pb-10k_20161231.htm

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment of this Form 10-K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the shares of common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2016, based on the closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2016 was approximately $3.37 billion.

As of February 23, 2017, the number of outstanding shares of common stock was 69,478,062.

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2016, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.^®, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), was formed in 1983 as a vehicle to acquire the former Allied Bank in Edna, Texas, which was chartered in 1949 as The First National Bank of Edna and is now known as Prosperity Bank. The Company is a registered financial holding company that derives substantially all of its revenues and income from the operation of its bank subsidiary, Prosperity Bank^® (“Prosperity Bank^®” or the “Bank”). The Bank provides a wide array of financial products and services to small and medium-sized businesses and consumers. As of December 31, 2016, the Bank operated 245 full service banking locations; 65 in the Houston area, including The Woodlands; 29 in the South Texas area, including Corpus Christi and Victoria; 36 in the Dallas/Fort Worth area; 22 in the East Texas area; 29 in the Central Texas area, including Austin and San Antonio; 34 in the West Texas area, including Lubbock, Midland-Odessa and Abilene; 16 in the Bryan/College Station area, 6 in the Central Oklahoma area and 8 in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area. The Company’s principal executive office is located at Prosperity Bank Plaza, 4295 San Felipe in Houston, Texas and its telephone number is (713) 693-9300. The Company’s website address is www.prosperitybankusa.com.

The Company’s market consists of the communities served by its banking centers. The diverse nature of the economies in each local market served by the Company provides the Company with a varied customer base and allows the Company to spread its lending risk throughout a number of different industries including professional service firms and their principals, manufacturing, tourism, recreation, petrochemicals, farming and ranching. The Company’s market areas outside of Houston, Dallas, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, Lubbock, Austin, Tulsa and Oklahoma City are dominated by either small community banks or branches of larger regional banks. Management believes that the Company, through its responsive customer service and community banking philosophy, combined with the sophistication of a larger regional bank holding company, has a competitive advantage in its market areas and excellent growth opportunities through acquisitions, new banking center locations and additional business development.

Operating under a community banking philosophy, the Company seeks to develop broad customer relationships based on service and convenience while maintaining its conservative approach to lending and sound asset quality. The Company has grown through a combination of internal growth, the acquisition of community banks and branches of banks and the opening of new banking centers. Utilizing a low cost of funds and employing stringent cost controls, the Company has been profitable in every year of its existence, including the periods of adverse economic conditions in Texas and Oklahoma.

In addition to internal growth, the Company completed the following acquisitions within the last ten years (through December 31, 2016):

Acquired Entity	Acquired Bank	Completion Date	Number of Banking Centers Acquired ⁽¹⁾
SNB Bancshares, Inc.	Southern National Bank of Texas	2006		6	⁽²⁾
Texas United Bancshares, Inc.	State Bank, GNB Financial, n.a., Gateway National Bank and Northwest Bank	2007		34
The Bank of Navasota	The Bank of Navasota	2007		1
Banco Popular, NA (6 branches)	N/A	2008		5
1st Choice Bancorp	1st Choice Bank	2008		1
Franklin Bank (from FDIC, as receiver) ⁽³⁾	N/A	2008		33
U.S. Bank (3 branches)	N/A	2010		3
First Bank (19 branches)	N/A	2010		15
Texas Bankers, Inc.	Bank of Texas	2012		2
The Bank Arlington	The Bank Arlington	2012		1
American State Financial Corporation	American State Bank	2012		37
Community National Bank	Community National Bank	2012		1
East Texas Financial Services, Inc.	Firstbank	2013		4
Coppermark Bancshares, Inc.	Coppermark Bank	2013		6
FVNB Corp.	First Victoria National Bank	2013		20
F&M Bancorporation Inc.	The F&M Bank & Trust Company	2014		11
Tradition Bancshares, Inc.	Tradition Bank	2016		7

Acquisition of Tradition Bancshares, Inc.—On January 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of Tradition Bancshares, Inc. (“Tradition”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tradition Bank headquartered in Houston, Texas. Tradition Bank operated 7 banking offices in the Houston, Texas area, including its main office in Bellaire, 3 banking centers in Katy and 1 banking center in The Woodlands.

As of December 31, 2015, Tradition, on a consolidated basis, reported total assets of $548.0 million, total loans of $253.3 million, total deposits of $488.9 million and shareholders’ equity of $43.1 million. Under the terms of the definitive agreement, the Company issued 679,528 shares of Company common stock plus $39.0 million in cash for all outstanding shares of Tradition capital stock, for a total merger consideration of $71.5 million, based on the Company’s closing stock price of $47.86 on December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the Company recognized goodwill of $32.0 million, which is calculated as the excess of both the consideration exchanged and liabilities assumed compared with the fair value of the assets acquired. Additionally, the Company recognized $5.6 million of core deposit intangibles.

The Company’s website address is www.prosperitybankusa.com. The Company makes available free of charge on or through its website its Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information contained on the Company’s website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and is not part of this or any other report.

The Company’s directors and officers are important to the Company’s success and play a key role in the Company’s business development efforts by actively participating in civic and public service activities in the communities served by the Company.

The Company has invested heavily in its officers and associates by recruiting talented officers in its market areas and providing them with economic incentives. The senior management team has substantial experience in the Houston, Dallas, Austin, Bryan/College Station, East Texas, South Texas, West Texas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa markets and the surrounding communities in which the Company has a presence. Each banking center location is overseen by a local president or manager with knowledge of the community and lending expertise in the specific industries found in the community. The Company entrusts its banking center presidents and managers with authority and flexibility within general parameters with respect to product pricing and decision making in order to minimize the bureaucratic structure of larger banks. The Company operates each banking center as a separate profit center, maintaining separate data with respect to each banking center’s net interest income, efficiency ratio, deposit growth, loan growth and overall profitability. Banking center presidents and managers are accountable for performance in these areas and compensated accordingly. Each banking center has its own listed local business telephone number. Customers are served by a local banker with decision making authority.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company and the Bank had 3,035 full-time equivalent associates, 821 of whom were officers of the Bank. The Company provides medical and hospitalization insurance to its full-time associates. The Company considers its relations with associates to be good. Neither the Company nor the Bank is a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

The Company, through the Bank, offers a variety of traditional loan and deposit products to its customers, which consist primarily of consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. The Bank tailors its products to the specific needs of customers in a given market. At December 31, 2016, the Bank maintained approximately 598,400 separate deposit accounts including certificates of deposit and 53,600 separate loan accounts. At December 31, 2016, noninterest-bearing demand deposits were 30% of the Bank’s total deposits. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company’s average cost of funds was 0.24% and the Company’s average cost of deposits (excluding all borrowings) was 0.23%.

The Company has been an active real estate lender, with commercial real estate (including multifamily residential) and 1-4 family residential loans comprising 32.9% and 25.3%, respectively, of the Company’s total loans as of December 31, 2016. The Company also offers commercial loans, loans for automobiles and other consumer durables, home equity loans, debit and credit cards, internet banking and other cash management services, mobile banking, trust and wealth management, retail brokerage services, mortgage banking services and automated telephone banking. The Company offers businesses a broad array of loan products including

term loans, lines of credit and loans for working capital, business expansion and the purchase of equipment and machinery; land development and interim construction loans for builders; and owner-occupied and non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans.

By offering certificates of deposit, interest checking accounts, savings accounts and overdraft protection at competitive rates, the Company gives its depositors a full range of traditional deposit products.

The Company maintains a trust department with $1.68 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2016. The trust department provides trust services in the Company’s various market areas.

The Company’s main objective is to increase deposits and loans through internal growth, as well as through acquisition opportunities, while maintaining efficiency, individualized customer service and maximizing profitability. To achieve this objective, the Company has employed the following strategic goals:

Continue Community Banking Emphasis. Although the Company has significantly grown in the last several years, it intends to continue operating as a community banking organization focused on meeting the specific needs of consumers and small and medium-sized businesses in its market areas. The Company provides a high degree of responsiveness combined with a wide variety of banking products and services. The Company staffs its banking centers with experienced bankers who possess lending expertise in the specific industries found in the given community, and gives them authority to make certain pricing and credit decisions, avoiding the bureaucratic structure of larger banks.

Expand Market Share Through Internal Growth and a Disciplined Acquisition Strategy. The Company intends to continue seeking opportunities, both inside and outside its existing markets, to expand either by acquiring existing banks or branches of banks or by establishing new banking centers. All of the Company’s acquisitions have been accretive to earnings within 12 months after acquisition date and generally have supplied the Company with relatively low-cost deposits which have been used to fund the Company’s lending and investing activities. However, future acquisitions, if any, may not be accretive to earnings within any particular time period. Factors used by the Company to evaluate expansion opportunities include (1) the similarity in management and operating philosophies, (2) whether the acquisition will be accretive to earnings and enhance shareholder value, (3) the ability to improve the efficiency ratio through economies of scale, (4) whether the acquisition will strategically expand the Company’s geographic footprint and (5) the opportunity to enhance the Company’s market presence in existing market areas.

Increase Loan Volume and Diversify Loan Portfolio. While maintaining its conservative approach to lending, the Company has emphasized both new and existing loan products, focusing on managing its commercial real estate and commercial loan portfolios. From December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, the Company’s total loans increased from $9.44 billion to $9.62 billion or 1.9%. Construction, land development and other land loans increased from $1.07 billion to $1.26 billion, or 17.8%, and represented 11.4% and 13.1% of the total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. Commercial real estate (including multifamily residential) increased from $3.13 billion to $3.16 billion, or 1.0%, and represented 33.2% and 32.9% of the total portfolio, as of December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. From December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, 1-4 family residential mortgage loans (including home equity loans) increased from $2.64 billion to $2.72 billion, or 2.9%, and represented 27.9% and 28.2% of the total portfolio, as of December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. Commercial and industrial loans decreased from $1.69 billion to $1.54 billion, or 9.0%, and represented 17.9% and 16.0% of the total portfolio, as of December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. In addition, the Company targets business owners, professional service firms, including legal and medical practices, for loans secured by owner-occupied premises, working capital or equipment and personal loans to their principals.

Maintain Sound Asset Quality. The Company continues to maintain the sound asset quality that has been representative of its historical loan portfolio. As the Company continues to diversify and increase its lending activities and acquire loans in acquisitions, it may face higher risks of nonpayment and increased risks in the event of prolonged economic downturns. The Company intends to continue to employ the strict underwriting guidelines and comprehensive loan review process that have contributed to its low incidence of nonperforming assets and its minimal charge-offs in relation to its size.

Continue Focus on Efficiency. The Company plans to maintain its stringent cost control practices and policies. The Company has invested significantly in the infrastructure required to centralize many of its critical operations, such as data processing and loan processing. For its banking centers, which the Company operates as independent profit centers, the Company supplies complete support in the areas of loan review, loan processing, internal audit, compliance and training. Management believes that this centralized infrastructure can accommodate additional growth while enabling the Company to minimize operational costs through economies of scale.

Enhance Cross-Selling. The Company uses incentives and friendly competition to encourage cross-selling efforts and increase cross-selling results among its associates. Officers and associates have access to each customer’s existing and related account

relationships and are better able to inform customers of additional products when customers visit or call the various banking centers or use their drive-in facilities. In addition, the Company includes product information in monthly statements and other mailings.

The banking business is highly competitive, and the profitability of the Company depends principally on its ability to compete in its market areas. The Company competes with other commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms, asset-based nonbank lenders and certain other nonfinancial entities, including retail stores which may maintain their own credit programs and certain governmental organizations which may offer more favorable financing than the Company. The Company believes it has been able to compete effectively with other financial institutions by emphasizing customer service, technology and responsive decision-making with respect to loans, by establishing long-term customer relationships and building customer loyalty and by providing products and services designed to address the specific needs of its customers.

The supervision and regulation of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of the bank holding company’s shareholders or creditors. The banking agencies have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies and banks including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations.

The following description summarizes some of the laws to which the Company and the Bank are subject. References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries thereof, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations.

The Company is a financial holding company pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). Accordingly, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the BHCA and other federal laws subject financial and bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations. Further, since the Company has securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, it is also subject to the supervision and regulation of these organizations.

Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends. The Company is regarded as a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The principal source of the Company’s revenues is dividends received from the Bank. As described in more detail below, federal law places limitations on the amount that banks may pay in dividends, which the Bank must adhere to when paying dividends to the Company. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve Board that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected capital needs and financial condition. 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. The Federal Reserve Board is authorized to limit or prohibit the payment of dividends if, in the Federal Reserve Board’s opinion, the payment of dividends would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of a bank holding company’s financial condition. 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.

Stress Testing. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), in October 2012, the Federal Reserve Board published its final rules regarding company-run stress testing. The rules require institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion, such as the Company and the Bank, to conduct an annual company-run stress test of capital and consolidated earnings and losses under one base and at least two stress scenarios provided by bank regulatory agencies. Institutions with total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $50 billion use data as of December 31 and scenarios released by the agencies. The results of these stress tests must be reported to the agencies by July 31 of the following year. Public disclosure of summary stress test results under the severely adverse scenario will occur between October 15 and October 31. The Company’s capital ratios reflected in the stress test calculations are an important factor considered by the Federal Reserve Board in evaluating the capital adequacy of the Company and the Bank and determining whether proposed payments of dividends or stock repurchases may be an unsafe or unsound practice.

Source of Strength. Under Federal Reserve Board policy, a bank holding company has historically been required to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including support at times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. As discussed below, a bank holding company, in certain circumstances, could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the trustee will be deemed to have assumed and is required to cure immediately any deficit under any commitment by the debtor holding company to any of the federal banking agencies to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution. Any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

Scope of Permissible Activities. Under the BHCA, bank holding companies generally may not acquire a direct or indirect interest in or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company or from engaging in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, except that it may engage in, directly or indirectly, certain activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In approving acquisitions or the addition of activities, the Federal Reserve Board considers, among other things, whether the acquisition or the additional activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh such possible adverse effects as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest or unsound banking practices.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act eliminated the barriers to affiliations among banks, securities firms, insurance companies and other financial service providers and permits bank holding companies to become financial holding companies and thereby affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. The Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act defines “financial in nature” to include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval will be required for a financial holding company, such as the Company, to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature as determined by the Federal Reserve Board.

The Company’s financial holding company status depends upon it maintaining its status as “well capitalized” and “well managed” under applicable Federal Reserve Board regulations. If a financial holding company ceases to meet these requirements, the Federal Reserve Board may impose corrective capital and/or managerial requirements on the financial holding company and place limitations on its ability to conduct the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies. Until the financial holding company returns to compliance, it may not acquire a company engaged in such financial activities without prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions and/or its non-bank subsidiaries if the deficiencies persist.

While the Federal Reserve Board is the “umbrella” regulator for financial holding companies and has the power to examine banking organizations engaged in new activities, regulation and supervision of activities which are financial in nature or determined to be incidental to such financial activities will be handled along functional lines. Accordingly, activities of subsidiaries of a financial holding company will be regulated by the agency or authorities with the most experience regulating that activity as it is conducted in a financial holding company.

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 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.

Anti-Tying Restrictions. Bank holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to other services offered by a holding company or its affiliates.

Basel III Capital Adequacy Requirements. In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC published the Basel III Capital Rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The rules implemented the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework known as “Basel III” for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Capital Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions, including the Company and the Bank, under the previous U.S. risk-based capital rules. The Basel III Capital Rules define the components of capital and address other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios. The Basel III Capital Rules also address risk weights and other issues affecting the denominator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios and replace the prior risk-weighting approach, which was derived from the Basel I capital accords of the Basel Committee, with a more risk-sensitive approach based, in part, on the standardized approach in the Basel Committee’s 2004 “Basel II” capital accords. The Basel III Capital Rules also implement the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies’ rules. The Basel III Capital Rules became effective for the Company and the Bank on January 1, 2015, subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions.

The Basel III Capital Rules, among other things, (1) include a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (2) specified that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (3) defined CET1 narrowly by requiring that most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (4) expanded the scope of the deductions/adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that certain deferred tax assets and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such items, in the aggregate, exceed 15% of CET1. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and will be phased-in over a four-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and increasing by an additional 20% per year thereafter). Under the previous capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in capital were excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded; however, banking organizations that do not have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure, including the Company and the Bank, were able to make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company and the Bank made this election in order to avoid significant variations in the level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of the Company’s available-for-sale securities portfolio. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, trust preferred securities no longer included in Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies may be included as Tier 2 capital on a permanent basis.

The Basel III Capital Rules also require a capital conservation buffer, composed entirely of CET1, that is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress and has the effect of increasing the minimum required risk-weighted capital ratios. The implementation of the capital conservation buffer began on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and is being phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019). The Basel III Capital Rules also provide for a “countercyclical capital buffer” that is applicable to only certain covered institutions and does not have any current applicability to the Company or the Bank. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets below the effective minimum (4.5% plus the capital conservation buffer and, if applicable, the countercyclical capital buffer) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

The minimum capital ratios under the Basel III Capital Rules that were effective as of January 1, 2016 are (1) 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets, (2) 6.0% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets, (3) 8.0% total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets and (4) 4.0% Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets as reported on consolidated financial statements (known as the “leverage ratio”). As of December 31, 2016, the Company’s ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets was 14.48%, Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets was 14.48%, Total capital to risk-weighted assets was 15.20% and Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets was 8.68%.

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Basel III Capital Rules will require the Company to maintain an additional capital conservation buffer of 2.5% CET1, effectively resulting in minimum ratios of (1) CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7.0%, (2) Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.5%, (3) total capital to risk-weighted assets of 10.5% and (4) a leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets.

With respect to the Bank, the Basel III Capital Rules also revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations as discussed below under “The Bank—Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies.”

The Basel III Capital Rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expanded the risk-weighting categories from the previous four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) 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. In addition, the Basel III Capital Rules

provide more advantageous risk weights for derivatives and repurchase-style transactions cleared through a qualifying central counterparty and increase the scope of eligible guarantors and eligible collateral for purposes of credit risk mitigation.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage capital ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

Liquidity Requirements. Historically, regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III liquidity framework requires banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, are now required by regulation.

One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that a banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other test, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. In September 2014, the federal banking agencies approved final rules implementing (1) the LCR for advanced approaches banking organizations (i.e., banking organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure) and (2) a modified version of the LCR for bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets that are not advanced approach banking organizations. Neither rule applies to the Company or the Bank. In May 2016, bank regulators issued a proposed rule that would implement the NSFR by requiring certain U.S. banking organizations to ensure they have access to stable funding over a one-year time horizon. The proposed rule has an effective date of January 1, 2018 and would not apply to U.S. banking organizations with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets such as the Company and the Bank.

Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries. Bank regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels. In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies. The BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank, if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board is required to consider, among other things, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served and various competitive factors.

Control Acquisitions. The Change in Bank Control Act (“CBCA”) prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company unless the Federal Reserve Board has been notified and has not objected to the transaction. Under a rebuttable presumption established by the Federal Reserve Board, the acquisition of 10% or more of a class of voting stock of a bank holding company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, such as the Company, would, under the circumstances set forth in the presumption, constitute acquisition of control of the Company.

In addition, a person may not acquire 25% (5% in the case of an acquiror that is a bank holding company) or more of a bank holding company’s or bank’s voting securities, or otherwise obtain control or a controlling influence over a bank holding company or bank without the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. In 2008, the Federal Reserve Board issued a policy statement on equity investments in bank holding companies and banks, which allows the Federal Reserve Board to generally be able to conclude that an entity’s investment is not “controlling” if the entity does not own in excess of 15% of the voting power and 33% of the total equity of

the bank holding company or bank. Depending on the nature of the overall investment and the capital structure of the banking organization, the Federal Reserve Board will permit, based on the policy statement, noncontrolling investments in the form of voting and nonvoting shares that represent in the aggregate (1) less than one-third of the total equity of the banking organization (and less than one-third of any class of voting securities, assuming conversion of all convertible nonvoting securities held by the entity) and (2) less than 15% of any class of voting securities of the banking organization.

The Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule under the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain hedge funds and private equity funds. Since neither the Company nor the Bank engages in the types of trading or investing covered by the Volcker Rule, the Volcker Rule does not currently have any effect on the operations of the Company or the Bank.

The Bank is a Texas-chartered banking association, the deposits of which are insured by the DIF of the FDIC. The Bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System; therefore, the Bank is subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC and the Texas Department of Banking. Such supervision and regulation subject the Bank to special restrictions, requirements, potential enforcement actions and periodic examination by the FDIC and the Texas Department of Banking. Because the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Company, the Federal Reserve Board also has supervisory authority which affects the Bank. Further, because the Bank had total assets of over $10 billion as of December 31, 2016, the Bank is subject to supervision and regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The CFPB is responsible for implementing, examining and enforcing compliance with federal consumer protection laws.

Equivalence to National Bank Powers. The Texas Constitution, as amended in 1986, provides that a Texas-chartered bank has the same rights and privileges that are or may be granted to national banks domiciled in Texas. To the extent that the Texas laws and regulations may have allowed state-chartered banks to engage in a broader range of activities than national banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”) has operated to limit this authority. FDICIA provides that no state bank or subsidiary thereof may engage as principal in any activity not permitted for national banks, unless the institution complies with applicable capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity poses no significant risk to the DIF. In general, statutory restrictions on the activities of banks are aimed at protecting the safety and soundness of depository institutions.

Financial Modernization. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a national bank may establish a financial subsidiary and engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting as principal, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development, real estate investment, annuity issuance and merchant banking activities. To do so, a bank must be well capitalized, well managed and have a CRA rating of satisfactory or better. Subsidiary banks of a financial holding company or national banks with financial subsidiaries must remain well capitalized and well managed in order to continue to engage in activities that are financial in nature without regulatory actions or restrictions, which could include divestiture of the financial-in-nature subsidiary or subsidiaries. In addition, a financial holding company or a bank may not acquire a company that is engaged in activities that are financial in nature unless each of the subsidiary banks of the financial holding company or the bank has a CRA rating of satisfactory or better.

Although the powers of state chartered banks are not specifically addressed in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Texas-chartered banks such as the Bank, will have the same if not greater powers as national banks through the parity provision contained in the Texas Constitution.

Branching. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, banks are permitted to engage in de novo interstate branching if the laws of the state where the new branch is to be established would permit the establishment of the branch if it were chartered by such state, subject to applicable regulatory review and approval requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act also created certain regulatory requirements for interstate mergers and acquisitions, including that the acquiring bank must be well capitalized and well managed. Texas law provides that a Texas-chartered bank can establish a branch anywhere in Texas provided that the branch is approved in advance by the Texas Department of Banking. The branch must also be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate powers.

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. Transactions between the Bank and its nonbanking affiliates, including the Company, are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions to 10% of the Bank’s capital stock and surplus and requires that such transactions be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the Company or its subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded the coverage and scope of the limitations on affiliate transactions within a banking organization.

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons. The Federal Reserve Board has also issued Regulation W which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate transactions.

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. Insiders are subject to enforcement actions for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions.

Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided a substantial part of the Company’s operating funds and for the foreseeable future it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to the Company will continue to be the Company’s principal source of operating funds. Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the Bank will be “undercapitalized.” The FDIC may declare a dividend payment to be unsafe and unsound even though the Bank would continue to meet its capital requirements after the dividend. Because the Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, its right to participate in the distribution of assets of any subsidiary upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event of a liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its shareholders, including any depository institution holding company (such as the Company) or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

Consumer Financial Protection. The Bank is subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern its relationship with its customers. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Service Members Civil Relief Act and these laws’ respective state-law counterparts, as well as state usury laws and laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices. These and other federal laws, among other things, require disclosures of the cost of credit and terms of deposit accounts, provide substantive consumer rights, prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, regulate the use of credit report information, provide financial privacy protections, prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive practices, restrict the Bank’s ability to raise interest rates and subject the Bank to substantial regulatory oversight. Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can result in significant potential liability from litigation brought by customers, including actual damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. Federal bank regulators, state attorneys general and state and local consumer protection agencies may also seek to enforce consumer protection requirements and obtain these and other remedies, including regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by the state and local attorneys general in each jurisdiction in which the Bank operates and civil money penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in the Bank’s failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions the Bank may wish to pursue or its prohibition from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB, which has supervisory authority over depository institutions with total assets of $10 billion or greater. The CFPB focuses its supervision and regulatory efforts on (1) risks to consumers and compliance with the federal consumer financial laws when it evaluates the policies and practices of a financial institution; (2) the markets in which firms operate and risks to consumers posed by activities in those markets; (3) depository institutions that offer a wide variety of consumer financial products and services; (4) certain depository institutions with a more specialized focus; and (5) non-depository companies that offer one or more consumer financial products or services.

The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer financial laws that apply to all banks, including, among other things, the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. Abusive acts or practices are defined as those that materially interfere with a consumer’s ability to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service or take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s (1) lack of financial savvy, (2) inability to protect himself in the selection or use of consumer financial products or services or (3) reasonable reliance on a covered entity to act in the consumer’s interests. The CFPB can issue cease-and-desist orders against banks and other entities that violate consumer financial laws. The CFPB may also institute a civil action against an entity in violation of federal consumer financial law in order to impose a civil penalty or injunction. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over all banks with more than $10 billion in assets, as well as their affiliates.

Examinations. The FDIC periodically examines and evaluates state non-member banks. The Texas Department of Banking also conducts examinations of state banks, but may accept the results of a federal examination in lieu of conducting an independent examination. In addition, the FDIC and Texas Department of Banking may elect to conduct a joint examination. Further, because the Bank has total assets of over $10 billion as of December 31, 2016, the CFPB has examination authority with respect to the Bank’s compliance with federal consumer protection laws. Compliance with consumer protection laws will be considered when banking regulators are asked to approve a proposed transaction.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The FDIC has adopted regulations establishing minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of insured institutions. The FDIC may establish higher minimum requirements if, for example, a bank has previously received special attention or has a high susceptibility to interest rate risk.

The FDIC’s risk-based capital guidelines generally require state banks to have a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 4.5%, Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 6.0% and a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0%. The capital categories have the same definitions for the Bank as for the Company. As of December 31, 2016, the Bank’s ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets was 14.35%, Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 14.35% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 15.07%.

The FDIC’s leverage guidelines require state banks to maintain Tier 1 capital of no less than 4.0% of average total assets. The Texas Department of Banking has issued a policy which generally requires state chartered banks to maintain a leverage ratio (defined in accordance with federal capital guidelines) of 5.0%. As of December 31, 2016, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total assets (leverage ratio) was 8.60%.

Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies. The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “under capitalized,” “significantly under capitalized” and “critically under capitalized.”

At December 31, 2016, the Bank was classified as “well-capitalized” for purposes of the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulations in effect as of such date.

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, agency regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business. With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

As an institution’s capital decreases, the FDIC’s enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The FDIC has only very limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

Deposit Insurance Assessments. Substantially all of the deposits of the Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the DIF, and the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC for such deposit insurance protection. A depository institution’s DIF assessment is calculated by multiplying its assessment rate by the assessment base, which is defined as the average consolidated total assets less the average tangible equity of the depository institution. The initial base assessment rate is based on its capital level and CAMELS ratings, certain financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset related stress and funding related stress and, in some cases, additional discretionary adjustments by the FDIC to reflect additional risk factors.

The FDIC’s current DIF restoration plan is designed to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the fund and, if needed, increases or decreases assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required.

In August 2016, the FDIC announced that the DIF reserve ratio had surpassed 1.15% as of June 30, 2016. As a result, beginning in the third quarter of 2016, the initial assessment ranges for all institutions were adjusted downward such that the initial base deposit insurance assessment rate ranges from three to 30 basis points on an annualized basis (basis points representing cents per $100 of assessable assets). After the effect of potential base-rate adjustments, the total base assessment rate could range from 1.5 to 40 basis points on an annualized basis.

Interchange Fees. Under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board adopted rules establishing standards for assessing whether the interchange fees that may be charged with respect to certain electronic debit transactions are “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by issuers for processing such transactions. Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to the Bank and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. Federal Reserve Board rules applicable to financial institutions that have assets of $10 billion or more provide that the maximum permissible interchange fee for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. An upward adjustment of no more than 1 cent to an issuer’s debit card interchange fee is allowed if the card issuer develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve certain fraud-prevention standards. The Federal Reserve Board also has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product.

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, which was re-emphasized in December 2015. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (1) total reported loans for construction, land development and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (2) 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.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”) and the regulations issued thereunder are intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their service area, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operations of the banks. These regulations also provide for regulatory assessment of a bank’s record in meeting the needs of its service area when considering applications to establish branches, merger applications and applications to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another bank. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) requires federal banking agencies to make public a rating of a bank’s performance under the CRA. In the case of a bank holding company, the CRA performance records of the banks involved in the transaction are reviewed in connection with the filing of an application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with any other bank holding company. An unsatisfactory record can substantially delay or block the transaction.

Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Legislation. A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The United States Treasury Department has issued and, in some cases, proposed a number of regulations that apply various requirements of the USA Patriot Act to financial institutions. These regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers. Certain of those regulations impose specific due diligence requirements on financial institutions that maintain correspondent or private banking relationships with non-U.S. financial institutions or persons. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation. The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (1) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country

and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (2) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g., property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Privacy. In addition to expanding the activities in which banks and bank holding companies may engage, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also imposed requirements on financial institutions with respect to customer privacy. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally prohibits disclosure of customer information to non-affiliated third parties unless the customer has been given the opportunity to object and has not objected to such disclosure. Financial institutions are further required to disclose their privacy policies to customers annually. Financial institutions, however, are required to comply with state law if it is more protective of customer privacy than the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

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 (1) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (2) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s Board of Directors.

These three principles are incorporated into the proposed revised rules on incentive-based payment arrangements at specified covered institutions released in May 2016 by a number of federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC and SEC. The proposed revised rules would establish general qualitative requirements applicable to all covered institutions, including the Company and the Bank, that have at least $1 billion in total assets, which would include (1) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation; (2) prohibiting incentive arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks that could lead to a material financial loss; (3) establishing requirements for performance measures to appropriately balance risk and reward; (4) requiring Board of Director oversight of incentive arrangements; and (5) mandating appropriate record-keeping. Under the proposed rule, larger financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion would also be subject to additional requirements.

The Federal Reserve Board reviews, 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 are 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 this supervisory initiative 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.

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 the Bank could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the recent change in federal administration in the United States, has added additional uncertainty to the implementation, scope and timing of regulatory reforms.

The policies of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Board, have a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the means available to the Federal Reserve Board to affect the money supply are open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank

borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits; and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

Federal Reserve Board monetary policies have materially affected the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The nature of future monetary policies and the effect of such policies on the business and earnings of the Company and its subsidiaries cannot be predicted.

An investment in the Company’s common stock involves risks. The following is a description of the material risks and uncertainties that the Company believes affect its business and an investment in the common stock. Additional risks and uncertainties that the Company is unaware of, or that it currently deems immaterial, also may become important factors that affect the Company and its business. If any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K were to occur, the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of the common stock could decline significantly and all or part of an investment could be lost.

If the Company is not able to continue its historical levels of growth, it may not be able to maintain its historical earnings trends.

To achieve its past levels of growth, the Company has focused on both internal growth and acquisitions. The Company may not be able to sustain its historical rate of growth or may not be able to grow at all. More specifically, the Company may not be able to obtain the financing necessary to fund additional growth and may not be able to find suitable acquisition candidates. Various factors, such as economic conditions, competition and heightened regulatory scrutiny, may impede or prohibit the opening of new banking centers and the completion of acquisitions. Further, the Company may be unable to attract and retain experienced bankers, which could adversely affect its internal growth. If the Company is not able to continue its historical levels of growth, it may not be able to maintain its historical earnings trends.

If the Company is unable to manage its growth effectively, its operations could be negatively affected.

Companies that experience rapid growth face various risks and difficulties, including:

In addition, in order to manage its growth and maintain adequate information and reporting systems within its organization, the Company must identify, hire and retain additional qualified associates, particularly in the accounting and operational areas of its business.

If the Company does not manage its growth effectively, its business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects could be negatively affected, and the Company may not be able to continue to implement its business strategy and successfully conduct its operations.

The Company’s profitability depends significantly on local economic conditions.

The Company’s success depends primarily on the general economic conditions of the primary markets in Texas and Oklahoma in which it operates and where its loans are concentrated. The local economic conditions in Texas and Oklahoma have a significant impact on the Company’s commercial, real estate and construction, land development and other land loans; the ability of its borrowers to repay their loans; and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Accordingly, if the population or income growth in the Company’s market areas is slower than projected, income levels, deposits and housing starts could be adversely affected and could result in a reduction of the Company’s expansion, growth and profitability. In addition, due to the large number of oil and gas companies in the Company’s market areas, the volatility in oil prices may negatively impact economic conditions in these areas. If the Company’s market areas experience a downturn or a recession for a prolonged period of time, the Company could experience

significant increases in nonperforming loans, which could lead to operating losses, impaired liquidity and eroding capital. A significant decline in general economic conditions, caused by inflation, a decline in commodity prices, recession, acts of terrorism, outbreaks of hostilities or other international or domestic calamities, unemployment or other factors could impact these local economic conditions and could negatively affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company’s business is subject to interest rate risk, and fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations.

The majority of the Company’s assets are monetary in nature, and, as a result, the Company is subject to significant risk from changes in interest rates. Changes in interest rates can impact the Company’s net interest income as well as the valuation of its assets and liabilities. The Company’s earnings are significantly dependent on its net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between the interest income earned on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets and the interest expense paid on deposits, borrowings and other interest-bearing liabilities.

Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence the interest the Company receives on loans and securities and the amount of interest it pays on deposits and borrowings, and could also affect (1) the Company’s ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, (2) the fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities and (3) the average duration of the Company’s mortgage-backed securities portfolio. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, the Company’s net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments decrease more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings. Further, the Company’s assets and liabilities may react differently to changes in overall market rates or conditions because there may be mismatches between the repricing or maturity characteristics of the assets and liabilities. Any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

If the Company is unable to identify and acquire other financial institutions and successfully integrate its acquired businesses, its business and earnings may be negatively affected.

The market for acquisitions remains highly competitive, and the Company may be unable to find acquisition candidates in the future that fit its acquisition and growth strategy. To the extent that the Company is unable to find suitable acquisition candidates, an important component of its growth strategy may be lost.

Acquisitions of financial institutions involve operational risks and uncertainties and acquired companies may have unforeseen liabilities, exposure to asset quality problems, key employee and customer retention problems and other problems that could negatively affect the Company’s organization. The Company may not be able to complete future acquisitions; and, if completed, the Company may not be able to successfully integrate the operations, management, products and services of the entities that it acquires and eliminate redundancies. The integration process could result in the loss of key employees or disruption of the combined entity’s ongoing business or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that adversely affect the Company’s ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees or achieve the anticipated benefits of the transaction. The integration process may also require significant time and attention from the Company’s management that they would otherwise direct at servicing existing business and developing new business. The Company’s inability to find suitable acquisition candidates or failure to successfully integrate the entities it acquires into its existing operations may increase its operating costs significantly and adversely affect its business and earnings.

The Company’s dependence on loans secured by real estate subjects it to risks relating to fluctuations in the real estate market that could adversely affect its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Approximately 79.2% of the Company’s total loans as of December 31, 2016 consisted of loans included in the real estate loan portfolio, with 37.9% in commercial real estate (including farmland and multifamily residential), 28.2% in residential real estate (including home equity) and 13.1% in construction, land development and other land loans. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. A weakening of the real estate market in the Company’s primary market areas could have an adverse effect on the demand for new loans, the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, the value of real estate and other collateral securing the loans and the value of real estate owned by the Company. If real estate values decline, it is also more likely that the Company would be required to increase its allowance for credit losses, which could adversely affect its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company’s commercial real estate and commercial loans expose it to increased credit risks, and these risks will increase if the Company succeeds in increasing these types of loans.

The Company, while maintaining its conservative approach to lending, has emphasized both new and existing loan products, focusing on managing its commercial real estate (including farmland and multifamily residential) and commercial loan portfolios, and intends to continue to increase its lending activities and acquire loans in possible future acquisitions. As a result, commercial real estate and commercial loans as a proportion of its portfolio could increase. As of December 31, 2016, commercial real estate (including farmland and multifamily residential) and commercial loans totaled $5.19 billion. In general, commercial real estate loans and commercial loans yield higher returns and often generate a deposit relationship, but also pose greater credit risks than do owner-occupied residential real estate loans. These types of loans are also typically larger than residential real estate loans. Accordingly, the deterioration of one or several of these loans could cause a significant increase in nonperforming loans, which could result in a loss of earnings from these loans and an increase in the provision for credit losses and net charge-offs.

The Company makes both secured and some unsecured commercial loans. Unsecured loans generally involve a higher degree of risk of loss than do secured loans because, without collateral, repayment is wholly dependent upon the success of the borrowers’ businesses. Secured commercial loans are generally collateralized by accounts receivable, inventory, equipment or other assets owned by the borrower and include a personal guaranty of the business owner. Compared to real estate, that type of collateral is more difficult to monitor, its value is harder to ascertain, it may depreciate more rapidly and it may not be as readily saleable if repossessed. Further, commercial loans generally will be serviced primarily from the operation of the business, which may not be successful, while commercial real estate loans generally will be serviced from income on the properties securing the loans. As the Company’s various commercial loan portfolios increase, the corresponding risks and potential for losses from these loans will also increase.

The Company’s allowance for credit losses may not be sufficient to cover actual credit losses, which could adversely affect its earnings.

As a lender, the Company is exposed to the risk that its loan customers may not repay their loans according to the terms of these loans and the collateral securing the payment of these loans may be insufficient to fully compensate the Company for the outstanding balance of the loan plus the costs to dispose of the collateral. The Company maintains an allowance for credit losses in an attempt to cover estimated losses inherent in its loan portfolio. Additional credit losses will likely occur in the future and may occur at a rate greater than the Company has experienced to date. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires the Company to make significant estimates of current credit risks, future trends and general economic conditions, all of which may undergo material changes. If the Company’s assumptions prove to be incorrect or if it experiences significant credit losses in future periods, its current allowance may not be sufficient to cover actual credit losses and adjustments may be necessary to allow for different economic conditions or adverse developments in its loan portfolio. A material addition to the allowance could cause net income, and possibly capital, to decrease.

In addition, federal and state regulators periodically review the Company’s allowance for credit losses and may require the Company to increase its provision for credit losses or recognize further charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of the Company’s management. An increase in the Company’s allowance for credit losses or charge-offs as required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results and financial condition.

The small to medium-sized businesses that the Company lends to may have fewer resources to weather a downturn in the economy, which could materially harm the Company’s operating results.

The Company makes loans to privately-owned businesses, many of which are considered to be small to medium-sized businesses. Small to medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market share than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience significant volatility in operating results. Any one or more of these factors may impair the borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small to medium-sized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two persons or a small group of persons, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay a loan. Economic downturns, a sustained decline in commodity prices and other events that negatively impact the Company’s market areas could cause the Company to incur substantial credit losses that could negatively affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

Failure to compete effectively for customers could adversely affect the Company’s growth and profitability, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. These competitors primarily include national, regional, and community banks within the various markets where the Company operates. The Company also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies and other financial

intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Also, technology and other changes have lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services functionally equivalent to those provided by banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. Further, many of the Company’s competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than the Company can. Failure to compete effectively for deposit, loan and other banking customers in the Company’s market areas could adversely affect the Company’s growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity risk could impair the Company’s ability to fund operations and jeopardize its financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to the Company’s business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on its liquidity. The Company’s access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance its activities or on terms which are acceptable to it could be impaired by factors that affect the Company specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact the Company’s access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of its business activity as a result of a downturn in the markets in which its loans are concentrated or adverse regulatory action against it. The Company’s ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to it, such as a disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets.

If the goodwill that the Company recorded in connection with a business acquisition becomes impaired, it could require charges to earnings.

Goodwill represents the amount by which the acquisition cost exceeds the fair value of net assets the Company acquired in the purchase of another financial institution. The Company reviews goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of the asset might be impaired.

The Company determines impairment by comparing the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. Any such adjustments are reflected in the Company’s results of operations in the periods in which they become known. At December 31, 2016, the Company’s goodwill totaled $1.90 billion. Although the Company has not recorded any such impairment charges since it initially recorded the goodwill, the Company’s future evaluations of goodwill could result in findings of impairment and related write-downs, which may have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s accounting estimates and risk management processes rely on analytical and forecasting models and tools.

The processes the Company uses to estimate its probable credit losses and to measure the fair value of financial instruments, as well as the processes used to estimate the effects of changing interest rates and other market measures on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations, depend upon the use of analytical and forecasting models and tools. These models and tools reflect assumptions that may not be accurate, particularly in times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances. Even if these assumptions are accurate, the models and tools may prove to be inadequate or inaccurate because of other flaws in their design or their implementation. Any such failure in the Company’s analytical or forecasting models and tools could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. The Company has exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose the Company to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, the Company’s credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by the Company cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to the Company. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company may need to raise additional capital in the future and such capital may not be available when needed or at all.

The Company may need to raise additional capital in the future to provide it with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet regulatory capital requirements or its commitments and business needs. In addition, the Company may elect to raise additional capital to support its business or to finance acquisitions, if any. If needed, the Company’s ability to raise additional capital will depend on many things, including conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside its control, and its financial performance.

Such capital may not be available to the Company on acceptable terms or at all. Any occurrence that may limit the Company’s access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of investors, depositors of Prosperity Bank or counterparties participating in the capital markets, may adversely affect the Company’s capital costs and its ability to raise capital and, in turn, its liquidity. Moreover, if the Company needs to raise capital in the future, it may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital and would have to compete with those institutions for investors. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject the Company to additional risks.

From time to time, the Company may implement or acquire new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, the Company may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the Company’s system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

An interruption in or breach in security of the Company’s information systems may result in a loss of customer business and have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The Company relies heavily on communications and information systems to conduct its business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems, whether caused by physical damage, hackers, viruses or other malware, could jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through the Company’s computer systems and network infrastructure as well as result in failures or disruptions in the Company’s customer relationship management, general ledger, deposits, servicing or loan origination systems. While the Company maintains specific “cyber” insurance coverage, which would apply in the event of various breach scenarios, the amount of coverage may not be adequate in any particular case. In addition, cyber threat scenarios are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, some of which may not be covered under the Company’s cyber insurance coverage. Although the Company, with the help of third-party service providers, has and intends to continue to implement security technology and operational procedures to prevent such damage, these security measures may not entirely mitigate these risks. In addition, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the algorithms the Company and its third-party service providers use to protect client transaction data. The occurrence of any such failures, interruptions or security breaches could damage the Company’s reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject the Company to additional regulatory scrutiny or expose the Company to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The Company is subject to certain risks in connection with its use of technology.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The Company’s future success depends in part upon its ability to address the needs of its customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as create additional efficiencies in its operations. Many of the Company’s competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. The Company may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to its customers, which may negatively affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Further, as technology advances, the ability to initiate transactions and access data has become more widely distributed among mobile devices, personal computers, automated teller machines, remote deposit capture sites and similar access points. These technological advances increase cybersecurity risk. While the Company maintains programs intended to prevent or limit the effects of cybersecurity risk, there is no assurance that unauthorized transactions or unauthorized access to customer information will not occur. The financial, reputational and regulatory impact of unauthorized transactions or unauthorized access to customer information could be significant.

The Company relies on certain external vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain its day-to-day operations. These third parties provide key components of the Company’s business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, Internet connections and network access. While the Company has selected these third-party vendors carefully, it does not control their actions. Any complications caused by these third parties, including those resulting from disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor, failure of a vendor to handle current or higher volumes, cyber-attacks and security breaches at a vendor, failure of a vendor to provide services for any reason or poor performance of services, could adversely affect the Company’s ability to deliver products and services to its customers and otherwise conduct its business. Financial or operational difficulties of a third-party vendor could also hurt the Company’s operations if those difficulties interfere with the vendor’s ability to provide services. Furthermore, the Company’s vendors could also be sources of operational and information security risk, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints. Replacing these third-party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Problems caused by external vendors could be disruptive to the Company’s operations, which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business and, in turn, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s business may be adversely affected by security breaches at third parties.

The Company’s customers interact with their own and other third-party systems, which pose operational risks to the Company. The Company may be adversely affected by data breaches at retailers and other third parties who maintain data relating to the Company’s customers that involve the theft of customer data, including the theft of customers’ debit card, credit card, wire transfer and other identifying and/or access information used to make purchases or payments at such retailers and to other third parties. Despite third-party security risks that are beyond the Company’s control, the Company offers its customers protection against fraud and attendant losses for unauthorized use of debit and credit cards in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. Offering such protection to customers exposes the Company to significant expenses and potential losses related to reimbursing the Company’s customers for fraud losses, reissuing the compromised cards and increased monitoring for suspicious activity. In the event of a data breach at one or more retailers of considerable magnitude, the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

The Company is subject to claims and litigation pertaining to intellectual property.

Banking and other financial services companies, such as the Company, rely on technology companies to provide information technology products and services necessary to support their day-to-day operations. Technology companies frequently enter into litigation based on allegations of patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. In addition, patent holding companies seek to monetize patents they have purchased or otherwise obtained. Competitors of the Company’s vendors, or other individuals or companies, have from time to time claimed to hold intellectual property sold to the Company by its vendors. Such claims may increase in the future as the financial services sector becomes more reliant on information technology vendors. The plaintiffs in these actions frequently seek injunctions and substantial damages.

Regardless of the scope or validity of such patents or other intellectual property rights, or the merits of any claims by potential or actual litigants, the Company may have to engage in protracted litigation. Such litigation is often expensive, time-consuming, disruptive to the Company’s operations and distracting to management. If the Company is found to infringe one or more patents or other intellectual property rights, it may be required to pay substantial damages or royalties to a third-party. In certain cases, the Company may consider entering into licensing agreements for disputed intellectual property, although no assurance can be given that such licenses can be obtained on acceptable terms or that litigation will not occur. These licenses may also significantly increase the Company’s operating expenses. If legal matters related to intellectual property claims were resolved against the Company or settled, the Company could be required to make payments in amounts that could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is subject to claims and litigation pertaining to fiduciary responsibility.

From time to time, customers make claims and take legal action pertaining to the Company’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the Company’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Company, they may result in significant financial liability, adversely affect the market perception of the Company and its products and services and/or impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company operates in a highly regulated environment and, as a result, is subject to extensive regulation and supervision.

The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not the Company’s shareholders. These regulations affect the Company’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Any change in applicable regulations or federal or state legislation could have a substantial impact on the Company, the Bank and their respective operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, instituted major changes to the banking and financial institutions regulatory regimes in light of the performance of and government intervention in the financial services sector during the several years prior to the implementation of such Act. Additional legislation and regulations or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations or policies, could significantly affect the Company’s powers, authority and operations, or the powers, authority and operations of the Bank in substantial and unpredictable ways. Further, regulators have significant discretion and power to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of laws by banks and bank holding companies in the performance of their supervisory and enforcement duties. The exercise of this regulatory discretion and power could have a negative impact on the Company. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s risk management framework may not be effective in identifying, managing or mitigating risks and/or losses to it.

The Company has implemented a risk management framework to identify and manage its risk exposure, which is reviewed and overseen by the Company’s Risk Committee. This framework consists of various processes, systems and strategies, and is designed to manage the types of risk to which the Company is subject, including, among others, credit, market, liquidity, operational, financial, interest rate, legal and regulatory, compliance, strategic, reputation, fiduciary and general economic risks. The Company’s framework also includes financial or other modeling methodologies, which involves management assumptions and judgment. In addition, under this framework, the Company has developed a risk appetite statement to detail its risk tolerance levels at an enterprise-wide level. This risk management framework may not be effective under all circumstances, and it may not adequately identify, manage or mitigate all or any risk or loss to the Company. If this framework is not effective, the Company may be subject to potentially adverse regulatory consequences and could suffer unexpected losses and its financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

The Company is subject to losses resulting from fraudulent and negligent acts on the part of loan applicants, correspondents or other third parties.

The Company relies heavily upon information supplied by third parties, including the information contained in credit applications, property appraisals, title information, equipment pricing and valuation and employment and income documentation, in deciding which loans the Company will originate, as well as the terms of those loans. If any of the information upon which the Company relies is misrepresented, either fraudulently or inadvertently, and the misrepresentation is not detected prior to asset funding, the value of the asset may be significantly lower than expected, or the Company may fund a loan that it would not have funded or on terms it would not have extended. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the applicant or another third party, the Company generally bears the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. A loan subject to a material misrepresentation is typically unsellable or subject to repurchase if it is sold prior to detection of the misrepresentation. The sources of the misrepresentations are often difficult to locate, and it is often difficult to recover any of the monetary losses the Company may suffer.

The Company is subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.

A significant portion of the Company’s loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, the Company may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans, and there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, the Company may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require the Company to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit the Company’s ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase the Company’s exposure to environmental liability. Although the Company has policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s corporate organizational documents and the provisions of Texas law to which it is subject may delay or prevent a change in control of the Company that a shareholder may favor.

The Company’s amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain various provisions which may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change of control of the Company. These provisions include:

The Company’s articles of incorporation provide for noncumulative voting for directors and authorize the Board of Directors to issue shares of its preferred stock without shareholder approval and upon such terms as the Board of Directors may determine. The issuance of the Company’s preferred stock could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire, or of discouraging a third party from acquiring, a controlling interest in the Company. In addition, certain provisions of Texas law, including a provision which restricts certain business combinations between a Texas corporation and certain affiliated shareholders, may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change in control of the Company.

Holders of the Company’s common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as the Company’s Board of Directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. Although the Company has historically declared cash dividends on its common stock, it is not required to do so and there can be no assurance that the Company will pay dividends in the future. Any declaration and payment of dividends on common stock will depend upon the Company’s earnings and financial condition, liquidity and capital requirements, the general economic and regulatory climate, the Company’s ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to the common stock and other factors deemed relevant by the Board of Directors.

The Company’s principal source of funds to pay dividends on the shares of common stock is cash dividends that the Company receives from the Bank. Various banking laws applicable to the Bank limit the payment of dividends and other distributions by the Bank to the Company, and may therefore limit the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company conducted business at 245 full-service banking centers. The Company’s principal executive office is located at Prosperity Bank Plaza, 4295 San Felipe, in the Galleria area in Houston, Texas. The Company also owns or leases other facilities in which its banking centers are located as listed below by geographical market area. The expiration dates of the leases range from 2017 to 2040 and do not include renewal periods which may be available at the Company’s option.

The following table sets forth specific information regarding the banking centers located in each of the Company’s geographical market areas at December 31, 2016:

Geographical Area	Number of Banking Centers		Number of Leased Banking Centers		Deposits at December 31, 2016
					(dollars in thousands)
Bryan/College Station area		16		—	$	1,135,604
Houston area		65		13		5,717,743
Central Texas area		29		3		1,482,680
Dallas/Fort Worth area		36		9		1,547,609
East Texas area		22		—		789,384
West Texas area		34		6		2,339,716
South Texas area		29		3		2,494,683
Central Oklahoma area		6		1		691,513
Tulsa Oklahoma area		8		2		1,108,370
		245		37	$	17,307,302

The Company and the Bank are defendants, from time to time, in legal actions arising from transactions conducted in the ordinary course of business. The Company and the Bank believe, after consultations with legal counsel, that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from such actions will not have a material adverse effect on their financial statements.

The Company’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PB.” As of February 23, 2017, there were 69,478,062 shares outstanding and 3,287 shareholders of record. The number of beneficial owners is unknown to the Company at this time.

The following table presents the high and low intra-day sales prices for the common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange:

Holders of common stock are entitled to receive dividends when, as and if declared by the Company’s Board of Directors out of funds legally available therefor. Although the Company has declared dividends on its common stock since 1994, and paid quarterly dividends aggregating $1.2400 per share for 2016 and $1.1175 per share for 2015, the Company could discontinue payment of dividends in the future. Future dividends on the common stock will depend upon the Company’s earnings and financial condition, liquidity and capital requirements, the general economic and regulatory climate, the Company’s ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to the common stock and other factors deemed relevant by the Board of Directors of the Company.

As a holding company, the Company is ultimately dependent upon its subsidiaries to provide funding for its operating expenses, debt service and dividends. Various banking laws applicable to the Bank limit the payment of dividends and other distributions by the Bank to the Company, and may therefore limit the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock. Regulatory authorities could impose administratively stricter limitations on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to the Company if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy in relation to the organization’s overall asset quality, level of current and prospective earnings and level, composition and quality of capital. The guidance provides that the Company should inform and consult with the Federal Reserve Board prior to declaring and paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in an adverse change to the Company’s capital structure.

The cash dividends declared per share by quarter (and paid on the first business day of the subsequent quarter) for the Company’s last two fiscal years were as follows:

As of December 31, 2016, the Company had outstanding stock options granted under its 2004 stock award plan and restricted stock issued under its 2004 and 2012 stock award plans, all of which were approved by the Company’s shareholders. The following table provides information as of December 31, 2016 regarding the Company’s equity compensation plans under which the Company’s equity securities are authorized for issuance:

The following table details the Company's repurchases of shares of its common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2016:

The following Performance Graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return on the Company’s common stock for the period beginning at the close of trading on December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2016, with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Total Return Index and the Nasdaq Bank Index for the same period. Dividend reinvestment has been assumed. The Performance Graph assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2011 in the Company’s common stock, the S&P 500 Total Return Index and the Nasdaq Bank Index. The historical stock price performance for the Company’s common stock shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future stock performance.

The following selected consolidated financial data of the Company for, and as of the end of, each of the years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2016, is derived from and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

	As of and for the Years Ended December 31,
	2016⁽¹⁾			2015			2014⁽¹⁾			2013⁽¹⁾			2012⁽¹⁾
	(In thousands, except per share data)
Income Statement Data:
Interest income	$	675,779		$	669,701		$	714,795		$	539,297		$	419,842
Interest expense		43,159			39,191			43,641			40,471			39,136
Net interest income		632,620			630,510			671,154			498,826			380,706
Provision for credit losses		24,000			7,560			18,275			17,240			6,100
Net interest income after provision for credit losses		608,620			622,950			652,879			481,586			374,606
Noninterest income		118,425			120,781			120,832			95,427			75,535
Noninterest expense		318,387			313,536			327,962			247,196			198,457
Income before taxes		408,658			430,195			445,749			329,817			251,684
Provision for income taxes		134,192			143,549			148,308			108,419			83,783
Net income	$	274,466		$	286,646		$	297,441		$	221,398		$	167,901
Per Share Data:
Basic earnings per share	$	3.94		$	4.09		$	4.32		$	3.66		$	3.24
Diluted earnings per share		3.94			4.09			4.32			3.65			3.23
Book value per share		52.41			49.45			46.50			42.19			37.02
Cash dividends declared per share		1.2400			1.1175			0.9925			0.8850			0.8000
Dividend payout ratio		31.42	%		27.30	%		22.99	%		24.41	%		24.74	%
Weighted average shares outstanding (basic)		69,674			70,033			68,855			60,421			51,794
Weighted average shares outstanding (diluted)		69,680			70,049			68,911			60,578			51,941
Shares outstanding at end of period		69,491			70,022			69,780			66,048			56,447
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Total assets	$	22,331,072		$	22,037,216		$	21,507,733		$	18,642,028		$	14,583,573
Securities		9,726,086			9,502,427			9,045,776			8,224,448			7,442,065
Loans		9,622,060			9,438,589			9,244,183			7,775,221			5,179,940
Allowance for credit losses		85,326			81,384			80,762			67,282			52,564
Total goodwill and intangibles		1,946,629			1,918,244			1,933,138			1,713,569			1,243,321
Other real estate owned		15,463			2,963			3,237			7,299			7,234
Total deposits		17,307,302			17,681,119			17,693,158			15,291,271			11,641,844
Federal funds purchased and other borrowings		990,781			491,399			8,724			10,689			256,753
Junior subordinated debentures		—			—			167,531			124,231			85,055
Total shareholders’ equity		3,642,311			3,462,910			3,244,826			2,786,818			2,089,389

	As of and for the Years Ended December 31,
	2016⁽¹⁾				2015				2014⁽¹⁾			2013⁽¹⁾			2012⁽¹⁾
	(In thousands, except per share data)
Average Balance Sheet Data:
Total assets	$	21,880,762			$	21,618,604			$	20,596,929		$	16,255,914		$	12,432,666
Securities		9,401,669				9,541,443				8,723,011			7,932,782			6,364,917
Loans		9,629,714				9,200,765				8,988,069			6,202,897			4,514,171
Allowance for credit losses		84,189				80,894				72,714			57,001			51,770
Total goodwill and intangibles		1,947,979				1,934,099				1,853,350			1,395,323			1,078,804
Total deposits		17,348,387				17,157,864				16,690,344			12,764,302			9,748,843
Junior subordinated debentures		2,081				29,443				154,902			91,584			85,055
Total shareholders’ equity		3,566,931				3,368,788				3,080,324			2,378,234			1,844,334
Performance Ratios:
Return on average assets		1.25	%			1.33	%			1.44	%		1.36	%		1.35	%
Return on average common equity		7.69	%			8.51	%			9.66	%		9.31	%		9.10	%
Net interest margin (tax equivalent)		3.35	%			3.38	%			3.80	%		3.58	%		3.53	%
Efficiency ratio⁽²⁾		42.50	%			41.87	%			41.81	%		41.60	%		43.48	%
Asset Quality Ratios⁽³⁾:
Nonperforming assets to total loans and other real estate		0.50	%			0.46	%			0.40	%		0.29	%		0.25	%
Net charge-offs to average loans		0.21	%			0.08	%			0.05	%		0.04	%		0.11	%
Allowance for credit losses to total loans		0.89	%			0.86	%			0.87	%		0.87	%		1.01	%
Allowance for credit losses to nonperforming loans⁽⁴⁾		261.8	%			201.8	%			240.3	%		443.3	%		920.1	%
Capital Ratios⁽³⁾:
Leverage ratio		8.68	%	⁽⁶⁾		7.97	%	⁽⁶⁾		7.69	%		7.42	%		7.10	%
Average shareholders’ equity to average total assets		16.30	%			15.58	%			14.96	%		14.63	%		14.83	%
CET1 capital ratio⁽⁵⁾		14.48	%	⁽⁶⁾		13.55	%	⁽⁶⁾	N/A			N/A			N/A
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		14.48	%	⁽⁶⁾		13.55	%	⁽⁶⁾		13.80

Texas		74-2331986
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Prosperity Bank Plaza 4295 San Felipe Houston, Texas		77027
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Common Stock, par value
$1.00 per share		New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(Title of each class)		(Name of each exchange on which registered)

PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
	General	1
	Recent Acquisitions	2
	Available Information	2
	Officers and Associates	2
	Banking Activities	2
	Business Strategies	3
	Competition	4
	Supervision and Regulation	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	13
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	20
Item 2.	Properties	20
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	21
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	21
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	22
Item 6.	Selected Consolidated Financial Data	25
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	27
	Overview	28
	Recent Acquisition	29
	Critical Accounting Policies	29
	Results of Operations	31
	Financial Condition	36
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	55
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	55
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	56
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	56
Item 9B.	Other Information	59
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	59
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	59
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	59
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	59
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	59
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	60
Signatures		62

2016	High		Low
Fourth Quarter	$	73.68	$	52.81
Third Quarter		56.27		45.94
Second Quarter		54.57		43.28
First Quarter		47.50		33.57

2015	High		Low
Fourth Quarter	$	57.04	$	46.23
Third Quarter		59.97		43.76
Second Quarter		59.30		50.91
First Quarter		55.88		45.01

Large Accelerated Filer	☒	Accelerated Filer	☐

Non-accelerated Filer	☐	Smaller Reporting Company	☐

	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
Plan Category	(a)		(b)		(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders		5,000	$	29.69		908,315	⁽¹⁾
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders		—		—		—
		5,000	$	29.69		908,315

Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased		Weighted Average Price Paid per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Program		Maximum Number of Shares That May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plan at the End of the Period ⁽¹⁾
October 1 - October 31, 2016		—	$	—		—		2,290,745
November 1 - November 30, 2016		—		—		—		2,290,745
December 1 - December 31, 2016		—		—		—		2,290,745
Total		—	$	—		—

	12/11		12/12		12/13		12/14		12/15		12/16
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.	$	100.00	$	106.03	$	162.67	$	144.44	$	127.54	$	195.79
S&P 500		100.00		116.00		153.58		174.60		177.01		198.18
NASDAQ Bank		100.00		115.47		163.03		170.37		183.74		251.93