cisco, Clyde, Decatur, Eastland, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Grapevine, Hereford, Huntsville, Keller, Mauriceville, Merkel, Midlothian, Mineral Wells, Moran, Newton, Odessa, Orange, Port Arthur, Ranger, Rising Star, Roby, Southlake, Sweetwater, Trent, Trophy Club, Vidor, Waxahachie, and Willow Park, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our bank charters into one charter effective December 30, 2012, we continue to operate as twelve bank regions (effective May 31, 2013, we added our twelfth region in Orange, Texas) with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-making. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, twelve regions” concept.

Table of Contents

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 26.1 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 19.7% from 2002-2012 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2002-2012*

Bridgeport and Wise County 24.6 % Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 29.6 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 25.8 % Cleburne and Johnson County 31.8 % Stephenville and Erath County 22.6 % Granbury and Hood County 31.8 % *Source: U.S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquiring other banks. Since 1997, we have completed twelve bank acquisitions and have increased our total assets from $1.57 billion to $5.22 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow organically by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we are interested in possibly acquiring.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the subject bank generally needs to be located in the type of community that fits our profile, which is well managed and profitable. We like growing communities with good amenities—schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45, 10 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas or the Texas Hill Country area. Banks between $100 million and $1.0 billion in asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our Company.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

Table of Contents

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical coverage, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Our subsidiary bank is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our twelve bank regions operating under our subsidiary bank each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to regional management of the bank regarding the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, our trust company. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, San Angelo and Weatherford bank regions.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must

Table of Contents

have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,100 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2013. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliations between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

Table of Contents

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Table of Contents

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits,

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking (the “Banking Department”). Prior to December 30, 2012, the Banking Department regulated, supervised and regularly examined our two subsidiary state banks, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville. The Banking Department’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville were non-member banks of the Federal Reserve, and as such their federal regulator was the FDIC and were subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance Coverage and Assessments

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions up to applicable limits (currently, $250,000 per depositor).

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the DIF) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. As of December 31, 2013, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest risk-based premium available, which was 5.00% of the assessment base per annum.

In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover shortages in the DIF. The FDIC required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009 their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. (The three basis point increase was later cancelled under the Restoration Plan described below.) The Company’s prepayment amount on December 31, 2009 totaled $11.60 million in the aggregate and was expensed based on quarterly assessment calculations. In June 2013, the unused portion of our prepaid assessment totaling $3.72 million was refunded by FDIC to our subsidiary bank.

Table of Contents

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that each bank holding company should carefully review its dividend policy, and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels, which is the maximum dividend amount that may be issued and allow the company to still maintain its target Tier 1 capital ratio, unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

To pay dividends, our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. Under federal law, our subsidiary bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank would be “undercapitalized.” In addition, if the FDIC believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s

Table of Contents

net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). Prior to December 30, 2012, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville, as Texas state banking associations, could not pay a dividend that would reduce its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Banking Department.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $64.20 million in 2013 and approximately $58.35 million in 2012. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2013, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $57.46 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members, corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank makes to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or our subsidiary bank; and

Table of Contents

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to our subsidiary bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Under these guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves. These guidelines will change over the next several years as the new Basel III rules are implemented. See “New Capital Adequacy Requirements under Basel III” below.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2013, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 15.82%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 16.92%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 9.84%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically

Table of Contents

undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The various regulatory agencies, including the OCC, have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five categories identified by FDICIA, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios as relevant capital measures. Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2013.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness practices.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. Prior to December 30, 2012, our two Texas-chartered banks exceeded the minimum ratios applied to them.

New Capital Adequacy Requirements Under Basel III

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, and on July 9, 2013, the FDIC and OCC, adopted a final rule that implements the Basel III changes to the international regulatory capital framework, referred to as the “Basel III Rules.” The Basel III Rules apply to both depository institutions and (subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the Company) their holding companies. Although parts of the Basel III Rules apply only to large, complex financial institutions, substantial portions of the Basel III Rules apply to the Company and our subsidiary bank. The Basel III Rules include requirements contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as certain standards initially adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2010.

The Basel III Rules include new risk-based and leverage capital ratio requirements which refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Company and our subsidiary bank under the Basel III Rules are: (i) a new

Table of Contents

common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. Common equity Tier 1 capital will consist of retained earnings and common stock instruments, subject to certain adjustments.

The Basel III Rules will also establish a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, will result in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is to be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase by that amount each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution would be subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules also revise the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including our subsidiary bank, if their capital levels do not meet certain thresholds. These revisions are to be effective January 1, 2015. The prompt corrective action rules will be modified to include a common equity Tier 1 capital component and to increase certain other capital requirements for the various thresholds. For example, under the proposed prompt corrective action rules, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following capital levels in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (unchanged from current rules).

The Basel III Rules set forth certain changes in the methods of calculating certain risk-weighted assets, which in turn will affect the calculation of risk based ratios. Under the Basel III Rules, higher or more sensitive risk weights would be assigned to various categories of assets, including, certain credit facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property, certain exposures or credits that are 90 days past due or on nonaccrual, foreign exposures and certain corporate exposures. In addition, the Basel III Rules include (i) alternative standards of credit worthiness consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) greater recognition of collateral and guarantees; and (iii) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions.

In addition, the final rule includes certain exemptions to address concerns about the regulatory burden on community banks. For example, banking organizations with less than $15 billion in consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009 are permitted to include in Tier 1 capital trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued and included in Tier 1 capital prior to May 19, 2010 on a permanent basis, without any phase out. Community banks may also elect on a one time basis in their March 31, 2015 quarterly filings to opt-out out of the onerous requirement to include most accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) components in the calculation of CET1 capital and, in effect, retain the AOCI treatment under the current capital rules. Under the Final Capital Rule, the Company may make a one-time, permanent election to continue to exclude accumulated other comprehensive income from capital. If the Company does not make this election, unrealized gains and losses would be included in the calculation of its regulatory capital. Overall, the rule provides some important concessions for smaller, less complex financial institutions.

The Basel III Rules generally become effective beginning January 1, 2015. The conservation buffer will be phased in beginning in 2016 and will take full effect on January 1, 2019. Certain calculations under the Basel III Rules will also have phase-in periods. The Company must comply with the final Basel III Rules beginning on January 1, 2015.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. This

Table of Contents

support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices.

Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opts out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. Additionally, the Banking Department accepts applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Table of Contents

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other depository facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary bank has taken and takes significant actions to comply with the CRA, and received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion or other criminal activities, as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”). Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Table of Contents

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required certain regulators (including the FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve Board) to adopt requirements or guidelines prohibiting excessive compensation. On April 14, 2011, these regulators published a joint proposed rulemaking to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act for depository institutions, their holding companies and various other financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets. The proposed rule would (i) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would encourage inappropriate risks by providing excess compensation; (ii) prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for covered persons that would expose the institution to inappropriate risks by providing compensation that could lead to a material financial loss; (iii) require policies and procedures for incentive-based compensation arrangements that are commensurate with the size and complexity of the institutions; and (iv) require annual reports on incentive compensation structures to the institution’s appropriate federal regulator. The comment period to the proposed rule ended on March 31, 2011. As of the date of this document, the final rule has not yet been published by these regulators.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate

Table of Contents

Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits the state attorney general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB has already finalized rules relating to, among other things, remittance transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires companies to provide consumers with certain disclosures before the consumer pays for a remittance transfer. These new rules became effective in October 2013. The CFPB has also amended certain rules under Regulation C relating to home mortgage disclosure to reflect a change in the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. In addition, on January 10, 2013, the CFPB released its final “Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage” rules, which amend the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Regulation Z currently prohibits a creditor from making a higher-priced mortgage loan without regard to the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. The final rule implements sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages.” The final rule also implements section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which limits prepayment penalties. Finally, the final rule requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance with the rule for three years after a covered loan is consummated. This rule became effective January 10, 2014.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or

Table of Contents

information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations

The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

UDAP and UDAAP

Recently, banking regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address “unethical” or otherwise “bad” business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. The law of choice for enforcement against such business practices has been Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to as the FTC Act, which is the primary federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, referred to as UDAP, and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. “Unjustified consumer injury” is the principal focus of the FTC Act. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with UDAP laws and regulations. However, UDAP laws and regulations have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” referred to as UDAAP, which have been delegated to the CFPB for supervision. The CFPB has published its first Supervision and Examination Manual that addresses compliance with and the examination of UDAAP.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial

Table of Contents

institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or our subsidiaries could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in July 2010, effected a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the Dodd-Frank Act provisions that have affected us are the following:

• creation of a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms;

• elimination of the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts;

• prohibition on state-chartered banks engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivative transactions. For this purpose, derivative transactions include any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodity securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets;

• requirement that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.24 per transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks; and

• restrictions under the Volcker Rule of the Company’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in, sponsor and engage in certain types of transactions with certain private funds. The Company has until July 15, 2015 to fully conform to the Volcker Rules restrictions.

Table of Contents

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are still subject to the final rulemaking by federal banking agencies, and the implication of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s business will depend to a large extent on how such rules are adopted and implemented. The Company’s management continues to review actively the provisions of the Dodd–Frank Act and assess its probable impact on its business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

Table of Contents

General

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation (“the Company”), is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other banking regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Through December 30, 2012, we owned eleven banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into our Abilene bank charter to reduce certain operating costs and make more efficient our technology and compliance operations. As of December 31, 2012, our subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiaries, we conduct full-service commercial banking business. Our banking centers are located primarily in Central, North Central and West Texas. As of December 31, 2012, we had 55 financial centers across Texas, with eleven locations in Abilene, two locations in Cleburne, two locations in Stephenville, two locations in Granbury, two locations in San Angelo, three locations in Weatherford, and one location each in Mineral Wells, Hereford, Sweetwater, Eastland, Ranger, Rising Star, Cisco, Southlake, Aledo, Willow Park, Brock, Alvarado, Burleson, Crowley, Waxahachie, Grapevine, Keller, Trophy Club, Boyd, Bridgeport, Decatur, Roby, Trent, Merkel, Clyde, Moran, Albany, Midlothian, Glen Rose, Acton, Odessa, Fort Worth and Huntsville, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Although we consolidated our eleven bank charters into one charter effective December 30, 2012, we continue to operate as eleven bank regions with local advisory boards of directors, local bank region presidents and local decision-making. We have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves our efficiency and frees management of our bank regions to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, eleven regions” concept.

Table of Contents

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 25.7 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 23.1% from 2000-2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2000-2011*

Bridgeport and Wise County 22.6 % Fort Worth and Tarrant County 27.9 % Cleburne, Midlothian and Johnson County 20.5 % Granbury and Hood County 25.7 %

Weatherford, Willow Park, Aledo and Parker County 33.7 % Stephenville and Erath County 15.9 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, retail, military, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We have also largely foregone the larger metropolitan areas of Texas. We believe our community approach to doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown in three ways: by growing internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquisition of other banks. Since 1997, we have completed eleven bank acquisitions increasing total assets from $1.57 billion to $4.50 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we intend to continue to grow locally by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we would like to acquire.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the bank generally needs to be in the type of community that fits our profile, is well managed and profitable. We like growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas or the Texas Hill Country area. Banks in the $100 million to up to $1.0 billion asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our existing Company.

We also own First Financial Investments, Inc. (which is dormant). During 2011, we merged First Financial Bankshares of Delaware, Inc. and First Financial Investments of Delaware, Inc. into First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, including advisory boards of directors for our bank regions. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

Table of Contents

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors, including advisory directors, and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our bank regions related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from our subsidiaries, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Services Offered by Our Subsidiaries

Our subsidiary bank is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its board of directors and officers. Our eleven bank regions operating under this subsidiary bank each have separate advisory boards that make recommendations and provide assistance to bank regional management in the operations of their respective region. Each of our bank regions provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association. Through our trust company, we offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. We also administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. In addition, we provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party in our Abilene, San Angelo and Weatherford bank regions.

Competition

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that we must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our bank regions compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than us in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Table of Contents

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our bank regions we may make loans to our officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to our directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

Employees

Including all of our subsidiaries, we employed approximately 1,000 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2012. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund of the FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiaries.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliation between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Table of Contents

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Under the BHCA, the Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board, or acting under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas before (1) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any class of voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after the acquisition, the Company would directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the class; (2) acquiring all of substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company; or (3) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, or the CIBCA, and the related regulations of the Federal Reserve Board require any person or groups of persons acting in concert (except for companies required to make application under the BHCA), to file a written notice with the Federal Reserve Board before the person or group acquires control of the Company. The CIBCA defines “control” as the direct or indirect power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities or to direct the management or policies of a bank holding company or an insured bank. A rebuttable presumption of control arises under the CIBCA where a person or group controls 10% or more, but less than 25%, of a class of the voting stock of a company or insured bank which is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, such as the Company, or such ownership interest is greater than the ownership interest held by any other person or group.

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. Effective December 30, 2012, we consolidated our eleven bank charters into one, that being our Abilene charter. As a result, the OCC now supervises, regulates and regularly examines the following subsidiaries:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits,

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking (the “Banking Department”). Prior to December 30, 2012, the Banking

Table of Contents

Department regulated, supervised and regularly examined our two subsidiary state banks, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville. The Banking Department’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville were non-member banks of the Federal Reserve, and as such their federal regulator was the FDIC and were subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance

Our subsidiary bank is a member of the FDIC. The FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions. Until October 2008, the protection generally did not exceed $100,000 per depositor. Beginning in October 2008, the amount of protection was increased to $250,000 under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This increased protection to $250,000 was initially available only through December 31, 2009 but the Dodd-Frank Act made this $250,000 protection permanent. The new regulations were also expanded whereby the protection for non interest bearing deposits was unlimited at institutions participating in the TLGP. This unlimited coverage for these non interest bearing accounts was also initially only available through December 31, 2009 but was extended by the Dodd-Frank Act until December 31, 2012. Non interest bearing deposits initially also included, by definition, certain Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts (NOW Accounts) with a maximum capped interest rate. Effective January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, the definition of non interest bearing was changed to no longer include NOW accounts. The unlimited coverage for interest bearing accounts was not renewed and expired on December 31, 2012.

Our subsidiary bank must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the deposit insurance fund) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose shortages in special assessments to cover the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). As of December 31, 2012, the assessment rate for our subsidiary bank was at the lowest level risk-based premium available which was 5.00% of the assessment base per annum. During 2012 and prior to December 30, 2012 when we consolidated our bank charters, three of our bank subsidiaries paid higher than the 5.00% premium, the highest being 6.11% at First Financial Bank, Hereford. The assessment base was broadened by the Dodd-Frank Act to be defined as average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity. The FDIC also announced in 2009 the requirement of insured depositor institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. The Company’s prepayment amount totaled $11.6 million in the aggregate and was expensed based on quarterly assessment calculations.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to

Table of Contents

solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system, will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receivers, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiaries pay or paid dividends.

National banks are required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). Prior to December 30, 2012, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville, as Texas state banking associations, could not pay a dividend reducing its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Banking Department. In additional, the FDIC had the right to prohibit the payment of dividends by a state, non-member bank where the payment was deemed to be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $58.4 million in 2012 and approximately $47.4 million in 2011. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2012, our subsidiaries could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $60.0 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiaries must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the regulatory authorities may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. No undercapitalized institution may pay a dividend.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of

Table of Contents

credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiaries conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary bank to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary bank may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary bank make to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or the subsidiary bank;

• the subsidiary bank must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or the subsidiary bank; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the bank.

Furthermore, our subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing

Table of Contents

internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2012, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.43%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 18.68%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 10.60%.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to apply consolidated capital requirements to bank holding companies and financial holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions. Under these standards, trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The various regulatory agencies, including the OCC, have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five categories identified by FDICIA, using the total risk based capital, Tier 1 risk based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios as relevant capital measures. Under current regulations, our subsidiary bank was “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2012.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

Table of Contents

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. Prior to December 30, 2012, our two Texas-chartered banks exceeded the minimum ratios applied to them.

Our Support of Our Subsidiaries

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiaries. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. This policy was codified by the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiaries would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our subsidiaries. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of a national bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require the bank’s shareholders to pay the deficiency on a pro-rata basis. If any shareholder refuses to pay the pro-rata assessment after three months notice, then the bank’s board of directors must sell an appropriate amount of the shareholder’s stock at a public auction to make up the deficiency. To the extent necessary, if a deficiency in capital still exists and the bank refuses to go into liquidation, then a receiver may be appointed to wind down the bank’s affairs. Additionally, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opts out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

Both the OCC and Banking Department accept applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Table of Contents

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other deposit facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. Prior to our consolidation of our bank charters and effective as of December 30, 2012, we believe our subsidiary banks had taken significant actions to comply with the CRA, and each has received ratings ranging from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, IRS rules and other regulations, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Table of Contents

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Table of Contents

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

The U. S. and global economies have experienced and are experiencing significant stress and disruptions in the financial sector. Dramatic slowdowns in the housing industry with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment have created strains on financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and investment banks. As a result, many financial institutions sought and continue to seek additional capital, merge or seek mergers with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, failed.

In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking and financial markets, in October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“the Treasury”) was authorized to purchase equity stakes in U. S. financial institutions. Under this program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions through the purchase of preferred stock or subordinated debentures by the Treasury. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock from publicly-held financial institutions, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the total amount of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program and were restricted from increasing dividends to common shareholders or repurchasing common stock for three years without the consent of the Treasury. The Company made a decision to not participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program due to its capital and liquidity positions.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act is intended to effect a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally creates a new independent federal regulator to administer federal consumer protection laws. The Dodd-Frank Act is expected to have a significant impact on our business operations as its provisions take effect. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the provisions that have affected or could affect us are the following:

Payment of Interest on Business Checking Accounts. Effective one year from the date of enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Table of Contents

Prohibition Against Charter Conversions of Troubled Institutions. Effective one year after enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a depository institution from converting from a state to federal charter or vice versa while it is the subject of a cease and desist order or other formal enforcement action or a memorandum of understanding with respect to a significant supervisory matter unless the appropriate federal banking agency gives notice of the conversion to the federal or state authority that issued the enforcement action and that agency does not object within 30 days. The notice must include a plan to address the significant supervisory matter. The converting institution must also file a copy of the conversion application with its current federal regulator which must notify the resulting federal regulator of any ongoing supervisory or investigative proceedings that are likely to result in an enforcement action and provide access to all supervisory and investigative information relating hereto.

Limits on Derivatives. Effective 18 months after enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits state-chartered banks from engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower limits of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivatives transactions. For this purpose, derivative transaction includes any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets.

Debit Card Interchange Fees. Effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.24 per transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act will allow borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Basel Committee. On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee, announced agreement on the calibration and phase – in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as Basel III. Basel III increases the minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio to 4.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and introduces a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk – weighted assets, raising the target minimum common equity ratio to 7%. This capital conservation buffer also increases the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio from 6% to 8.5% and the minimum total capital ratio from 8% to 10.5%. In addition, Basel III introduces a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital for periods of excess credit growth. Basel III also introduces a non-risk adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3%, based on a measure of total exposure rather than total assets, and new liquidity standards. The Tier 1 common equity and Tier 1 capital ratio requirements will be phased in incrementally between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2015; the deductions from common equity made in calculating Tier 1 common equity will be phased in incrementally over a four-year period commencing on January 1, 2014; and the capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2019. The Basel Committee also announced that a countercyclical buffer of 0% to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss-absorbing capital will be implemented according to national circumstances as an extension of the conservation buffer.

Table of Contents

On June 7, 2012, the U.S. banking agencies requested comment on the three proposed rules that, taken together, would establish an integrated regulatory capital framework implementing the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in the United States. As proposed, the U.S. implementation of Basel III would lead to significantly higher capital requirements and more restrictive leverage and liquidity ratios than those currently in place. Once adopted, these new capital requirements would be phased in over time. Additionally, the U.S. implementation of Basel III contemplates that, for banking organizations with less than $15 billion in assets, the ability to treat trust preferred securities as Tier 1 capital would be phased out over a ten-year period. Comments to the proposed rules were requested by September 7, 2012 in order to begin the gradual integration of the proposed rules on January 1, 2013. U.S. banking agencies have delayed implementation of the proposed rules as they continue weighing views expressed during the comment period. The ultimate impact of the U.S. implementation of the new capital and liquidity standards on the Company and the Bank is currently being reviewed. At this point we cannot determine the ultimate effect that any final regulations, if enacted, would have upon our earnings or financial position. In addition, important questions remain as to how the numerous capital and liquidity mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act will be integrated with the requirements of Basel III.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

General

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other state and federal regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. We own eleven banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. As of February 22, 2012, these subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, Hereford, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells, Texas;

• First Financial Bank, Huntsville, Texas;

• First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and

• First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiary banks, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our service centers are located primarily in Central, North Central and West Texas. Including the branches and locations of all our subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2011, we had 52 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, two locations in Cleburne, two locations in Stephenville, three locations in Granbury, two locations in San Angelo, three locations in Weatherford, and one location each in Mineral Wells, Hereford, Sweetwater, Eastland, Ranger, Rising Star, Cisco, Southlake, Aledo, Willow Park, Brock, Alvarado, Burleson, Crowley, Keller, Trophy

Table of Contents

Club, Boyd, Bridgeport, Decatur, Roby, Trent, Merkel, Clyde, Moran, Albany, Midlothian, Glen Rose, Odessa, Fort Worth and Huntsville, all in Texas.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Accordingly, each of our eleven separately chartered banks operates with local boards of directors, local bank presidents and local decision-making. However, we have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves each of our subsidiary bank’s efficiency and frees management of our subsidiary banks to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, eleven charters” concept.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 25.2 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 20.6 percent from 2000-2010 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2000-2010*

Bridgeport and Wise County 21.2 % Weatherford, Willow Park and Aledo 32.1 % Fort Worth/Tarrant County 25.1 % Granbury and Hood County 24.5 % Cleburne, Midlothian and Johnson County 19.9 % Stephenville and Erath County 14.8 %

*Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We have also largely foregone the larger metropolitan areas of Texas. We believe our community approach way of doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown three ways: by growing our banks internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquisition of other banks. Since 1997, we have completed eleven bank acquisitions increasing total assets from $1.57 billion to $4.12 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we will continue to grow locally by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisition opportunities by calling on banks that we would like to acquire, working with brokers and the FDIC.

Table of Contents

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the bank generally needs to be in the type of community that fits our profile. We like growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas or the Texas Hill Country area. Banks in the $100 million to $500 million asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our existing Company.

We also own First Financial Investments, Inc. (which is dormant). During 2011, we merged First Financial Bankshares of Delaware, Inc. and First Financial Investments of Delaware, Inc. into First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, with substantial authority in making decisions concerning their own loan decisions, interest rates, service charges and marketing. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

• investments;

• accounting;

• budgeting;

• training;

• marketing;

• planning;

• risk management;

• loan review;

• human resources;

• insurance;

• capitalization;

• regulatory compliance; and

• internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our banks related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

Table of Contents

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from subsidiary banks, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Services Offered by Our Subsidiary Banks

Each of our subsidiary banks is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Each of our subsidiary banks provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, mobile banking, payroll cards, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association. Through our trust company, we administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. We also offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. In addition, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo and First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party.

Competition

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that our banks must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our subsidiary banks compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than our subsidiary banks in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one of which would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our subsidiary banks we may make loans to officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

Employees

With our subsidiary banks, we employed approximately 980 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2011. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiary banks.

Table of Contents

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliation between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, security firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

Table of Contents

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. The OCC supervises, regulates and regularly examines:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville;

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells;

• First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and

• First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits,

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking (the “Banking Department”). The Banking Department regulates, supervises and regularly examines our two subsidiary state banks, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville. The Banking Department’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and

• restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville are non-member banks of the Federal Reserve, and as such their federal regulator is the FDIC and are subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance

Each of our subsidiary banks is a member of the FDIC. The FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions. Until October 2008, the protection generally did not exceed $100,000 per depositor. Beginning in October 2008, the amount of protection was increased to $250,000, under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This increased protection to $250,000 was initially available only through December 31, 2009 but the Dodd-Frank Act made this $250,000 protection permanent. The new regulations were also expanded whereby the protection for non interest bearing deposits was unlimited at institutions participating in the TLGP. This unlimited coverage for these non interest bearing accounts was also initially only available through December 31, 2009 but was extended by the Dodd-Frank Act until December 31, 2012. Non interest bearing deposits initially also included, by definition, certain Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts (NOW Accounts) with a maximum capped interest rate. Effective January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, the definition of non interest bearing was changed to no longer include NOW accounts.

Table of Contents

Our subsidiary banks must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the deposit insurance fund) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose shortages in special assessments to cover the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). As of December 31, 2011, the assessment rate for each of our subsidiary banks was at the lowest level risk-based premium available which was 5.00 percent of the assessment base per annum (with the exception of First Financial Bank, N.A., Southlake whose rate was 6.58 percent, First Financial Bank, N.A., Weatherford whose rate was 5.86 percent and First Financial Bank, N.A., Cleburne whose rate was 6.89 percent). The assessment base was broadened by the Dodd-Frank Act to be defined as average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity. The FDIC also announced in 2009 the requirement of insured depositor institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. The Company’s prepayment amount totaled $11.6 million in the aggregate and is being expensed over a three year period ending December 31, 2012 based on future quarterly assessment calculations.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act also eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of increasing the reserve ratio on institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period as opposed to solely bank deposits at an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system, will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-receiver, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our bank and trust company subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiary banks pay dividends.

Table of Contents

Each of our national bank subsidiaries is required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville, as Texas state banking associations, may not pay a dividend reducing its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Banking Department. In additional, the FDIC has the right to prohibit the payment of dividends by a state, non-member bank where the payment is deemed to be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $47.4 million in 2011 and approximately $41.1 million in 2010. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2011, our subsidiary banks could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $59.8 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary banks must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the regulatory authorities may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. No undercapitalized institution may pay a dividend.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our depository subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of affiliate to make any investment fund, including a mutual fund, for which a depository institution or its affiliates serve as investment advisor an affiliate of the depository institution. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the limitations to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiary banks conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Table of Contents

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary banks to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary banks may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary banks make to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks;

• the subsidiary banks must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; and

• the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the bank.

Furthermore, each subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2011, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.49%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 18.74%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 10.33%.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to apply consolidated capital requirements to bank holding companies and financial holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions. Under these standards, trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

Table of Contents

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. Under current regulations, all of our subsidiary banks were “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2011.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Banking

Table of Contents

Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. As of December 31, 2011, our two Texas-chartered banks exceeded the minimum ratios applied to them.

Our Support of Our Subsidiary Banks

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. This policy was codified by the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiary banks would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of a national bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require the bank’s shareholders to pay the deficiency on a pro-rata basis. If any shareholder refuses to pay the pro-rata assessment after three months notice, then the bank’s board of directors must sell an appropriate amount of the shareholder’s stock at a public auction to make up the deficiency. To the extent necessary, if a deficiency in capital still exists and the bank refuses to go into liquidation, then a receiver may be appointed to wind down the bank’s affairs. Additionally, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other banking subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Interstate Banking and Branching

Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Riegle-Neal Act amendments, once a state or national bank has established branches in a state, that bank may establish and acquire additional branches at any location in the state at which any bank involved in the interstate merger transaction could have established or acquired branches under applicable federal or state law. If a state opts out of interstate branching within the specified time period, no bank in any other state may establish a branch in the state which has opted out, whether through an acquisition or de novo.

However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the national branching requirements have been relaxed and national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state.

Both the OCC and Banking Department accept applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application

Table of Contents

made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other deposit facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary banks have taken significant actions to comply with the CRA, and each has received ratings ranging from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, IRS rules and other regulations, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction;

• to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions;

• to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;

• the designation of a compliance officer;

• an ongoing employee training program; and

• an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability

Table of Contents

Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial

Table of Contents

fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

The U. S. and global economies have experienced and are experiencing significant stress and disruptions in the financial sector. Dramatic slowdowns in the housing industry with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment have created strains on financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and investment banks. As a result, many financial institutions sought and continue to seek additional capital, merge or seek mergers with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, failed.

In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking and financial markets, in October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury (“the Treasury”) was authorized to purchase equity stakes in U. S. financial institutions. Under this program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions through the purchase of preferred stock or subordinated debentures by the Treasury. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock from publicly-held financial institutions, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the total amount of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program and were restricted from increasing dividends to common shareholders or repurchasing common stock for three years without the consent of the Treasury. The Company made a decision to not participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program due to its capital and liquidity positions.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act is intended to effect a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally creates a new independent federal regulator to administer federal consumer protection laws. The Dodd-Frank Act is expected to have a significant impact on our business operations as its provisions take effect. In addition to those provisions discussed above, among the provisions that are likely to affect us are the following:

Payment of Interest on Business Checking Accounts. Effective one year from the date of enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Table of Contents

Prohibition Against Charter Conversions of Troubled Institutions. Effective one year after enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a depository institution from converting from a state to federal charter or vice versa while it is the subject of a cease and desist order or other formal enforcement action or a memorandum of understanding with respect to a significant supervisory matter unless the appropriate federal banking agency gives notice of the conversion to the federal or state authority that issued the enforcement action and that agency does not object within 30 days. The notice must include a plan to address the significant supervisory matter. The converting institution must also file a copy of the conversion application with its current federal regulator which must notify the resulting federal regulator of any ongoing supervisory or investigative proceedings that are likely to result in an enforcement action and provide access to all supervisory and investigative information relating hereto.

Limits on Derivatives. Effective 18 months after enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits state-chartered banks from engaging in derivatives transactions unless the loans to one borrower limits of the state in which the bank is chartered takes into consideration credit exposure to derivatives transactions. For this purpose, derivative transaction includes any contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note or option that is based in whole or in part on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices or other assets.

Debit Card Interchange Fees. Effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.24 per transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule could affect the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB will have examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions will be subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but will continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB will have authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act will allow borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Basel Committee. On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee, announced agreement on the calibration and phase – in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as Basel III. Basel III increases the minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio to 4.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and introduces a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk – weighted assets, raising the target minimum common equity ratio to 7%. This capital conservation buffer also increases the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio from 6% to 8.5% and the minimum total capital ratio from 8% to 10.5%. In addition, Basel III introduces a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital for periods of excess credit growth. Basel III also introduces a non-risk adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3%, based on a measure of total exposure rather than total assets, and new liquidity standards. The Basel III capital and liquidity standards will be phased in over a multi-year period.

Table of Contents

The final package of Basel III reforms was submitted to the Seoul G20 Leaders Summit in November 2010 for endorsement by G20 leaders, and then will be subject to individual adoption by member nations, including the United States. The Federal Reserve will likely implement changes to the capital adequacy standards applicable to the Company and our subsidiary banks in light of Basel III.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You may read and copy any document we file at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other state and federal regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Through our wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary, First Financial Bankshares of Delaware, Inc., we own eleven banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. As of February 24, 2011, these subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas; • First Financial Bank, Hereford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells, Texas; • First Financial Bank, Huntsville, Texas; • First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and • First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiary banks, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our service centers are located primarily in North Central and West Texas. Considering the branches and locations of all our subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2010, we had 52 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, two locations in Cleburne, three locations in Stephenville, three locations in Granbury, two locations in San Angelo, three locations in Weatherford, and one location each in Mineral Wells, Hereford, Sweetwater, Eastland, Ranger, Rising Star, Southlake, Aledo, Willow Park, Brock, Alvarado, Burleson, Crowley, Keller, Trophy Club, Boyd, Bridgeport, Decatur, Roby, Trent, Merkel, Clyde, Moran, Albany, Midlothian, Glen Rose and Huntsville.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Accordingly, each of our eleven separately chartered banks operates with local boards of directors, local bank presidents and local decision-making. However, we have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which

Table of Contents

improves each of our subsidiary bank’s efficiency and frees management of our subsidiary banks to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, eleven charters” concept.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 24.8 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 18.8 percent from 2000-2009; nearly double the national rate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2000-2009*

Bridgeport and Wise County 21.8 % Fort Worth/Tarrant County 23.8 % Cleburne, Midlothian and Johnson County 23.8 % Weatherford, Willow Park and Aledo 29.9 % Granbury and Hood County 25.2 % Stephenville and Erath County 9.6 %

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We have also largely foregone the larger metropolitan areas of Texas. We believe our community approach way of doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown three ways: by growing our banks internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquisition of other banks. Since 1997, we have completed eleven bank acquisitions increasing total assets from $1.57 billion to $3.78 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we will continue to grow locally by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisitions by calling on banks that we would like to acquire, working with brokers and the FDIC.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the bank generally needs to be in the type of community that fits our profile. We like growing communities with good amenities — schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either around Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio or Austin or along the Interstate 35, 45 and 20 corridors in Texas. We might also consider the acquisition of banks in East Texas or the Texas Hill Country area. Banks in the $100 million to $500 million asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our existing Company.

We also own directly two subsidiaries, First Financial Investments, Inc. (which is dormant) and First Financial Investments of Delaware, Inc.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, with substantial authority in making decisions concerning their own loan decisions, interest rates, service charges and marketing. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management;

Table of Contents

• investments; • accounting; • budgeting; • training; • marketing; • planning; • risk management; • loan review; • human resources; • insurance; • capitalization; • regulatory compliance; and • internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our banks related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from subsidiary banks, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Each of our subsidiary banks is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Each of our subsidiary banks provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association. Through our trust company, we administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. We also offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. In addition, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo and First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that our banks must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our subsidiary banks compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than our subsidiary banks in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Table of Contents

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, and the loss of any one of which would not have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our subsidiary banks we may make loans to officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

With our subsidiary banks, we employed approximately 1,000 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2010. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiary banks.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliation between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, securities firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and

Table of Contents

securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. The OCC supervises, regulates and regularly examines:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland; • First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and • First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits, • restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Banking Commissioner of the State of Texas. The Commissioner regulates and supervises, and the Texas Banking Department regularly examines our two subsidiary state banks, First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville. The Commissioner’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

Table of Contents

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. Because First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville are non-member banks of the Federal Reserve, they are also regulated by the FDIC and are subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance

Each of our subsidiary banks is a member of the FDIC. The FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions. Until October 2008, the protection generally did not exceed $100,000 per depositor. Beginning in October 2008, the amount of protection was increased to $250,000, under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This increased protection to $250,000 was initially available only through December 31, 2009 but in 2010, the FDIC made this $250,000 protection permanent. The new regulations were also expanded whereby the protection for non interest bearing deposits was unlimited at institutions participating in the TLGP. This unlimited coverage for these non interest bearing accounts was also initially only available through December 31, 2009 but was extended until December 31, 2012. Non interest bearing deposits initially also included, by definition, certain Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts (NOW Accounts) with a maximum capped interest rate. Effective January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, the definition of non interest bearing was changed to no longer include NOW accounts.

Our subsidiary banks must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the deposit insurance fund) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose shortages in special assessments to cover the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). In the second quarter of 2009, the FDIC made a special assessment equal to 0.05 percent of total assets less Tier 1 Capital. The assessment totaled $1.4 million in the aggregate for our subsidiary banks, and was paid on September 30, 2009. As of December 31, 2010, the assessment rate for each of our subsidiary banks was at the lowest level risk-based premium available which was 0.12 percent of deposits per annum less applicable credits (with the exception of First Financial Bank, N.A., Southlake whose rate was 0.143 percent of deposits per annum, First Financial Bank, N.A., Stephenville whose rate was 0.125 percent of deposits per annum, First Financial Bank, N.A., Weatherford whose rate was 0.125 percent of deposits per annum and First Financial Bank, N.A., Cleburne whose rate was 0.125 percent of deposits per annum). In addition, we must pay an additional assessment of 0.10 percent per annum of the amount of noninterest bearing deposits, as defined, greater than $250,000. The FDIC also announced in 2009 the requirement of member banks to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. The Company’s prepayment amount totaled $11.6 million in the aggregate and is being expensed over a three year period based on future quarterly assessment calculations.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC also revised the deposit insurance assessment system, effective April 1, 2011, to base assessments on the average total consolidated assets of insured depository institutions during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period. Currently, only deposits are included in determining the premium paid by an institution. This base assessment change necessitated that the FDIC adjust the assessment rates to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system, will approximately equal that under the existing assessment system.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-

Table of Contents

receiver, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our Delaware holding company subsidiary. Similarly, the Delaware holding company subsidiary receives dividends from our banking and other subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiary banks pay dividends.

Each of our national bank subsidiaries is required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). First Financial Bank, Hereford and First Financial Bank, Huntsville, as Texas state banking associations, may not pay a dividend reducing its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Texas Banking Commission. In additional, the FDIC has the right to prohibit the payment of dividends by a state, non-member bank where the payment is deemed to be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $41.1 million in 2010 and approximately $37.8 million in 2009. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2010, our subsidiary banks could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $52.2 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary banks must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the regulatory authorities may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. No undercapitalized institution may pay a dividend.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our depository subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts.

Table of Contents

Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiary banks conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary banks to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary banks may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary banks make to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; • the subsidiary banks must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; and • the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the bank.

Furthermore, each subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2010, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.01%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 18.26%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 10.28%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific

Table of Contents

capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. Under current regulations, all of our subsidiary banks were “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2010.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Texas Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Texas Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. As of December 31, 2010, our two Texas-chartered banks exceeded the minimum ratios applied to them.

Our Support of Our Subsidiary Banks

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiary banks would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Table of Contents

Under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of a national bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require the bank’s shareholders to pay the deficiency on a pro-rata basis. If any shareholder refuses to pay the pro-rata assessment after three months notice, then the bank’s board of directors must sell an appropriate amount of the shareholder’s stock at a public auction to make up the deficiency. To the extent necessary, if a deficiency in capital still exists and the bank refuses to go into liquidation, then a receiver may be appointed to wind down the bank’s affairs. Additionally, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other banking subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Interstate Banking and Branching Act

Pursuant to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, or Riegle-Neal Act, a bank holding company or financial holding company is able to acquire banks in states other than its home state. The Riegle-Neal Act also authorized banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches. Furthermore, under this act, a bank is also able to open new branches in a state in which it does not already have banking operations, if the laws of such state permit it to do so. Accordingly, both the OCC and the Texas Banking Department accept applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other deposit facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding”, “Satisfactory”, “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary banks have taken significant actions to comply with the CRA, and each has received ratings ranging from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, IRS rules and other regulations, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction; • to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions; • to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and

Table of Contents

• to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; • the designation of a compliance officer; • an ongoing employee training program; and • an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Table of Contents

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Regulatory Reform and Legislation

The U. S. and global economies have experienced and are experiencing significant stress and disruptions in the financial sector. Dramatic slowdowns in the housing industry with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment have created strains on financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and investment banks. As a result, many financial institutions sought and continue to seek additional capital, merge or seek mergers with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, failed.

In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking and financial markets, in October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury (“the Treasury”) was authorized to purchase equity stakes in U. S. financial institutions. Under this program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions through the purchase of preferred stock or subordinated debentures by the Treasury. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock from publicly-held financial institutions, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the total amount of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program and were restricted from increasing dividends to common shareholders or repurchasing common stock for three years without the consent of the Treasury. The Company made a decision to not participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program due to its capital and liquidity positions.

Congress and the regulators for financial institutions have proposed and passed significant changes to the laws, rules and regulations governing financial institutions. Most recently, the House of Representatives and Senate passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) which the

Table of Contents

President has signed. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress and the financial institution regulators made other significant changes affecting many aspects of banking. These recent actions address many issues including capital, interchange fees, compliance and risk management, debit card interchange fees, overdraft fees, the establishment of a new consumer regulator, healthcare, incentive compensation, expanded disclosures and corporate governance. While many of the new regulations are for financial institutions with assets greater than $10 billion, we expect the new regulations to reduce our revenues and increase our expenses in the future. We are closely monitoring those actions to determine the appropriate response to comply and at the same time minimize the adverse effect on our banks.

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee, announced agreement on the calibration and phase — in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as Basel III. Basel III increases the minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio to 4.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and introduces a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk — weighted assets, raising the target minimum common equity ratio to 7%. This capital conservation buffer also increases the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio from 6% to 8.5% and the minimum total capital ratio from 8% to 10.5%. In addition, Basel III introduces a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital for periods of excess credit growth. Basel III also introduces a non-risk adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3%, based on a measure of total exposure rather than total assets, and new liquidity standards. The Basel III capital and liquidity standards will be phased in over a multi-year period. The final package of Basel III reforms was submitted to the Seoul G20 Leaders Summit in November 2010 for endorsement by G20 leaders, and then will be subject to individual adoption by member nations, including the United States. The Federal Reserve will likely implement changes to the capital adequacy standards applicable to the Company and our subsidiary banks in light of Basel III.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You may read and copy any document we file at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other state and federal regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Through our wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary, First Financial Bankshares of Delaware, Inc., we own ten banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. These subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas; • First Financial Bank, Hereford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells, Texas; • First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and • First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiary banks, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our service centers are located primarily in North Central and West Texas. Considering the branches and locations of all our subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2009, we had 48 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, two locations in Cleburne, three locations in Stephenville, three locations in Granbury, two locations in San Angelo, three locations in Weatherford, and one location each in Mineral Wells, Hereford, Sweetwater, Eastland, Ranger, Rising Star, Southlake, Aledo, Willow Park, Brock, Alvarado, Burleson, Keller, Trophy Club, Boyd, Bridgeport, Decatur, Roby, Trent, Merkel, Clyde, Moran, Albany, Midlothian and Glen Rose.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Accordingly, each of our ten separately chartered banks operates with local boards of directors, local bank presidents and local decision-making. However, we have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves each of our subsidiary bank’s efficiency and frees management of our subsidiary banks to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, ten charters” concept.

In the past, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With approximately 24.3 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 16.7 percent from 2000-2008; nearly

Table of Contents

double the national rate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2000-2008*

Bridgeport and Wise County 19.9 % Fort Worth/Tarrant County 21.0 % Cleburne, Midlothian and Johnson County 21.1 % Weatherford, Willow Park and Aledo 26.3 % Granbury and Hood County 23.0 % Stephenville and Erath County 8.7 %

* Source: U. S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution.

We have also largely foregone the larger metropolitan areas of Texas. We believe our “community matters” way of doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown three ways: by growing our banks internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquisition of other banks. Since the beginning of 1997, we have completed ten bank acquisitions and doubled total assets from $1.57 billion to $3.28 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Looking ahead, we will continue to grow locally by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively pursuing acquisitions by calling on banks that we would like to acquire, working with brokers and the FDIC.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the bank generally needs to be in the type of community that fits our profile. We like growing communities with good amenities – schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either within a 50-mile radius of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex or along the Interstate 35, 45 and 20 corridors in Texas. We also have an affinity in banks in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks in the $100 million to $300 million asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our existing Company.

We also own directly two subsidiaries, First Financial Investments, Inc. (which is dormant) and First Financial Investments of Delaware, Inc.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, with substantial authority in making decisions concerning their own loan decisions, interest rates, service charges and marketing. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management; • investments; • accounting; • budgeting; • training;

Table of Contents

• marketing; • planning; • risk management; • loan review; • human resources; • insurance; • capitalization; • regulatory compliance; and • internal audit.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our banks related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from subsidiary banks, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Each of our subsidiary banks is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Each of our subsidiary banks provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, remote deposit capture, internet banking, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association. Through our trust company, we administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. We also offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. In addition, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo and First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that our banks must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our subsidiary banks compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than our subsidiary banks in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, the loss of any one of which would have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our subsidiary banks we may make loans to officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including

Table of Contents

interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

With our subsidiary banks, we employed approximately 950 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2009. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiary banks.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliation between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, securities firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Table of Contents

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. The OCC supervises, regulates and regularly examines:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland; • First Financial Bank, National Association, San Angelo; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Weatherford; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and • First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits, • restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Banking Commissioner of the State of Texas. The Commissioner regulates and supervises, and the Texas Banking Department regularly examines our one subsidiary state bank, First Financial Bank, Hereford. The Commissioner’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. Because First Financial Bank, Hereford is a non-member bank, it is also regulated by the FDIC and is subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Table of Contents

Deposit Insurance

Each of our subsidiary banks is a member of the FDIC. The FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions. Until October 2008, the protection generally did not exceed $100,000 per depositor. Beginning in October 2008, the amount of protection was increased to $250,000, under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This increased protection to $250,000 was initially available only through December 31, 2009 but was extended through December 31, 2013. The new regulations were also expanded whereby the protection for non interest bearing deposits was unlimited at institutions participating in the TLGP. This unlimited coverage for these non interest bearing accounts was also initially only available through December 31, 2009 but was extended until June 30, 2010. Non interest bearing deposits include, by definition, certain Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts (NOW Accounts) with interest rates no higher than 0.50 percent. All of our subsidiary banks elected to participate in the TLGP.

Our subsidiary banks must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the deposit insurance fund) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover the costs of borrowings from the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank and the Deposit Insurance Fund member banks. In the second quarter of 2009, the FDIC made a special assessment equal to 0.05 percent of total assets less Tier 1 Capital. The assessment totaled $1.4 million in the aggregate for our subsidiary banks, and was paid on September 30, 2009. As of December 31, 2009, the assessment rate for each of our subsidiary banks was at the lowest level risk-based premium available which was 0.12 percent of deposits per annum less applicable credits (with the exception of First Financial Bank, N.A., Southlake whose rate was 0.141 percent of deposits per annum and First Financial Bank, N.A., Stephenville whose rate was 0.124 percent of deposits per annum). In addition, we must pay an additional assessment of 0.10 percent per annum of the amount of noninterest bearing deposits, as defined, greater than $250,000. The FDIC also announced in 2009 the requirement of member banks to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly assessments for 2010, 2011 and 2012, including a three basis point increase in premium rates for 2011 and 2012. The Company’s prepayment amount totaled $11.6 million in the aggregate and will be expensed over a three year period based on future quarterly assessment calculations.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries “in danger of default.” “Default” is defined generally as the appointment of a conservator or receiver, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our Delaware holding company subsidiary. Similarly, the Delaware holding company subsidiary receives dividends from our banking and other subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiary banks pay dividends.

Each of our national bank subsidiaries is required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1)

Table of Contents

such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). First Financial Bank, Hereford, as a Texas state banking association, may not pay a dividend reducing its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Texas Banking Commission. In additional, the FDIC has the right to prohibit the payment of dividends by a state, non-member bank where the payment is deemed to be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $37.8 million in 2009 and approximately $39.7 million in 2008. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2009, our subsidiary banks could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $40.6 million from retained net profits, without obtaining regulatory approvals.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary banks must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. No undercapitalized institution may pay a dividend.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our depository subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiary banks conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary banks to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary banks may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary banks make to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks;

Table of Contents

• the subsidiary banks must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; and • the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the bank.

Furthermore, each subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2009, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.73%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 18.99%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 10.69%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. Under current regulations, all of our subsidiary banks were “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2009.

Table of Contents

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Texas Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Texas Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. As of December 31, 2009, our Texas-chartered bank exceeded the minimum ratios applied to it.

Our Support of Our Subsidiary Banks

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiary banks would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of a national bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require the bank’s shareholders to pay the deficiency on a pro-rata basis. If any shareholder refuses to pay the pro-rata assessment after three months notice, then the bank’s board of directors must sell an appropriate amount of the shareholder’s stock at a public auction to make up the deficiency. To the extent necessary, if a deficiency in capital still exists and the bank refuses to go into liquidation, then a receiver may be appointed to wind down the bank’s affairs. Additionally, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other banking subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Interstate Banking and Branching Act

Pursuant to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, or Riegle-Neal Act, a bank holding company or financial holding company is able to acquire banks in states other than its home state. The Riegle-Neal Act also authorized banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches. Furthermore, under this act, a bank is also able to open new branches in a state in which it does not already have banking operations, if the laws of such state permit it to do so. Accordingly, both the OCC and the Texas Banking Department accept applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding

Table of Contents

company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other deposit facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding”, “Satisfactory”, “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary banks have taken significant actions to comply with the CRA, and each has received ratings ranging from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, IRS rules and other regulations, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction; • to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions; • to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and • to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; • the designation of a compliance officer; • an ongoing employee training program; and • an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-

Table of Contents

Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary

Table of Contents

policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Pending and Proposed Legislation

New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed containing wide-ranging proposals for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions operating in the United States. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected by any new regulation or statute.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Recent Developments

The U. S. and global economies have experienced and are experiencing significant stress and disruptions in the financial sector. Dramatic slowdowns in the housing industry with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment have created strains on financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and investment banks. As a result, many financial institutions sought and continue to seek additional capital, merge or seek mergers with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, failed.

In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking and financial markets, in October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury (“the Treasury”) has the authority to, among other things, purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U. S. financial markets.

In addition, the Treasury was authorized to purchase equity stakes in U. S. financial institutions. Under this program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), from the $700 billion authorized by the EESA, the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions through the purchase of preferred stock or subordinated debentures by the Treasury. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock from publicly-held financial institutions, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the total amount of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program and were restricted from increasing dividends to common shareholders or repurchasing common stock for three years without the consent of the Treasury.

Further, after receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury signed the systemic risk exception to the FDIC Act, enabling the FDIC to temporarily provide a 100% guarantee of the senior debt of all FDIC-insured institutions and their holding companies, as well as deposits in non- interest bearing transaction deposit accounts under the TLGP. Coverage under the TLGP was available for 30 days without charge and thereafter at a cost of 75 basis points per annum for senior unsecured debt and 10 basis points per annum for non-interest bearing transaction deposits above the deposit insurance limit.

The Company made a decision to not participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program due to its capital and liquidity positions. The Company opted out of the debt guarantee portion of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program but decided to be included in the non-interest bearing deposit account guarantee portion.

Table of Contents

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You may read and copy any document we file at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc., a Texas corporation, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or BHCA. As such, we are supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve Board, as well as several other state and federal regulators. We were formed as a bank holding company in 1956 under the original name F & M Operating Company, but our banking operations date back to 1890, when Farmers and Merchants National Bank opened for business in Abilene, Texas. Through our wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary, First Financial Bankshares of Delaware, Inc., we own ten banks, a trust company, a technology operating company, and an insurance agency, all organized and located in Texas. These subsidiaries are:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, Texas; • Hereford State Bank, Hereford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville, Texas; • San Angelo National Bank, San Angelo, Texas; • Weatherford National Bank, Weatherford, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake, Texas; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells, Texas; • First Technology Services, Inc., Abilene, Texas; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association, Abilene, Texas; and • First Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., Abilene, Texas.

Through our subsidiary banks, we conduct a full-service commercial banking business. Our service centers are located primarily in North Central and West Texas. Considering the branches and locations of all our subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2008, we had 48 financial centers across Texas, with ten locations in Abilene, two locations in Cleburne, three locations in Stephenville, three locations in Granbury, two locations in San Angelo, three locations in Weatherford, and one location each in Mineral Wells, Hereford, Sweetwater, Eastland, Ranger, Rising Star, Southlake, Aledo, Willow Park, Brock, Alvarado, Burleson, Keller, Trophy Club, Boyd, Bridgeport, Decatur, Roby, Trent, Merkel, Clyde, Moran, Albany, Midlothian and Glen Rose.

Even though we operate in a growing number of Texas markets, we continue to believe that decisions are best made at the local level. Accordingly, each of our ten separately chartered banks operates with local boards of directors, local bank presidents and local decision-making. However, we have consolidated many of the backroom operations, such as investment securities, accounting, check processing, technology and employee benefits, which improves each of our subsidiary bank’s efficiency and frees management of our subsidiary banks to concentrate on serving the banking needs of their local communities. We call this our “one bank, ten charters” concept.

Although many of our competitors branch across state lines, we have chosen to keep our Company focused on the State of Texas, one of the nation’s largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states. With nearly 23 million residents, Texas has more people than any other state except California. The population of Texas grew 12.7 percent from 2000-2006, nearly double the national rate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of the communities in which we operate are growing faster than the statewide average, as shown below:

Population Growth 2000-2006*

Bridgeport and Wise County 18.6 % Fort Worth/Tarrant County 15.6 % Cleburne, Midlothian and Johnson County 17.5 % Weatherford, Willow Park and Aledo 20.1 % Granbury and Hood County 19.8 %

* Source: U.S. Census Bureau

These economies include dynamic centers of higher education, agriculture, energy and natural resources, healthcare, tourism, retirement living, manufacturing and distribution. Because there are many growth opportunities in Texas, we do not believe it is necessary to look outside the state. Additionally, we prefer to focus on the areas where we have historically done business: the economies in the North Central, West and High Plains regions of Texas.

We have also largely foregone the larger metropolitan areas of Texas. We believe our “community matters” way of doing business works best for us in small and mid-size markets, where we can play a prominent role in the economic, civic and cultural life of the community. Our goal is to serve these communities well and to experience growth as these markets continue to expand. In many instances, banking competition is also less intense in smaller markets, making it easier for us to operate rationally and attract and retain high-caliber employees who prefer not only our community-banker concept but the high quality of life in smaller cities.

Over the years, we have grown three ways: by growing our banks internally, by opening new branch locations and by acquisition of other banks. Since the beginning of 1997, we have completed ten bank acquisitions and doubled total assets from $1.57 billion to $3.21 billion. We have also established a trust and asset management company and a technology services company, both of which operate as subsidiaries of First Financial Bankshares. Looking ahead, we will continue to grow locally by better serving the needs of our customers and putting them first in all of our decisions. We continually look for new branch locations, so we can provide more convenient service to our customers, and we are actively cultivating relationships with other Texas bankers who may have an interest in being acquired by us at some point in the future.

When targeting a bank for acquisition, the bank generally needs to be in the type of community that fits our profile. We like growing communities with good amenities — schools, infrastructure, commerce and lifestyle. We prefer non-metropolitan markets, either within a 50-mile radius of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex or along the Interstate 35 and 20 corridors in Texas. We also have an affinity in banks in East Texas and the Texas Hill Country area. Banks in the $100 million to $300 million asset size fit our “sweet spot” for acquisition, but we will consider banks that are larger or smaller, or that are in other areas of Texas if we believe they would be a good fit for our existing Company.

We also own directly two subsidiaries, First Financial Investments, Inc. (which is dormant) and First Financial Investments of Delaware, Inc., which owns our airplane.

Information on our revenues, profits and losses and total assets appears in the discussion of our Results of Operations contained in Item 7 hereof.

First Financial Bankshares, Inc.

We provide management and technical resources and policy direction to our subsidiaries, which enable them to improve or expand their banking services while continuing their local activity and identity. Each of our subsidiaries operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers, with substantial authority in making decisions concerning their own loan decisions, interest rates, service charges and marketing. We provide resources and policy direction in, among other things, the following areas:

• asset and liability management; • investments; • accounting; • budgeting; • training;

• marketing; • planning; • risk management; • loan review; • human resources; • insurance; • capitalization; and • regulatory compliance.

In particular, we assist our subsidiaries with, among other things, decisions concerning major capital expenditures, employee fringe benefits, including retirement plans and group medical, dividend policies, and appointment of officers and directors and their compensation. We also perform, through corporate staff groups or by outsourcing to third parties, internal audits, compliance oversight and loan reviews of our subsidiaries. We provide advice and specialized services for our banks related to lending, investing, purchasing, advertising, public relations, and computer services.

We evaluate various potential financial institution acquisition opportunities and approve potential locations for new branch offices. We anticipate that funding for any acquisitions or expansions would be provided from our existing cash balances, available dividends from subsidiary banks, utilization of available lines of credit and future debt or equity offerings.

Each of our subsidiary banks is a separate legal entity that operates under the day-to-day management of its own board of directors and officers. Each of our subsidiary banks provides general commercial banking services, which include accepting and holding checking, savings and time deposits, making loans, automated teller machines, drive-in and night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, transmitting funds, and performing other customary commercial banking services. We also conduct full service trust activities through First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association. Through our trust company, we administer all types of retirement and employee benefit accounts, which include 401(k) profit sharing plans and IRAs. We also offer personal trust services, which include the administration of estates, testamentary trusts, revocable and irrevocable trusts and agency accounts. In addition, First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene, San Angelo National Bank and Weatherford National Bank provide securities brokerage services through arrangements with an unrelated third party.

Commercial banking in Texas is highly competitive, and because we hold less than 1% of the state’s deposits, we represent only a minor segment of the industry. To succeed in this industry, we believe that our banks must have the capability to compete effectively in the areas of (1) interest rates paid or charged; (2) scope of services offered; and (3) prices charged for such services. Our subsidiary banks compete in their respective service areas against highly competitive banks, thrifts, savings and loan associations, small loan companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and brokerage firms, all of which are engaged in providing financial products and services and some of which are larger than our subsidiary banks in terms of capital, resources and personnel.

Our business does not depend on any single customer or any few customers, the loss of any one of which would have a materially adverse effect upon our business. Although we have a broad base of customers that are not related to us, our customers also occasionally include our officers and directors, as well as other entities with which we are affiliated. Through our subsidiary banks we may make loans to officers and directors, and entities with which we are affiliated, in the ordinary course of business. We make these loans on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Loans to directors, officers and their affiliates are also subject to numerous restrictions under federal and state banking laws, which we describe in greater detail below.

With our subsidiary banks we employed approximately 1,000 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2008. Our management believes that our employee relations have been and will continue to be good.

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies, financial holding companies and banks. These laws (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) are primarily intended to protect depositors and the deposit insurance fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. The following information describes particular laws and regulatory provisions relating to financial holding companies and banks. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular laws and regulatory provisions. A change in any of these laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and the business of our subsidiary banks.

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies

Historically, the activities of bank holding companies were limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies were generally prohibited from acquiring control of any company that was not a bank and from engaging in any business other than the business of banking or managing and controlling banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which took effect on March 12, 2000, dismantled many Depression-era restrictions against affiliation between banking, securities and insurance firms by permitting bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities, so long as certain safeguards are observed. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become “financial holding companies” that may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. Thus, with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks, securities firms and insurance companies find it easier to acquire or affiliate with each other and cross-sell financial products. The Act permits a single financial services organization to offer a more complete array of financial products and services than historically was permitted.

A financial holding company is essentially a bank holding company with significantly expanded powers. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in addition to traditional lending activities, the following activities are among those that are deemed “financial in nature” for financial holding companies: securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, activities which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be closely related to banking, and certain merchant banking activities.

We elected to become a financial holding company in September 2001. As a financial holding company, we have very broad discretion to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies, make merchant banking investments, and engage in other activities that the Federal Reserve Board has deemed financial in nature. In order to continue as a financial holding company, we must continue to be well-capitalized, well-managed and maintain compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Depending on the types of financial activities that we may elect to engage in, under Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s functional regulation principles, we may become subject to supervision by additional government agencies. The election to be treated as a financial holding company increases our ability to offer financial products and services that historically we were either unable to provide or were only able to provide on a limited basis. As a result, we will face increased competition in the markets for any new financial products and services that we may offer. Likewise, an increased amount of consolidation among banks and securities firms or banks and insurance firms could result in a growing number of large financial institutions that could compete aggressively with us.

Mergers and Acquisitions

We generally must obtain approval from the banking regulators before we can acquire other financial institutions. We may not engage in certain acquisitions if we are undercapitalized. Furthermore, the BHCA provides that the Federal Reserve Board cannot approve any acquisition, merger or consolidation that may substantially lessen competition in the banking industry, create a monopoly in any section of the country, or be a restraint of trade. However, the Federal Reserve Board may approve such a transaction if the convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Board would consider, among other factors, the expected benefits to the public (greater convenience, increased competition, greater efficiency, etc.) against the risks of possible adverse effects (undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, etc.).

Banks

Federal and state laws and regulations that govern banks have the effect of, among other things, regulating the scope of business, investments, cash reserves, the purpose and nature of loans, the maximum interest rate chargeable on loans, the amount of dividends declared, and required capitalization ratios.

National Banking Associations. Banks organized as national banking associations under the National Bank Act are subject to regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC. The OCC supervises, regulates and regularly examines:

• First Financial Bank, National Association, Abilene; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Sweetwater; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Cleburne; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Eastland; • San Angelo National Bank; • Weatherford National Bank; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Southlake; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Stephenville; • First Financial Bank, National Association, Mineral Wells; • First Financial Trust & Asset Management Company, National Association; and • First Technology Services, Inc.

The OCC’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily intended to protect the interests of depositors. The National Bank Act:

• requires each national banking association to maintain reserves against deposits, • restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

State Banks. Banks that are organized as state banks under Texas law are subject to regulation and examination by the Banking Commissioner of the State of Texas. The Commissioner regulates and supervises, and the Texas Banking Department regularly examines our one subsidiary state bank, Hereford State Bank. The Commissioner’s supervision and regulation of banks is primarily designed to protect the interests of depositors. Texas law:

• restricts the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged, and • restricts investments and other activities.

State banks are also subject to regulation by either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board, at the federal level. Because Hereford State Bank is a non-member bank, it is regulated at the federal level by the FDIC and is subject to most of the federal laws described below.

Deposit Insurance

Each of our subsidiary banks is a member of the FDIC. The FDIC provides deposit insurance protection that covers all deposit accounts in FDIC-insured depository institutions. Until October 2008, the protection generally did not exceed $100,000 per depositor. Beginning in October 2008, the amount of protection was increased to $250,000, under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This increased protection is available only through December 31, 2009 although we understand there are legislative proposals to extend this level of protection permanently. The new regulations were subsequently expanded whereby the protection for non interest bearing deposits is unlimited at institutions participating in the TLGP. Non interest bearing deposits include, by definition, certain Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts (NOW Accounts) with interest rates no higher than 0.50 percent. All of our subsidiary banks elected to participate in the TLGP.

Our subsidiary banks must pay assessments to the FDIC under a risk-based assessment system for this federal deposit insurance protection. FDIC-insured depository institutions that are members of the Bank Insurance Fund pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher risk classifications (i.e., institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to the deposit insurance fund) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions assigned to lower risk classifications. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to bank regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments to cover the costs of borrowings from the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank and the Deposit Insurance Fund member banks. As of December 31, 2008, the assessment rate for each of our subsidiary banks was at the lowest level risk-based premium available which was 0.05 percent of deposits per annum (with the exception of First Financial Bank, N.A., Southlake whose rate was 0.056 percent of deposits per annum). Effective for the first quarter of 2009, this rate increased to 0.12 percent per annum decreasing to 0.10 per annum for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2009, subject to change. In addition, we must pay an additional assessment of 0.10 percent per annum of amount of noninterest bearing deposits, as defined, greater than $250,000. See Recent Developments below.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or FIRREA, an FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any losses incurred by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to one of its FDIC-insured subsidiaries “in danger of default.” “Default” is defined generally as the appointment of a conservator or receiver, and “in danger of default” is defined generally as the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, requires that the FDIC review (1) any merger or consolidation by or with an insured bank, or (2) any establishment of branches by an insured bank. The FDIC is also empowered to regulate interest rates paid by insured banks. Approval of the FDIC is also required before an insured bank retires any part of its common or preferred stock, or any capital notes or debentures.

Payment of Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. We receive most of our revenue from dividends paid to us by our Delaware holding company subsidiary. Similarly, the Delaware holding company subsidiary receives dividends from our banking and other subsidiaries. Described below are some of the laws and regulations that apply when either we or our subsidiary banks pay dividends.

Each of our national bank subsidiaries is required by federal law to obtain the prior approval of the OCC to declare and pay dividends if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of (1) such bank’s net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for that year plus (2) its retained net profits (as defined and interpreted by regulation) for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. In addition, these banks may only pay dividends to the extent that retained net profits (including the portion transferred to surplus) exceed bad debts (as defined by regulation). Hereford State Bank, as a Texas state banking association, may not pay a dividend reducing its capital and surplus without the prior approval of the Texas Banking Commission. In additional, the FDIC has the right to prohibit the payment of dividends by a state, non-member bank where the payment is deemed to be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Our subsidiaries paid aggregate dividends of approximately $39.7 million in 2008 and approximately $42.3 million in 2007. Under the dividend restrictions discussed above, as of December 31, 2008, our subsidiary banks, without obtaining regulatory approvals, could have declared in the aggregate additional dividends of approximately $32.4 million from retained net profits.

To pay dividends, we and our subsidiary banks must maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if the applicable regulatory authority believes that a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), the authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from the unsafe practice. The FDIC and the OCC have each indicated paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have issued policy statements that recommend that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends to the extent net income is sufficient to cover both cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention consistent with capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. No undercapitalized institution may pay a dividend.

Affiliate Transactions

The Federal Reserve Act, the FDIA and the rules adopted under these statutes restrict the extent to which we can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from, or engage in certain other transactions with, our depository subsidiaries. These laws regulate “covered transactions” between insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and their nondepository affiliates, on the other hand. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit to a nondepository affiliate, a purchase of securities issued by such an affiliate, a purchase of assets from such an affiliate (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board), an acceptance of securities issued by such an affiliate as collateral for a loan, and an issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit for the benefit of such an affiliate. The “covered transactions” that an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries are permitted to engage in with their nondepository affiliates are limited to the following amounts: (1) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed ten percent of the capital stock and the surplus of the insured depository institution; and (2) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of “covered transactions” cannot exceed twenty percent of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. In addition, extensions of credit that constitute “covered transactions” must be collateralized in prescribed amounts. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Finally, when we and our subsidiary banks conduct transactions internally among us, we are required to do so at arm’s length.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of our subsidiary banks to extend credit to our directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O promulgated thereunder, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These statutes and regulations impose specific limits on the amount of loans our subsidiary banks may make to directors and other insiders, and specified approval procedures must be followed in making loans that exceed certain amounts. In addition, all loans our subsidiary banks make to directors and other insiders must satisfy the following requirements:

• the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; • the subsidiary banks must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with us or the subsidiary banks; and • the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the bank.

Furthermore, each subsidiary bank must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators, and these loans are closely scrutinized by the regulators for compliance with Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O. Each loan to directors or other insiders must be pre-approved by the bank’s board of directors with the interested director abstaining from voting.

Capital

Bank Holding Companies and Financial Holding Companies. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. The ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) must be a minimum of eight percent. At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common shareholders’ equity, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and a limited amount of perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill, which is collectively referred to as Tier 1 Capital. The remainder of total capital may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and financial holding companies. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating, must maintain a minimum Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to average assets for the current quarter, less goodwill) of three percent. Bank holding companies and financial holding companies that do not have the highest regulatory rating will generally be required to maintain a higher Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio of three percent plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies and financial holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions. Such strong capital positions must be kept substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets (e.g., goodwill and core deposit intangibles). As of December 31, 2008, our capital ratios were as follows: (1) Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 15.89%; (2) Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio, 17.04%; and (3) Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio, 9.68%.

Banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, established five capital tiers with respect to depository institutions: “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon where its capital levels are in relation to various relevant capital measures, including (1) risk-based capital measures, (2) a leverage ratio capital measure and (3) certain other factors. Regulations establishing the specific capital tiers provide that a “well-capitalized” institution will have a total risk-based capital ratio of ten percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of six percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of five percent or greater, and not be subject to any written regulatory enforcement agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action derivative. For an institution to be “adequately capitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio of eight percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of four percent or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of four percent or greater (in some cases three percent). For an institution to be “undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than eight percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than four percent or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than four percent (or a leverage ratio less than three percent if the institution’s composite rating is 1 in its most recent report of examination, subject to appropriate federal banking agency guidelines). For an institution to be “significantly undercapitalized,” it will have a total risk-based capital ratio less than six percent, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio less than three percent, or a Tier 1 leverage ratio less than three percent. For an institution to be “critically undercapitalized,” it will have a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than two percent. FDICIA requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” against depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. Under current regulations, all of our subsidiary banks were “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2008.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that institution’s compliance with such plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the institution’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over

the parent’s general unsecured creditors. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it shall be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Finally, FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to set forth certain standards that do not relate to capital. Such standards relate to the safety and soundness of operations and management and to asset quality and executive compensation, and permit regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

If an insured bank fails to meet its capital guidelines, it may be subject to a variety of other enforcement remedies, including a prohibition on the taking of brokered deposits and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. Bank regulators continue to indicate their desire to raise capital requirements beyond their current levels.

In addition to FDICIA capital standards, Texas-chartered banks must also comply with the capital requirements imposed by the Texas Banking Department. Neither the Texas Finance Code nor its regulations specify any minimum capital-to-assets ratio that must be maintained by a Texas-chartered bank. Instead, the Texas Banking Department determines the appropriate ratio on a bank by bank basis, considering factors such as the nature of a bank’s business, its total revenue, and the bank’s total assets. As of December 31, 2008, our Texas-chartered bank exceeded the minimum ratios applied to it.

Our Support of Our Subsidiary Banks

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, we are expected to commit resources to act as a source of strength to support each of our subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we would not otherwise be required to provide it. In addition, any loans we make to our subsidiary banks would be subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to other indebtedness of our banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be subject to a priority of payment.

Under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of a national bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require the bank’s shareholders to pay the deficiency on a pro-rata basis. If any shareholder refuses to pay the pro-rata assessment after three months notice, then the bank’s board of directors must sell an appropriate amount of the shareholder’s stock at a public auction to make up the deficiency. To the extent necessary, if a deficiency in capital still exists and the bank refuses to go into liquidation, then a receiver may be appointed to wind up the bank’s affairs. Additionally, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC (either as a result of the default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to a subsidiary in danger of default) our other banking subsidiaries may be assessed for the FDIC’s loss.

Interstate Banking and Branching Act

Pursuant to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, or Riegle-Neal Act, a bank holding company or financial holding company is able to acquire banks in states other than its home state. The Riegle-Neal Act also authorized banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches. Furthermore, under this act, a bank is also able to open new branches in a state in which it does not already have banking operations, if the laws of such state permit it to do so. Accordingly, both the OCC and the Texas Banking Department accept applications for interstate merger and branching transactions, subject to certain limitations on ages of the banks to be acquired and the total amount of deposits within the state a bank or financial holding company may control. Since our primary service area is Texas, we do not expect that the ability to operate in other states will have any material impact on our growth strategy. We may, however, face increased competition from out-of-state banks that branch or make acquisitions in our primary markets in Texas.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, subjects a bank to regulatory assessment to determine if the institution meets the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods served by the bank, and to take that determination into account in its evaluation of any application made by such bank for, among other things, approval of the acquisition or establishment of a branch or other deposit facility, an office relocation, a merger, or the acquisition of shares of capital stock of another financial institution. The regulatory authority prepares a written evaluation of an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community and assigns a rating. These ratings are “Outstanding”, “Satisfactory”, “Needs Improvement” and “Substantial Non-Compliance.” Institutions with ratings lower than “Satisfactory” may be restricted from engaging in the aforementioned activities. We believe our subsidiary banks have taken significant actions to comply with the CRA, and each has received ratings ranging from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” in its most recent review by federal regulators with respect to its compliance with the CRA.

Monitoring and Reporting Suspicious Activity

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, IRS rules and other regulations, we are required to monitor and report unusual or suspicious account activity as well as transactions involving the transfer or withdrawal of amounts in excess of prescribed limits. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with financial institutions and foreign customers. For example, the enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls generally require financial institutions to take reasonable steps:

• to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transaction; • to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, each account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions; • to ascertain for any foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner; and • to ascertain whether any foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, financial institutions are also required to establish anti-money laundering programs. The USA PATRIOT Act sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

• the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; • the designation of a compliance officer; • an ongoing employee training program; and • an independent audit function to test the programs.

In addition, under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has adopted rules addressing a number of related issues, including increasing the cooperation and information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement authorities regarding individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. Any financial institution complying with these rules will not be deemed to violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that are discussed below. Finally, under the regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, we are required to monitor and block transactions with certain “specially designated nationals” who OFAC has determined pose a risk to U.S. national security.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the following list is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender or other designated characteristics and mandate various disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. These and other laws also limit finance charges or other fees or charges earned in our activities. We must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of our ongoing customer relations.

Technology Risk Management and Consumer Privacy

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision in evaluating the safety and soundness of depository institutions with respect to banks that contract with outside vendors to provide data processing and core banking functions. The use of technology-related products, services, delivery channels and processes exposes a bank to various risks, particularly operational, privacy, security, strategic, reputation and compliance risk. Banks are generally expected to prudently manage technology-related risks as part of their comprehensive risk management policies by identifying, measuring, monitoring and controlling risks associated with the use of technology.

Under Section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal banking agencies have established appropriate standards for financial institutions regarding the implementation of safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protection against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protection against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information in a way that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. Among other matters, the rules require each bank to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards relating to customer information.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a financial institution must also provide its customers with a notice of privacy policies and practices. Section 502 prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a customer to nonaffiliated third parties unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements and the customer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Under Section 504, the agencies are authorized to issue regulations as necessary to implement notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution’s ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about customers to nonaffiliated third parties. Under the final rule the regulators adopted, all banks must develop initial and annual privacy notices which describe in general terms the bank’s information sharing practices. Banks that share nonpublic personal information about customers with nonaffiliated third parties must also provide customers with an opt-out notice and a reasonable period of time for the customer to opt out of any such disclosure (with certain exceptions). Limitations are placed on the extent to which a bank can disclose an account number or access code for credit card, deposit or transaction accounts to any nonaffiliated third party for use in marketing.

Monetary Policy

Banks are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, that affect the national supply of credit. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Pending and Proposed Legislation

New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed containing wide-ranging proposals for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions operating in the United States. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected by any new regulation or statute.

Enforcement Powers of Federal Banking Agencies

The Federal Reserve and other state and federal banking agencies and regulators have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, issue cease-and-desist orders, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and other regulatory pronouncements could subject us, as well as our officers and directors, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil penalties.

Recent Developments

The U. S. and global economies have experienced and are experiencing significant stress and disruptions in the financial sector. Dramatic slowdowns in the housing industry with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment have created strains on financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and investment banks. As a result, many financial institutions have sought and continue to seek additional capital, to merge with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, to fail.

In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking and financial markets, in October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury (“the Treasury”) has the authority to, among other things, purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U. S. financial markets.

In addition, the Treasury was authorized to purchase equity stakes in U. S. financial institutions. Under this program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), from the $700 billion authorized by the EESA, the Treasury is making $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions through the purchase of preferred stock or subordinated debentures by the Treasury. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock from publicly-held financial institutions, the Treasury is receiving warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the total amount of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions are required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program and are restricted from increasing dividends to common shareholders or repurchasing common stock for three years without the consent of the Treasury.

Further, after receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury signed the systemic risk exception to the FDIC Act, enabling the FDIC to temporarily provide a 100% guarantee of the senior debt of all FDIC-insured institutions and their holding companies, as well as deposits in non- interest bearing transaction deposit accounts under the TLGP. Coverage under the TLGP was available for 30 days without charge and thereafter at a cost of 75 basis points per annum for senior unsecured debt and 10 basis points per annum for non-interest bearing transaction deposits above the deposit insurance limit.

The Company made a decision to not participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program due to its capital and liquidity positions. The Company opted out of the debt guarantee portion of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program but decided to be included in the non-interest bearing deposit account guarantee portion.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You may read and copy any document we file at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the Securities

and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. Our web site is http://www.ffin.com. You may also obtain copies of our annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and certain other information filed with the SEC, as well as amendments thereto, free of charge from our web site. These documents are posted to our web site after we have filed them with the SEC. Our corporate governance guidelines, including our code of conduct applicable to all our employees, officers and directors, as well as the charters of our audit and nominating committees, are available at www.ffin.com. The foregoing information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Except as explicitly provided, information on any web site is not incorporated into this Form 10-K or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.