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

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 x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required 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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, 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 x 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 to this Form 10-K. ¨

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

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

The aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by nonaffiliates of the registrant computed using the last sale price on June 30, 2014 was approximately $476,942,909.

As of January 30, 2015, there were 15,504,513 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the registrant (the “2015 Proxy Statement”) to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

BancFirst Corporation (the “Company”) is an Oklahoma business corporation and a financial holding company under federal law. It conducts virtually all of its operating activities through its principal wholly-owned subsidiary, BancFirst (the “Bank” or “BancFirst”), a state-chartered bank headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Company also owns 100% of the common securities of BFC Capital Trust II (a Delaware business trust), 100% of Council Oak Partners LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company engaging in investing activities, and 100% of BancFirst Insurance Services, Inc., an Oklahoma business corporation operating as an independent insurance agency.

The Company was incorporated as United Community Corporation in July 1984 for the purpose of becoming a bank holding company. In June 1985, it merged with seven Oklahoma bank holding companies that had operated under common ownership and the Company has conducted business as a bank holding company since that time. Over the next several years the Company acquired additional banks and bank holding companies, and in November 1988 the Company changed its name to BancFirst Corporation. Effective April 1, 1989, the Company consolidated its 12 subsidiary banks and formed BancFirst. Over the intervening decades, the Company has continued to expand through acquisitions and de-novo branches. The Company currently has 95 banking locations serving 52 communities throughout Oklahoma.

The Company’s strategy focuses on providing a full range of commercial banking services to retail customers and small to medium-sized businesses in both the non-metropolitan trade centers and cities in the metropolitan statistical areas of Oklahoma. The Company operates as a “super community bank”, managing its community banking offices on a decentralized basis, which permits them to be responsive to local customer needs. Underwriting, funding, customer service and pricing decisions are made by presidents in each market within the Company’s strategic parameters. At the same time, the Company generally has a larger lending capacity, broader product line and greater operational scale than its principal competitors in the non-metropolitan market areas (which typically are independently-owned community banks). In the metropolitan markets served by the Company, the Company’s strategy is to focus on the needs of local businesses that are not served adequately by larger institutions.

The Bank maintains a strong community orientation by, among other things, selecting members of the communities in which the Bank’s branches operate to local consulting boards that assist in marketing and providing feedback on the Bank’s products and services to meet customer needs. As a result of the development of broad banking relationships with its customers and community branch network, the Bank’s lending and investing activities are funded almost entirely by core deposits.

The Bank centralizes virtually all of its processing, support and investment functions in order to achieve consistency and operational efficiencies. The Bank maintains centralized control functions such as operations support, bookkeeping, accounting, loan review, compliance and internal auditing to ensure effective risk management. The Bank also provides centrally certain specialized financial services that require unique expertise.

The Bank provides a wide range of retail and commercial banking services, including: commercial, real estate, agricultural and consumer lending; depository and funds transfer services; collections; safe deposit boxes; cash management services; trust services; retail brokerage services; and other services tailored for both individual and corporate customers. Through its Technology and Operations Center, the Bank provides item processing, research and other correspondent banking services to financial institutions and governmental units.

The Bank’s primary lending activity is the financing of business and industry in its market areas. Its commercial loan customers are generally small to medium-sized businesses engaged in light manufacturing, local wholesale and retail trade, commercial and residential real estate development and construction, services, agriculture and the energy industry. Most forms of commercial lending are offered, including commercial mortgages, other forms of asset-based financing and working capital lines of credit. In addition, the Bank offers Small Business Administration (“SBA”) guaranteed loans through BancFirst Commercial Capital, a division established in 1991.

Consumer lending activities of the Bank consist of traditional forms of financing for automobiles, residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and other personal loans. Residential loans consist primarily of home loans in non-metropolitan areas which are generally shorter in duration than typical mortgages and reprice within five years.

The Bank’s range of deposit services include checking accounts, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, sweep accounts, club accounts, individual retirement accounts and certificates of deposit. Overdraft

protection and auto draft services are also offered. Deposits of the Bank are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

Trust services offered through the Bank’s Trust and Investment Management Division (the “Trust Division”) consist primarily of investment management and administration of trusts for individuals, corporations and employee benefit plans. Investment options include pooled equity and fixed income funds managed by the Trust Division and advised by nationally recognized investment management firms. In addition, the Trust Division serves as bond trustee and paying agent for various Oklahoma municipalities and governmental entities.

BancFirst has the following principal subsidiaries: Council Oak Investment Corporation, a small business investment corporation, Council Oak Real Estate, Inc., a real estate investment company, and BancFirst Agency, Inc., a credit life insurance agency. All of these companies are Oklahoma corporations.

The Company had approximately 1,688 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2014, compared to approximately 1,653 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2013. Its principal executive offices are located at 101 North Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, telephone number (405) 270-1086.

The banking environment in Oklahoma is very competitive. The geographic dispersion of the Company’s banking locations presents several different levels and types of competition. In general, however, each location competes with other banking institutions, savings and loan associations, brokerage firms, personal loan finance companies and credit unions within their respective market areas. The communities in which the Bank maintains offices are generally local trade centers throughout Oklahoma. The major areas of competition include interest rates charged on loans, underwriting terms and conditions, interest rates paid on deposits, fees on non-credit services, levels of service charges on deposits, completeness of product lines and quality of service.

Management believes the Company is in an advantageous competitive position operating as a “super community bank.” Under this strategy, the Company provides a broad line of financial products and services to small to medium-sized businesses and consumers through full service community banking offices with decentralized management, while achieving operating efficiency and product scale through product standardization and centralization of processing and other functions. Each full-service banking office has senior management with significant lending experience who exercise substantial autonomy over credit and pricing decisions. This decentralized management approach, coupled with continuity of service by the same staff members, enables the Bank to develop long-term customer relationships, maintain high-quality service and respond quickly to customer needs. The majority of its competitors in the non-metropolitan areas are much smaller, and neither offer the range of products and services nor have the lending capacity of BancFirst. In the metropolitan communities, the Company’s strategy is to be more responsive to, and more focused on, the needs of local businesses that are not served effectively by larger institutions. As reported by the FDIC, the Company’s market share of deposits for Oklahoma was 7.25% as of June 30, 2014 and 6.82% as of June 30, 2013.

Marketing to existing and potential customers is performed through a variety of media advertising, direct mail and direct personal contacts. The Company monitors the needs of its customer base through its Product Development Group, which develops and enhances products and services in response to such needs. Sales, customer service and product training are coordinated with incentive programs to motivate employees to cross-sell the Bank’s products and services.

The Company has four principal business units: metropolitan banks, community banks, other financial services and executive operations and support. For more information on the Company’s Operating Segments see Note (22), “Segment Information” to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

Affiliates of the Company beneficially own approximately 50% of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as of January 30, 2015. Under the Company’s Bylaws, holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock are able to elect all of the directors and approve significant corporate actions, including business combinations. Accordingly, the Company’s affiliates have the ability to control the business and affairs of the Company.

Banking is a complex, highly regulated industry. The Company’s growth and earnings performance and those of the Bank can be affected not only by management decisions and general and local economic conditions, but also by the statutes administered by, and the regulations and policies of, various governmental regulatory authorities. These authorities include, but are not limited to, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”), the FDIC and the Oklahoma State Banking Department.

The primary goals of the bank regulatory framework are to maintain a safe and sound banking system and to facilitate the conduct of monetary policy. This regulatory framework is intended primarily for the protection of a financial institution’s depositors, rather than the institution’s stockholders and creditors. The following discussion describes certain of the material elements of the regulatory framework applicable to bank holding companies and financial holding companies and their subsidiaries and provides certain specific information relevant to the Company, which is both a bank holding company and a financial holding company. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the specific statutes and regulations discussed. Further, such statutes, regulations and policies are continually under review by Congress and state legislatures, and federal and state regulatory agencies. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company, including changes in interpretation or implementation thereof, could have a material effect on the Company’s business.

In the U.S., banking is regulated at both the federal and state level. Since 1863, commercial banks in the United States have been able to choose to organize as national banks with a charter issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) or as state banks with a charter issued by a state government. The choice of charter determines which agency will supervise the bank: the primary supervisor of nationally chartered banks is the OCC, whereas state-chartered banks are supervised jointly by their state chartering authority and either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board, depending upon whether the state-chartered bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Company’s banking subsidiary, BancFirst, is chartered by the State of Oklahoma and at the state level is supervised and regulated by the Oklahoma State Banking Department under the Oklahoma Banking Code. BancFirst has elected not to be a member of the Federal Reserve System and, consequently, is supervised and regulated by the FDIC at the federal level. The Bank’s deposits are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC to the extent provided by law.

As a financial holding company and a bank holding company, the Company is subject to comprehensive regulation by the Federal Reserve Board under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”), the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, and other legislation (as so amended, the “BHC Act”), as well as other federal and state laws governing the banking business. The BHC Act provides generally for regulation of financial holding companies and bank holding companies such as the Company by the Federal Reserve Board, and for functional regulation of banking activities by bank regulators, securities activities by securities regulators, and insurance activities by insurance regulators. Additionally, the Company is under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and is subject to the periodic reporting, information, proxy solicitation, insider trading, corporate governance and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The Company’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market System under the trading symbol “BANF,” and is subject to the listing and marketplace rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. (the “NASDAQ”).

The Federal Reserve Board supervises non-banking activities conducted by companies directly and indirectly owned by the Company. In addition, the Company’s non-banking subsidiaries are subject to various other laws, regulations, supervision and examination by other regulatory agencies, all of which directly or indirectly affect the operations and management of the Company and its ability to make distributions to stockholders.

The list of activities permitted by the Federal Reserve Board includes, among other things: lending; operating a savings institution, mortgage company, finance company, credit card company or factoring company; performing certain data processing operations; providing certain investment and financial advice; underwriting and acting as an insurance agent for certain types of credit-related insurance; leasing property on a full-payout, non-operating basis; selling money orders; real estate and personal property appraising; providing tax planning and preparation services; and, subject to certain limitations, providing securities brokerage services for customers. These activities may also be affected by other federal legislation.

“Financial in nature” activities include securities underwriting, dealing and market making, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency, merchant banking and other activities that the Federal Reserve Board, in

consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, determines from time to time to be financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity or is complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a safety and soundness risk.

To maintain financial holding company status, a financial holding company and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” A depository institution subsidiary is considered to be “well capitalized” if it satisfies the requirements for this status discussed in the section captioned “Capital Requirements,” included elsewhere in this item. A depository institution subsidiary is considered “well managed” if it received a composite rating and management rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination. A financial holding company’s status will also depend 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 capital and management requirements, the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations provide that the financial holding company must enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve Board to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. Until the financial holding company returns to compliance, the Federal Reserve Board may impose limitations or conditions on the conduct of its activities, and the company may not commence any of the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies or acquire a company engaged in such financial activities without prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the Federal Reserve Board may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions. Bank holding companies and banks must also be both well capitalized and well managed in order to acquire banks located outside their home state.

In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHC Act or to acquire a company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the Community Reinvestment Act. See the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act” included elsewhere in this item.

The Federal Reserve Board has the power to order any bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve Board has reasonable grounds to believe that continuation of such activity or such ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness, safety or stability of any bank subsidiary of the bank holding company.

Federal and state laws impose notice and approval requirements for mergers and acquisitions of other depository institutions or bank holding companies. The BHC Act requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board for the direct or indirect acquisition by a bank holding company of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of a commercial bank or its parent holding company (including a financial holding company). Under the Bank Merger Act, the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board or other appropriate bank regulatory authority is required for a member bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition or merger, bank regulatory authorities will consider, among other factors, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position of the combined organization, the risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system, the applicant’s performance record under the Community Reinvestment Act (see the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act” included elsewhere in this item) and its compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws and the effectiveness of the subject organizations in combating money laundering activities.

The principal source of the Company’s liquidity is dividends from the Bank. Various federal and state statutory provisions and regulations limit the amount of dividends the Company’s subsidiary bank and certain other subsidiaries may pay without regulatory approval. The payment of dividends by its subsidiary bank may also be affected by other regulatory requirements and policies, such as the maintenance of adequate capital. If, in the opinion of the applicable regulatory authority, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), such authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice. The appropriate federal regulatory authorities have stated that paying dividends that deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice and that banking organizations should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings. In addition, in the current financial and economic environment, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

In October 2012, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board published final rules regarding company-run stress testing. The rules require financial institutions to conduct an annual company-run stress test of capital, consolidated earnings and losses under at least three different sets of conditions, including baseline, adverse and severely adverse conditions. It is anticipated that the capital ratios reflected in the stress test calculations will be an important factor to be considered by the Federal Reserve Board

in evaluating whether proposed payments of dividends or stock repurchases may be an unsafe or unsound practice. The rules apply to institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion and, accordingly, do not currently apply to the Company, which had total consolidated assets at December 31, 2014 of approximately $6.6 billion. However, while the Federal Reserve Board has stated that smaller banking organizations such as the Company are not required or expected to conduct the types of stress-testing specifically mandated by the rules, they continue to emphasize that all banking institutions, regardless of size, should have the capacity to analyze the potential impact of adverse outcomes on their financial condition.

The Company and the Bank are deemed affiliates of each other within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act, and covered transactions between affiliates are subject to certain restrictions, including compliance with Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and their implementing regulations. These regulations limit the types and amounts of covered transactions engaged in by a financial institution and its affiliates, and generally require those transactions to be on an arm’s-length basis. “Covered transactions” are defined by statute to include a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve Board) from the affiliate, certain derivative transactions that create a credit exposure to an affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate. In general, these regulations require that any such transaction by a financial institution with an affiliate must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and must be limited to certain thresholds on an individual and aggregate basis.

Federal Reserve Board policy requires bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks and, under appropriate circumstances, to commit resources to support each such subsidiary bank. This support may be required at times when the bank holding company may not have the resources to provide the support. If a bank holding company was unable to pay mandated assessments in support of its subsidiary bank, the FDIC could order the sale of the bank holding company’s stock in the subsidiary bank to cover the deficiency.

Capital loans by a bank holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In addition, in the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Regulatory Capital Requirements in Effect prior to January 1, 2015. The Company and the Bank are required to comply with the capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC. The federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines in effect as of December 31, 2014 were based upon the 1988 capital accord of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”). The Basel Committee is a committee of central banks and bank supervisors/regulators from the major industrialized countries that develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s supervisors in determining the supervisory policies they apply. The requirements were intended to ensure that banking organizations have adequate capital given the risk levels of assets and off-balance sheet financial instruments. Under the capital adequacy guidelines in effect prior to January 1, 2015, bank holding companies were required to maintain minimum total capital equal to 8% of total risk-adjusted assets and off-balance sheet items, with at least one-half of that amount consisting of Tier I, or core capital, and the remaining amount consisting of Tier II, or supplementary capital. Tier I capital for bank holding companies generally consisted of the sum of common shareholders’ equity, qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, a limited amount of qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock and minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and other non-qualifying intangible assets. Tier II capital generally consisted of hybrid capital instruments not meeting the Tier 1 definition, term subordinated debt and, subject to limitations, general allowances for loan losses. For purposes of calculating the ratios, a banking organization’s assets and some of its specified off-balance sheet commitments and obligations were assigned to various risk categories. Under these guidelines, the Company, like other bank holding companies, was required to maintain Tier 1 capital and “total capital” (the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) equal to at least 4.0% and 8.0%, respectively, of its total risk-weighted assets. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had a Tier 1 ratio of 13.77% and a total capital ratio of 14.75%. The Bank, like other depository institutions, was required to maintain similar capital levels under capital adequacy guidelines. In addition, for a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized” under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action its Tier 1 and total capital ratios had to be at least 6.0% and 10.0% on a risk-adjusted basis, respectively. As of December 31, 2014, the Bank had a Tier 1 ratio of 12.71% and a total capital ratio of 13.68%.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board also required bank holding companies to comply with minimum leverage ratio requirements. The leverage ratio is the ratio of a banking organization’s Tier I capital to its total consolidated quarterly average assets (as defined for regulatory purposes), net of the allowance for loan losses, goodwill and certain other intangible assets. The requirements imposed a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0% for bank holding companies and member banks that either have the highest supervisory rating or have implemented the appropriate federal regulatory authority’s risk-adjusted measure for market risk. All other bank holding companies and member banks were required to maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, unless a different minimum was specified by an appropriate regulatory authority. In addition, for a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized” under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, its leverage ratio had to be at least 5.0%. At December 31, 2014, the Company had a leverage ratio of 8.83% and the Bank had a leverage ratio of 8.15%.

As an additional means to identify problems in the financial management of depository institutions, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDI Act”) requires federal bank regulatory agencies to establish certain non-capital safety and soundness standards for institutions for which they are the primary federal regulator. The standards relate generally to operations and management, asset quality, interest rate exposure and executive compensation. The agencies are authorized to take action against institutions that fail to meet such standards.

Basel III Capital Rules Effective January 1, 2015. In July 2013 the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System approved a final rule to implement in the United States the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee as well as certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Basel III Capital Rules”). The Basel III Capital Rules substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions, including the Company and the Bank, compared to the U.S. risk-based capital rules in effect prior to the effective date of the new 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 existing 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).

Among other things, the Basel III Capital Rules (i) introduce a new capital measure call “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) define CET1 narrowly by requiring that most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CETI and not to the other components of capital, and (iv) expand the scope of the deductions/adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Basel III Capital Rules will require the Company and the Bank to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% CET1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7% upon full implementation), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of Total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation) and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets (as compared to a minimum leverage ratio of 3% under the old rules for banking organizations that either have the highest supervisory rating or have implemented the appropriate federal regulatory authority’s risk-adjusted measure for market risk). The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall. Phase-in of the capital conservation buffer requirements will begin on January 1, 2016 and be fully phased-in on January 1, 2019.

The Basel III Capital Rules also provide for a “countercyclical capital buffer” to be phased-in between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2019, that is applicable to only certain covered institutions and does not have any current applicability to the Company or the Bank.

Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the initial minimum capital ratios that became effective on January 1, 2015 are as follows:

The enactment of the Basel III Capital Rules will increase the Company’s required capital levels and those of the Bank. Management believes that as of December 31, 2014, the Company and the Bank would have met all capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis as if such requirements had been in effect at such date.

Historically, the regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. Liquidity risk management has become increasingly important since the financial crisis. 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, going forward would be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio, is designed to ensure that the 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, is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements are designed to incentivize banking entities to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. The Basel III Capital Rules did not address the proposed liquidity coverage ratio called for by the Basel Committee’s Basel III framework. On September 9, 2014, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule implementing a liquidity coverage ratio requirement in the United States for larger banking organizations. Neither the Company nor the Bank is subject to the liquidity coverage ratio requirement.

The FDI Act requires federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to FDIC-insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. A depository institution’s treatment for purposes of the prompt corrective action provisions will depend upon how its capital levels compare to various capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation.

Under this system, the federal banking regulators have established five capital categories: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized, in which all depository institutions are placed. The federal banking regulators have specified by regulation the relevant capital levels for each of the categories. Under certain circumstances, a well-capitalized, adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution may be treated as if the institution were in the next lower capital category. Federal banking regulators are required to take various mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions with respect to institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The severity of the action depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. A depository institution that is undercapitalized is required to submit a capital restoration plan. Failure to meet capital guidelines could subject a bank to a variety of enforcement remedies by federal bank regulatory agencies, including termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, restrictions on certain business activities, and appointment of the FDIC as conservator or receiver. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the banking regulator must appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized.

With respect to the Bank, the Basel III Capital Rules revise the prompt corrective action regulations by: (i) introducing the CET1 ratio requirement at each prompt corrective action category (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the current 6.0%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% leverage ratio and still be adequately capitalized. The Basel III Capital Rules do not change the total risk-based capital requirement for any prompt corrective action category. The Company believes that, as of December 31, 2014, the Bank was “well capitalized” based on the aforementioned ratios.

The deposits of the Bank are insured by the FDIC in the standard insurance amount of $250,000 per depositor for each account ownership category. This insurance is funded through assessments on the Bank and other insured depository institutions. The FDIC’s risk-based assessment system requires members to pay varying assessment rates depending upon the level of the institution’s capital and the degree of supervisory concern over the institution. In connection with implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC in 2011 changed each institution’s assessment base from its total insured deposits to its average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity and created a scorecard method for calculating assessments that combines certain supervisory ratings and specified forward-looking financial measures to determine each institution’s risk to the DIF. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the FDIC, in setting assessments, to offset the effect of increasing its reserve for the DIF on institutions with consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. The result of this revised approach to deposit-insurance assessments is generally an increase in costs, on an absolute or relative basis, for institutions with consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. The DIF assessment base rate currently ranges from 2.5 to 45 basis points for institutions that do not trigger factors for brokered deposits and unsecured debt, and higher rates for those that do trigger those risk factors.

At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking if required. The FDIC may increase or decrease its rates by 2.0 basis points without further rulemaking. In an emergency, the FDIC may also impose a special assessment.

The Company’s FDIC insurance expense totaled $3.3 million, $3.0 million and $2.9 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. FDIC insurance expense includes deposit insurance assessments as well as Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments. All FDIC-insured depository institutions must pay an annual FICO assessment to provide funds for the payment of interest on bonds issued by FICO during the 1980s to resolve the thrift bailout. FDIC-insured depository institutions paid an average FICO assessment of 62 cents for each $100 of assessable deposits in 2014.

As insurer, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by DIF-insured institutions. It also may prohibit any DIF-insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious threat to the DIF. The FDIC also has the authority to take enforcement actions against insured institutions.

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged or is engaging in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC or written agreement entered into with the FDIC. The Company does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance for its banking subsidiary.

The FDI Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of the FDI Act. See “--Prompt Corrective Action” above. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities, such as the Company and the Bank, having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. Officials from the Federal Reserve Board have recently indicated that they are preparing a proposed new rule on incentive compensation.

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

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

The Company’s business and earnings are affected significantly by the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government and its agencies. The Company is particularly affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve Board, which regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. Among the instruments of monetary policy available to the Federal Reserve Board are (a) conducting open market operations in United States government securities, (b) changing the discount rates of borrowings of depository institutions, (c) imposing or changing reserve requirements against depository institutions’ deposits and (d) imposing or changing reserve requirements against certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates. These methods are used in varying degrees and combinations to directly affect the availability of bank loans and deposits, as well as the interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The policies of the Federal Reserve Board may have a material effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

Federal banking regulators, as required under the GLB Act, have adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. The rules require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. The privacy provisions of the GLB Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) is intended to strengthen the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities to work together to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The Patriot Act substantially broadened the scope of the U.S. 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 U.S. Treasury Department has issued a number of implementing regulations which apply various requirements of the Patriot Act to financial institutions such as the Bank. Those regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing, and have significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act also requires federal bank regulators to

evaluate the effectiveness of an applicant in combating money laundering in determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition. 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, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

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: (i) 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 (ii) 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.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”), requires depository institutions to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas consistent with safe and sound banking practices. Under the CRA, each depository institution is required to help meet the credit needs of its market areas by, among other things, providing credit to low- and moderate-income individuals and communities. Depository institutions are periodically examined for compliance with the CRA and are assigned ratings. In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, or to acquire any company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the CRA. Furthermore, banking regulations take into account CRA rating when considering approval of a proposed transaction. During its last examination in 2012, a rating of “satisfactory” was received by the Bank.

Banks and other financial institutions are subject to numerous laws and regulations intended to protect consumers in their transactions with banks. These laws include, among others, laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices and usury laws, as well as the federal consumer protection statutes set forth below. Many states and local jurisdictions have consumer protection laws analogous and in addition, to those listed below. These federal, state and local laws regulate the manner in which financial institutions deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans or conducting other types of transactions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could give rise to regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by state and local attorneys general and civil or criminal liability.

Federal Laws Applicable to Credit Transactions. The loan operations of the Bank are also subject to federal laws and regulations applicable to credit transactions, including, among others, the:

• Truth-In-Lending Act, governing disclosures of credit terms to consumer borrowers;

• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, requiring financial institutions to provide information to enable the public and public officials to determine whether a financial institution is fulfilling its obligation to help meet the housing needs of the community it serves;

• Equal Credit Opportunity Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, creed or other prohibited factors in extending credit;

• Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1978, governing the use and provision of information to credit reporting agencies;

• Fair Debt Collection Act, governing the manner in which consumer debts may be collected by collection agencies;

• Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, requiring lenders to give borrowers certain disclosures with respect to the origination and servicing of one to four family mortgage loans;

• Service Members Civil Relief Act, which amended the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, governing the repayment terms of and property rights underlying secured obligations of persons in military service; and the rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these federal laws and regulations, which continue to be extensively amended and revised.

Federal Laws Applicable to Deposit Operations. Among other laws and regulations, the deposit operations of the Bank are subject to the following federal laws and their related regulations:

• Right to Financial Privacy Act, which imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribes procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records;

• Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which governs automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers’ rights and liabilities arising from the use of automated teller machines and other electronic banking services;

• Expedited Funds Availability Act, which standardizes hold periods for deposits and regulates financial institutions’ use of deposit holds;

• Truth-in-Savings Act, which requires uniform disclosure of terms and conditions regarding interest and fees when giving out information on or opening a new savings account; and

• the rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these federal laws, which continue to be extensively amended and revised.

Under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Riegle-Neal Act”), a bank holding company may acquire banks in states other than its home state, subject to any state requirement that the bank has been organized and operating for a minimum period of time, not to exceed five years, and the requirement that the bank holding company, prior to or following the proposed acquisition, control no more than 10% of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions nationwide and no more than 30% of such deposits in that state (or such amount as set by the state if such amount is lower than 30%).

The Riegle-Neal Act also authorizes banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches. Banks are also permitted to either acquire existing banks or to establish new branches in other states where authorized under the laws of those states. Effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act also required that a bank holding company or bank be well-capitalized and well-managed (rather than simply adequately capitalized and adequately managed) in order to take advantage of these interstate banking and branching provisions.

The FDI Act provides that, in the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution (including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors) and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Banking is a heavily regulated industry. Additional initiatives may be proposed or introduced before Congress and other government bodies in the future. Such proposals, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationship among financial institutions and may subject the Company to increased supervision and disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various bank regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations and policies to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulatory changes in policy may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Company would be affected thereby.

BancFirst is an Oklahoma-chartered state bank. Accordingly, BancFirst’s operations are subject to various requirements and restrictions of Oklahoma state law relating to loans, lending limits, interest rates payable on deposits, investments, mergers and acquisitions, borrowings, dividends, capital adequacy and other matters. However, Oklahoma banking law specifically empowers a state-chartered bank such as BancFirst to exercise the same powers as are conferred upon national banks by the laws of the United States and the regulations and policies of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, unless otherwise prohibited or limited by the State Banking Commissioner or the State Banking Board. Accordingly, unless a specific provision of Oklahoma law otherwise provides, a state-chartered bank is empowered to conduct all activities that a national bank may conduct.

National banks are authorized by the GLB Act to engage, through “financial subsidiaries,” in any activity that is permissible for a financial holding company and any activity that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board, determines is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity, except (1) insurance underwriting, (2) real estate development or real estate investment activities (unless otherwise permitted by law), (3) insurance company portfolio investments and (4) merchant banking. The authority of a national bank to invest in a financial subsidiary is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, requirements that the bank must be well managed and well capitalized (after deducting from the bank’s capital outstanding investments in financial subsidiaries). The GLB Act provides that state nonmember banks, such as BancFirst, may invest in financial subsidiaries (assuming they have the requisite investment authority under applicable state law), subject to the same conditions that apply to national bank investments in financial subsidiaries.

As a state nonmember bank, BancFirst is subject to primary supervision, periodic examination and regulation by the State Banking Board and the FDIC, and Oklahoma law provides that BancFirst must maintain reserves against deposits as required by the FDI Act. The Oklahoma State Bank Commissioner is authorized by statute to accept an FDIC examination in lieu of a state examination. In practice, the FDIC and the Oklahoma State Banking Department alternate examinations of BancFirst. If, as a result of an examination of a bank, the Oklahoma Banking Department determines that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, or other aspects of the bank’s operations are unsatisfactory or that the management of the bank is violating or has violated any law or regulation, various remedies, including the remedy of injunction, are available to the Oklahoma Banking Department. Oklahoma law permits the acquisition of an unlimited number of wholly-owned bank subsidiaries so long as aggregate deposits at the time of acquisition in a multi-bank holding company do not exceed 20% of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions located in Oklahoma.

In addition to the provisions of the GLB Act that authorize state nonmember banks to invest in financial subsidiaries (assuming they have the requisite investment authority under applicable state law) on the same conditions that apply to national banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”) provides that FDIC-insured state banks such as BancFirst may engage directly or through a subsidiary in certain activities that are not permissible for a national bank, if the activity is authorized by applicable state law, the FDIC determines that the activity does not pose a significant risk to the DIF, and the bank is in compliance with its applicable capital standards.

The Company’s common stock is publicly held and listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, and the Company is subject to the periodic reporting, information, proxy solicitation, insider trading, corporate governance and other requirements and restrictions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the regulations of the SEC promulgated thereunder as well as listing requirements of the NASDAQ. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions that affect corporate governance and executive compensation at most United States publicly traded companies, including the Company.

The Company is also subject to the accounting oversight and corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, including:

The Company maintains a website at www.bancfirst.com. The Company provides copies of the most recently filed 10-K, 10-Q and proxy statements, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files the material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. The website also provides links to the SEC’s website (http://www.sec.gov) where all of the Company’s filings with the SEC can be obtained immediately upon filing. You may also request a copy of the Company’s filings, at no cost, by writing or telephoning us at the following address:

In the course of conducting our business operations, the Company is exposed to a variety of risks that are inherent to the financial services industry. The following discusses some of the key inherent risk factors that could affect our business and operations, as well as other risk factors which are particularly relevant to us in the current period of significant economic and market disruption. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing the Company. Other factors besides those discussed below or elsewhere in this report also could adversely affect our business and operations, and the risk factors discussed below should not be considered a complete list of potential risks that may affect the Company. Further, to the extent that any of the information contained in this report constitutes forward-looking statements, the risk factors set forth below also are cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Company.

Changes in economic conditions, especially in the State of Oklahoma, pose significant challenges for us and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is affected by conditions outside our control, including the rate of economic growth in general, the level of unemployment, increases in inflation and the level of interest rates. Economic conditions affect the level of demand for and the profitability of our products and services. A slowdown in the general economic recovery, particularly in Oklahoma, could negatively impact our business. Our bank subsidiary operates exclusively within the State of Oklahoma and, unlike larger national or superregional banks that serve a broader and more diverse geographic region; our lending is also primarily concentrated in the State of Oklahoma. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are subject to changes in the economic conditions in our state. Our continued success is largely dependent upon the continued growth or stability of the communities we serve. A decline in the economies of these communities could negatively impact our net income and profitability. Additionally, declines in the economies of these communities and of the State of Oklahoma in general could affect our ability to generate new loans or to receive repayments of existing loans, and our ability to attract new deposits, adversely affecting our financial condition.

Recent decisions by members the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) to maintain existing crude oil production levels has resulted in significant declines in market oil prices. Decreased market oil prices have compressed margins for many U.S. and Oklahoma-based oil producers, particularly those that utilize higher-cost production technologies such as hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, as well as oilfield service providers, energy equipment manufacturers and transportation suppliers, among others. As of December 31, 2014, the price per barrel of crude oil was approximately $53 compared to approximately $98 as of December 31, 2013. While many of the Company’s customers have hedged their exposure to oil price changes in the near term, if oil prices remain at these low levels for an extended period, the Company could experience weaker energy loan demand and increased losses within its energy portfolio. Furthermore, a prolonged period of low oil prices could also have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and, in particular, the economies of states such as Oklahoma, where the energy industry is a significant driver of economic development. Although as of December 31, 2014, energy loans comprised less than 3% of the Company’s loan portfolio, the impact of lower oil prices could have an indirect impact on the Company’s other loan portfolio segments, for example, commercial real estate (“CRE”).

A substantial portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, in particular commercial real estate. Deterioration in the real estate markets could lead to losses, which could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Loans secured by real estate have been a large portion of our loan portfolio. At December 31, 2014, this percentage was 65.8% compared to 67.3% at December 31, 2013. While our record of asset quality has historically been solid, we cannot guarantee that our record of asset quality will be maintained in future periods. Although we were not, and are not, involved in subprime lending, the ramifications of the subprime lending crisis and the turmoil in the financial and capital markets that followed have been far-reaching, with real estate values declining and unemployment and bankruptcies rising throughout the nation, including the region we serve. The ability of our borrowers to repay their loans could be adversely impacted by the significant change in market conditions, which not only could result in our experiencing an increase in charge-offs, but also could necessitate increasing our provision for loan losses. In addition, because multi-family and commercial real estate loans represent the majority of our real estate loans outstanding, a decline in tenant occupancy due to such factors or for other reasons could adversely impact the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans on a timely basis, which could have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

If a significant number of customers fail to perform under their loans, our business, profitability and financial condition would be adversely affected.

As a lender, we face the risk that a significant number of our borrowers will fail to pay their loans resulting from other risks, including the impact of changes in interest rates and changes in the economic conditions in the markets where the Company operates. If borrower defaults cause losses in excess of our allowance for loan losses, it could have an adverse effect on our business, profitability and financial condition. We have established an evaluation process designed to recognize loan losses as they occur. While this evaluation process uses historical and other objective information, the classification of loans and the estimation of loan losses are dependent to a great extent on our experience and judgment. If charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for loan losses, we will need additional provisions to increase the allowance for loan losses. Any increases in the allowance for loan losses will result in a decrease in net income and, possibly, capital, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” located elsewhere in this report for further discussion related to our process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses. We cannot assure you that our future loan losses will not have any material adverse effects on our business, profitability or financial condition.

Technological advances in payment processing is expected to negatively impact the Company’s interchange revenue

Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to the processors who, in turn, share that revenue with Company and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. Rapid, significant technological changes continue to confront the payments industry. Technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products, and for financial institutions and other companies to provide electronic and internet-based financial solutions for processing electronic payment transactions. These include developments in smart cards, e-commerce, mobile, and radio frequency and proximity payment devices, such as contactless cards. Ongoing or increased competition in payment processing may restrict the Company’s ability to generate interchange revenue in the future. For the year ended December 31, 2014, debit card interchange revenue represented 23.7% of the Company’s noninterest income.

The Company is subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern its relationship with its customers. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") with powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks and savings institutions, including the authority to prohibit "unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices.” The CFPB also has examination and enforcement authority over all banks and savings institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for certain designated consumer laws and regulations. The other federal banking agencies enforce such consumer laws and regulations for banks and savings institutions under $10 billion in assets. 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, and restrict the Company’s ability to raise interest rates and charge NSF fees. A significant portion of our noninterest income is derived from service charge income, including NSF fees, which represented 24.7% of the Company’s noninterest income for the year ended December 31, 2014. Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can also result in significant potential liability from litigation brought by customers, including actual damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees.

We realize income primarily from the difference between interest earned on loans and investments and the interest paid on deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-earning assets will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-bearing liabilities, or vice versa. Changes in market interest rates could either positively or negatively affect our net interest income and our profitability, depending on the magnitude, direction and duration of the change. If interest rates remain low, our net interest margin could experience further compression.

We are unable to predict fluctuations of market interest rates, which are affected by, among other factors, changes in inflation rates, economic growth, money supply, government debt, domestic and foreign financial markets and political developments, including terrorist acts and acts of war. Our asset-liability management strategy, which is designed to mitigate our risk from changes in market interest rates, may not be able to mitigate changes in interest rates from having a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our results of operations are affected by credit policies of monetary authorities, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. Actions by monetary and fiscal authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board, could have an adverse effect on our deposit levels, loan demand or business earnings. See “Item 1 - Business-Supervision and Regulation.” Our profitability is greatly dependent upon our earning a positive interest spread between our loan and securities portfolio, and our funding deposits and borrowings. Changes in the level of interest rates, or a prolonged unfavorable interest rate environment, or a decrease in our level of deposits that increases our cost of funds could negatively affect our profitability and financial condition.

There can be no assurance that actions of the U.S. Government, Federal Reserve Board and other governmental and regulatory bodies for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets will achieve the intended long-term effect.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, the U.S. Government responded to the ongoing financial crisis and economic slowdown by enacting new legislation and expanding or establishing a number of programs and initiatives. The U.S. Treasury, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board each have developed programs and facilities, including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Act and other efforts, designed to increase inter-bank lending, improve funding for consumer receivables and restore consumer and counterparty confidence in the banking sector, as more particularly described in “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation.” There can be no assurance as to the long-term impact that any such initiatives or governmental programs will have on the financial markets, including the high levels of volatility and limited credit availability. Unintended long-term consequences of these programs or initiatives could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, access to credit, or the trading price of our common stock and other equity and debt securities.

The repeal of federal prohibitions on payment of interest on business checking accounts could increase our Company’s interest expense.

All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on business checking accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act beginning on July 21, 2011. As a result, some financial institutions have commenced offering interest on business checking accounts to compete for customers. Our interest expense will increase and our net interest margin will decrease if we begin offering interest on business checking accounts to attract additional customers or maintain current customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan and other systems. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business and subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny or civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are reliant upon certain external vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain our day-to-day operations. Accordingly, our operations are exposed to risk that these vendors will not perform in accordance with the contracted arrangements under service level agreements. The failure of an external vendor to perform in accordance with the contracted arrangements under service level agreements could be disruptive to our operations, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to better serving our customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend in part upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our market area. Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products to those that we will be able to offer, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

Maintaining or increasing our market share depends on market acceptance and regulatory approval of new products and services.

Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to adapt our products and services to evolving industry standards and consumer demand. There is increasing pressure on financial services companies to provide products and services at lower prices. In addition, the widespread adoption of new technologies, including Internet-based services, could require us to make substantial expenditures to modify or adapt our existing products or services. A failure to achieve market acceptance of any new products we introduce, or a failure to introduce products that the market may demand, could have an adverse effect on our business, profitability, or growth prospects.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and may be adversely affected by changes in federal and state laws and regulations.

We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by federal and state banking authorities. Any change in applicable regulations or federal or state legislation could have a substantial impact on us and our results of operations. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, instituted major changes to the banking and financial institutions regulatory regimes. Other changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance, could affect the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject the Company to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products the Company may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance could result in enforcement and other legal actions by federal or state authorities, including criminal and civil penalties, the loss of FDIC insurance, the revocation of a banking charter, other sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputational damage. In this regard, government authorities, including the bank regulatory agencies, are pursuing aggressive enforcement actions with respect to compliance and other legal matters involving financial activities, which heightens the risks associated with actual and perceived compliance failures. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

See the sections captioned “Supervision and Regulation” included in Item 1. Business, located elsewhere in this report.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth or may not be able to grow our business at all. Various factors, such as poor economic conditions, changes in interest rates, regulatory and legislative considerations and competition may also impede or inhibit our ability to expand our market presence. If we experience a significant decrease in our rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected due to a high percentage of our operating costs being fixed expenses.

Competition with other financial institutions could adversely affect our profitability.

We face vigorous competition from banks and other financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, savings banks, finance companies and credit unions. A portion of these banks and other financial institutions have substantially greater resources and lending limits, larger branch systems and other banking services that we do not offer. To a limited extent, we also compete with other providers of financial services, such as money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, consumer finance companies and insurance companies. When new competitors seek to enter one of our markets, or when existing market participants seek to increase their market share, they sometimes undercut the pricing and/or credit terms prevalent in that market. This competition may reduce or limit our margins on banking and trust services, reduce our market share and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

There can be no assurance that the integration of our acquisitions will be successful or will not result in unforeseen difficulties that may absorb significant management attention.

Our completed acquisitions, or any future acquisition, may not produce the revenue, cost savings, earnings or synergies that we anticipated. The process of integrating acquired companies into our business may also result in unforeseen difficulties. Unforeseen operating difficulties may absorb significant management attention, which we might otherwise devote to our existing business. Also, the process may require significant financial resources that we might otherwise allocate to other activities, including the ongoing development or expansion of our existing operations. Additionally, we may be exposed to potential asset quality issues or unknown or contingent liabilities of the banks, businesses, assets and liabilities we acquire. If these issues or liabilities exceed our estimates, our results of operations and financial condition may be negatively affected.

If we pursue a future acquisition, our management could spend a significant amount of time and effort identifying and completing the acquisition. If we make a future acquisition, we could issue equity securities which would dilute current stockholders’ percentage ownership, incur substantial debt, assume contingent liabilities, be required to record an impairment of goodwill or any combination of the foregoing.

Changes in accounting standards could impact the Company’s financial statements and reported earnings.

Accounting standard-setting bodies, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board, periodically change the financial accounting and reporting standards that affect the preparation of the consolidated financial statements. These changes are beyond the Company’s control and could have a meaningful impact on its consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s accounting estimates and risk-management processes may not be effective in mitigating risk and loss.

The Company maintains an enterprise risk-management program that is designed to identify, quantify, monitor, report and control the risks that it faces. These include interest-rate risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, operational risk, reputational risk and compliance and litigation risk. While the Company assesses and improves this program on an ongoing basis, there can be no assurance that its approach and framework for risk-management and related controls will effectively mitigate risk and limit losses in its business. To comply with generally accepted accounting principles, management must sometimes exercise judgment in selecting, determining and applying accounting methods, assumptions and estimates. This can arise, for example, in determining the allowance for loan losses or the fair value of assets or liabilities. The judgments required of management can involve difficult, subjective, or complex matters with a high degree of uncertainty, and several different judgments could be reasonable under the circumstances and yet result in significantly different results being reported. See “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in Part II, Item 7. If management’s judgments later prove to have been inaccurate, we may experience unexpected losses that could be substantial.

Additionally, the processes the Company uses to estimate its probable loan 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, depends upon the use of analytical and forecasting models. These models reflect assumptions that may not be accurate, particularly in times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances. Even if these assumptions are adequate, the models may prove to be inadequate or inaccurate because of other flaws in their design or their implementation. If the models the Company uses for interest rate risk and asset-liability management are inadequate, the Company may incur increased or unexpected losses upon changes in market interest rates or other market measures. If the models the Company uses for determining its probable loan losses are inadequate, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to support future charge-offs. If the models the Company uses to measure the fair value of financial instruments are inadequate, the fair value of such financial instruments may fluctuate unexpectedly or may not accurately reflect what the Company could realize upon sale or settlement of such financial instruments. Any such failure in the Company’s analytical or forecasting models could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. Any inability to provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud could harm our business. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires management and our auditors to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. These requirements may be modified, supplemented or amended from time to time. Implementing these changes may take a significant amount of time and may require specific compliance training of our personnel. We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of our internal control over financial reporting that need improvement. If we or our auditors discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could reduce the market’s confidence in our financial statements and have an adverse effect on our stock price. We may not be able to effectively and timely implement necessary control changes and employee training to ensure continued compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other regulatory and reporting requirements. Our historic growth and our planned expansion through acquisitions present challenges to maintaining the internal control and disclosure control standards applicable to public companies. If we fail to maintain effective internal controls we could be subject to regulatory scrutiny and sanctions, our ability to recognize revenue could be impaired and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports. We cannot assure you that we will continue to fully comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or that management or our auditors will conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective in future periods.

The soundness of other financial institutions could have a material adverse effect on our business, growth and profitability.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute 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 our business to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral we hold cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to us. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is the ability to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, all without incurring unacceptable losses. Banks are especially vulnerable to liquidity risk because of their role in the transformation of demand or short-term deposits into longer-term loans or other extensions of credit. The Company, like other financial-services companies, relies to a significant extent on external sources of funding (such as deposits and borrowings) for the liquidity needed in the conduct of its business. A number of factors beyond the Company’s control, however, could have a detrimental impact on the level or cost of that funding and thus on its liquidity. These include market disruptions, changes in its credit ratings or the sentiment of its investors, the loss of substantial deposit relationships and reputational damage. Unexpected declines or limits on the dividends declared and paid by the Company’s subsidiaries also could adversely affect its liquidity position. While the Company’s policies and controls are designed to ensure that it maintains adequate liquidity to conduct its business in the ordinary course even in a stressed environment, there can be no assurance that its liquidity position will never become compromised. In such an event, the Company may be required to sell assets at a loss in order to continue its operations. This could damage the performance and value of its business, prompt regulatory intervention and harm its reputation, and if the condition were to persist for any appreciable period of time, its viability as a going concern could be threatened. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Liquidity Risk” in Part II, Item 7A for a discussion of how the Company monitors and manages liquidity risk.

In addition to commercial banking services, we provide life and other insurance products, as well as other business and financial services. We may in the future develop or acquire other non-banking businesses. As a result of other such businesses, our earnings could be subject to risks and uncertainties that are different from those to which our commercial banking services are subject. 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.

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

We may need to raise additional capital in the future to provide us with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and business needs, particularly if our asset quality or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. Economic conditions and the loss of confidence in financial institutions may increase our cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital, including inter-bank borrowings, repurchase agreements and borrowings from the discount window of the Federal Reserve Board.

We cannot assure that such capital will be available on acceptable terms or at all. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of debt purchasers, depositors or counterparties participating in the capital markets, or a downgrade of our debt ratings, may adversely affect our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. Moreover, if we need to raise capital in the future, we may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital, and we would have to compete with those institutions for investors. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a materially adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely heavily on our management team, and the unexpected loss of key managers may adversely affect our operations.

Our success to-date has been strongly influenced by our ability to attract and to retain senior management experienced in banking and financial services. Our ability to retain executive officers and the current management teams of each of our lines of business will continue to be important to the successful implementation of our strategies. We do not have employment or non-compete agreements with these key employees. The unexpected loss of services of any key management personnel, or the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future, could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results.

We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our 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 our exposure to environmental liability. Although we have 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 our financial condition and results of operations.

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive. Our stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things: actual or anticipated variations in quarterly results of operations; recommendations by securities analysts; operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors deem comparable to us; news reports relating to trends, concerns and other issues in the financial services industry; perceptions in the marketplace regarding us and/or our competitors; new technology used, or services offered by competitors; significant acquisitions or business combinations, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by or involving us or our competitors; failure to integrate acquisitions or realize anticipated benefits from acquisitions; changes in government regulations; and geopolitical conditions such as acts or threats of terrorism or military conflicts.

General market fluctuations, industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of operating results.

The trading volume in our common stock is less than that of other larger financial services companies.

Although our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, the trading volume in our common stock is less than that of other, larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have

no control. Given the lower trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause our stock price to fall.

We have historically paid a common stock dividend. However, as a bank holding company, our ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve Board regarding capital adequacy and dividends. Additionally, the ability of the Company to declare or pay dividends on its common stock may also be subject to certain restrictions in the event that the Company elects to defer the payment of interest on its junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures. There can be no certainty that our common dividend will continue to be paid at the current levels. It is possible that our common dividend could be reduced or even cease to be paid. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and investors may lose all or part of their investment.

Our directors and executive officers own a significant portion of our common stock and can influence stockholder decisions.

Our directors and executive officers, as a group, beneficially owned approximately 50% of our outstanding common stock as of January 30, 2015. As a result of their ownership, the directors and executive officers have the ability, by voting their shares in concert, to control the outcome of any matter submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors, which requires only a majority vote. The directors and executive officers may vote to cause us to take actions with which our other stockholders do not agree.

Our stockholder rights plan, amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as well as certain provisions of banking law and Oklahoma corporate law, could make it difficult for a third party to acquire our company.

We have a stockholder rights plan that may have the effect of discouraging unsolicited takeover proposals. The rights issued under the stockholder rights plan would cause substantial dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire us on terms not approved in advance by our board of directors. In addition, Oklahoma corporate law and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation contain provisions that could delay, deter or prevent a change in control of our company or our management. Together, these provisions may discourage transactions that otherwise could provide for the payment of a premium over prevailing market prices of our common stock, and also could limit the price that investors are willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Additionally, provisions of federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire the Company, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to the Company’s shareholders. These provisions effectively inhibit a non-negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock.

Our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund or by any other public or private entity. Investment in our common stock inherently involves risk for the reasons described in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you could lose some or all of your investment.

The principal offices of the Company are located at 101 North Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. The Company owns substantially all of the properties and buildings in which its various offices and facilities are located. These properties include the main bank, a technology and operations center and 95 branches. BancFirst also owns properties for future expansion. There are no significant encumbrances on any of these properties. (See Note 6 - “Premises and Equipment, Net” to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Company’s properties).

The Company has been named as a defendant in various legal actions arising from the conduct of its normal business activities. Although the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to these actions cannot be accurately predicted, in the opinion of the Company, any such liability will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements of the Company.

Item 5. Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

The Company’s Common Stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market System (“NASDAQ/GS”) and is traded under the symbol “BANF”. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, (i) the high and low sales prices of the Company’s Common Stock as reported in the NASDAQ/GS consolidated transaction reporting system and (ii) the quarterly dividends per share declared on the Common Stock.

As of January 30, 2015 there were 297 holders of record of our Common Stock. In addition to the holders of record, there were approximately 4,000 beneficial owners of our Common Stock. The closing price of our Common Stock on January 30, 2015 was $57.66 per share.

Future dividend payments will be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors in light of the earnings and financial condition of the Company and the Bank, their capital needs, applicable governmental policies and regulations and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems appropriate.

BancFirst Corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank, and its ability to pay dividends is substantially dependent upon dividend payments received from the Bank. Various laws, regulations and regulatory policies limit the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to BancFirst Corporation, as well as BancFirst Corporation’s ability to pay dividends to its stockholders. See “Liquidity and Funding” and “Capital Resources” under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Description of Business-Supervision and Regulation” and Note (15) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding limitations on the payment of dividends by BancFirst Corporation and the Bank.

In November 1999, the Company adopted a Stock Repurchase Program (the “SRP”). The SRP may be used as a means to increase earnings per share and return on equity, to purchase treasury stock for the exercise of stock options or for distributions under the Deferred Stock Compensation Plan, to provide liquidity for optionees to dispose of stock from exercises of their stock options and to provide liquidity for stockholders wishing to sell their stock. All shares repurchased under the SRP have been retired and not held

as treasury stock. The timing, price and amount of stock repurchases under the SRP may be determined by management and approved by the Company’s Executive Committee. At December 31, 2014 there were 194,723 shares remaining that could be repurchased under the Company’s November 1999 Stock Repurchase Program. The amount approved is subject to amendment. The Stock Repurchase Program will remain in effect until all shares are repurchased.

No purchases were made by or on behalf of the Company or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), of the Company’s common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2014.

Information regarding stock-based compensation awards outstanding and available for future grants as of December 31, 2014 is presented in the table below. All of the Company’s stock-based compensation plans have been approved by the Company’s stockholders. Additional information regarding stock-based compensation plans is presented in Note 13 – Stock-Based Compensation in the notes to consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data located elsewhere in this report.

The Company’s performance graph is incorporated by reference from “Company Performance” contained on the last page of this 10-K report.

The following table sets forth certain historical consolidated financial data as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2014. The historical consolidated financial data has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. The historical consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this report.

	At and for the Year Ended December 31,
	2014			2013			2012			2011			2010
	(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Income Statement Data
Net interest income	$	181,351		$	163,519		$	164,815		$	156,897		$	142,757
Provision for loan losses		3,072			1,258			3,100			4,515			2,954
Noninterest income		96,413			90,155			87,717			76,961			69,938
Noninterest expense		183,521			171,574			170,428			158,646			144,095
Net income		63,887			54,317			51,900			45,621			42,309
Balance Sheet Data
Total assets	$	6,574,972		$	6,038,974		$	6,022,250		$	5,608,825		$	5,060,249
Securities		524,783			527,627			562,542			614,977			743,803
Total loans (net of unearned interest)		3,860,831			3,387,146			3,242,427			3,013,498			2,811,964
Allowance for loan losses		40,889			39,034			38,725			37,656			35,745
Deposits		5,904,704			5,419,519			5,440,830			5,037,735			4,503,754
Long-term borrowings		—			6,938			9,178			18,476			34,265
Junior subordinated debentures		26,804			26,804			26,804			36,083			28,866
Stockholders’ equity		609,314			556,997			519,567			483,041			458,594
Per Common Share Data
Net income – basic	$	4.14		$	3.56		$	3.42		$	2.99		$	2.76
Net income – diluted		4.04			3.49			3.36			2.93			2.70
Cash dividends		1.30			1.20			1.12			1.04			0.96
Book value		39.30			36.33			34.09			31.95			29.84
Tangible book value		35.71			32.75			30.37			28.07			26.19
Selected Financial Ratios
Performance ratios:
Return on average assets		1.00	%		0.93	%		0.91	%		0.85	%		0.92	%
Return on average stockholders’ equity		10.92			10.09			10.32			9.65			9.45
Cash dividends payout ratio		31.40			33.73			32.74			34.78			34.78
Net interest spread		2.94			2.89			2.93			2.96			3.06
Net interest margin		3.09			3.04			3.13			3.20			3.37
Efficiency ratio		66.07			67.64			67.49			67.84			67.75
Balance Sheet Ratios:
Average loans to deposits		63.64	%		62.69	%		60.27	%		60.64	%		67.58	%
Average earning assets to total assets		92.71			92.65			92.73			92.49			92.74
Average stockholders’ equity to average assets		9.19			9.23			8.79			8.85			9.74
Asset Quality Ratios:
Nonperforming and restructured loans to total loans		0.88	%		0.98	%		1.20	%		0.76	%		1.00	%
Nonperforming and restructured assets to total assets		0.64			0.69			0.81			0.71			1.01
Allowance for loan losses to total loans		1.06			1.15			1.19			1.25			1.27
Allowance for loan losses to nonperforming and restructured loans		120.05			117.60			99.42			163.54			127.25
Net charge-offs to average loans		0.03			0.03			0.07			0.09			0.13

	December 31, 2014								December 31, 2013								December 31, 2012
	Average Balance			Interest Income/ Expense		Average Yield/ Rate			Average Balance			Interest Income/ Expense		Average Yield/ Rate			Average Balance			Interest Income/ Expense		Average Yield/ Rate
ASSETS
Earning assets:
Loans (1)	$	3,643,018		$	183,280		5.03	%	$	3,281,303		$	167,345		5.10	%	$	3,099,888		$	169,510		5.47	%
Securities—taxable		504,263			5,727		1.14			485,158			4,947		1.02			517,103			7,686		1.49
Securities—tax exempt		41,155			1,632		3.97			42,372			1,880		4.44			49,701			2,392		4.81
Federal funds sold and interest-bearing deposits with banks		1,716,368			4,393		0.26			1,597,546			4,066		0.25			1,641,366			4,203		0.26
Total earning assets		5,904,804			195,032		3.30			5,406,379			178,238		3.30			5,308,058			183,791		3.46
Nonearning assets:
Cash and due from banks		189,457								161,750								144,884
Interest receivable and other assets		315,544								306,360								308,643
Allowance for loan losses		(40,768	)							(38,916	)							(37,636	)
Total nonearning assets		464,233								429,194								415,891
Total assets	$	6,369,037							$	5,835,573							$	5,723,949
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Transaction deposits	$	750,603		$	747		0.10	%	$	653,893		$	643		0.10	%	$	712,800		$	966		0.14	%
Savings deposits		1,992,673			4,520		0.23			1,827,575			4,231		0.23			1,757,331			5,571		0.32
Time deposits		783,958			5,528		0.71			799,817			6,705		0.84			864,524			8,713		1.01
Short-term borrowings		9,206			16		0.18			4,866			6		0.13			6,898			28		0.40
Long-term borrowings		1,635			25		1.53			9,324			216		2.32			12,323			360		2.92
Junior subordinated debentures		26,804			1,966		7.34			26,804			1,966		7.34			31,072			2,134		6.87
Total interest-bearing liabilities		3,564,879			12,802		0.36			3,322,279			13,767		0.41			3,384,948			17,772		0.53
Interest-free funds:
Noninterest-bearing deposits		2,197,474								1,952,582								1,809,102
Interest payable and other liabilities		21,649								22,172								26,990
Stockholders’ equity		585,035								538,540								502,909
Total interest free-funds		2,804,158								2,513,294								2,339,001
Total liabilities and stock-holders’ equity	$	6,369,037							$	5,835,573							$	5,723,949
Net interest income				$	182,230							$	164,471							$	166,019
Net interest spread							2.94	%							2.89	%							2.93	%
Effect of interest free funds							0.15	%							0.15	%							0.20	%
Net interest margin							3.09	%							3.04	%							3.13	%

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis presents factors that the Company believes are relevant to an assessment and understanding of the Company’s financial position and results of operations for the three years ended December 31, 2014. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto and the selected consolidated financial data included herein.

The Company may make forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to earnings, credit quality, corporate objectives, interest rates and other financial and business matters. Forward-looking statements include estimates and give management’s current expectations or forecasts of future events. The Company cautions readers that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, including economic conditions; the performance of financial markets and interest rates; legislative and regulatory actions and reforms; competition; as well as other factors, all of which change over time. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) projections of revenues, expenses, income or loss, earnings or loss per share, the payment or nonpayment of dividends, capital structure and other financial items; (ii) statements of plans, objectives and expectations, including those relating to products or services; (iii) statements of future economic performance; and (iv) statements of assumptions underlying such statements. Words such as “believes”, “anticipates”, “expects”, “intends”, “targeted”, “continue”, “remain”, “will”, “should”, “may” and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

BancFirst Corporation’s net income for 2014 was $63.9 million, or $4.04 per diluted share, compared to $54.3 million, or $3.49 per diluted share for 2013 and $51.9 million, or $3.36 per diluted share for 2012.

In 2014, net interest income was $181.4 million, compared to $163.5 million in 2013 and $164.8 million in 2012. The Company’s net interest margin was 3.09% for 2014, compared to 3.04% for 2013 and 3.13% for 2012. Provision for loan losses was $3.1 million in 2014 compared to $1.3 million in 2013 and $3.1 million in 2012. The 2014 provision for loan losses included a reversal of $5.3 million as a result of a change in the loan loss factors due to extraordinarily low charge offs realized over the past several years. Net charge-offs to average loans for 2014 and 2013 was 0.03%, compared to 0.07% for 2012. Noninterest income totaled $96.4 million in 2014 compared to $90.2 million in 2013 and $87.7 million in 2012. Noninterest expense was $183.5 million in 2014 compared to $171.6 million in 2013 and $170.4 million in 2012. The effective income tax rate for tax year ended 2014 decreased

to 29.9% compared to 32.8% for the tax year ended 2013 due primarily to new tax credits utilized and the recognition of state deferred tax benefits.

The Company’s assets at year end 2014 totaled $6.6 billion, compared to $6.0 billion at both December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Loans totaled $3.9 billion versus $3.4 billion for 2013 and $3.2 billion for 2012. Total deposits were $5.9 billion for 2014 and $5.4 billion for both 2013 and 2012. The Company’s liquidity remained high as its average loan-to-deposit ratio was 63.6% for 2014, compared to 62.7% for 2013 and 60.3% for 2012. Stockholders’ equity was $609.3 million compared to $557.0 million for 2013 and $519.6 million for 2012. Average stockholders’ equity to average assets was 9.19% at December 31, 2014, compared to 9.23% at December 31, 2013 and 8.79% at December 31, 2012.

Asset quality remained strong. Nonperforming and restructured assets were 0.64% of total assets at December 31, 2014, compared to 0.69% at December 31, 2013 and 0.81% at December 31, 2012. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 1.06% for 2014 compared to 1.15% for 2013 and 1.19% for 2012.

On January 24, 2014, BancFirst assumed all of the deposits and purchased certain assets of The Bank of Union, El Reno, Oklahoma (“The Bank of Union”). The Bank of Union was closed on that day by the Oklahoma State Banking Department. At December 31, 2014, the balance of acquired loans was approximately $74.8 million, the majority of which are classified as performing, and deposits in the acquired branches were approximately $174.4 million. As a result of the acquisition, the Company recorded core deposit intangibles of approximately $2.2 million and goodwill of $417,000.

On January 19, 2012, Council Oak Investment Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BancFirst completed the sale of one of its investments that resulted in a pretax gain of approximately $4.5 million. After related expenses and income taxes, the increase in net income approximated $2.6 million.

The Company’s significant accounting policies are described in Note (1) to the consolidated financial statements. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States inherently involves the use of estimates and assumptions, which affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and the related disclosures. These estimates relate principally to the allowance for loan losses, income taxes, intangible assets and the fair value of financial instruments. Such estimates and assumptions may change over time and actual amounts realized may differ from those reported. The following is a summary of the accounting policies and estimates that management believes are the most critical.

The allowance for loan losses is management’s estimate of the probable losses incurred in the Company’s loan portfolio through the balance sheet date.

The allowance for loan losses is increased by provisions charged to operating expense and is reduced by net loan charge-offs. The amount of the allowance for loan losses is based on past loan loss experience, evaluations of known impaired loans, levels of adversely classified loans, general economic conditions and other environmental factors. A loan is considered impaired when it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. The majority of the Company’s impaired loans are collateral dependent. For collateral dependent loans, the amount of impairment is measured based upon the fair value of the underlying collateral and is included in the allowance for loan losses.

The amount of the allowance for loan losses is first estimated by each business unit’s management based on their evaluation of their unit’s portfolio. This evaluation involves identifying impaired and adversely classified loans. Specific allowances for losses are determined for impaired loans based on either the loans’ estimated discounted cash flows or the fair values of the collateral. Allowances for adversely classified loans are estimated using historical loss percentages for each type of loan adjusted for various economic and environmental factors related to the underlying loans. An allowance is also estimated for non-adversely classified loans using a historical loss percentage based on losses arising specifically from non-adversely classified loans, adjusted for various economic and environmental factors related to the underlying loans. Each month the Company’s Senior Loan Committee reviews each business unit’s allowance, and the aggregate allowance for the Company and, on a quarterly basis, adjusts and approves the appropriateness of the allowance. In addition, annually or more frequently as needed, the Senior Loan Committee evaluates and establishes the loss percentages used in the estimates of the allowance based on historical loss data, and giving consideration to their assessment of current economic and environmental conditions. To facilitate the Senior Loan Committee’s evaluation, the Company’s Asset Quality Department performs periodic reviews of each of the Company’s business units and reports on the adequacy of

management’s identification of impaired and adversely classified loans, and their adherence to the Company’s loan policies and procedures.

The process of evaluating the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses necessarily involves the exercise of judgment and consideration of numerous subjective factors and, accordingly, there can be no assurance that the estimate of incurred losses will not change in light of future developments and economic conditions. Different assumptions and conditions could result in a materially different amount for the allowance for loan losses.

The Company files a consolidated income tax return. Deferred taxes are recognized under the liability method based upon the future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax basis of assets and liabilities, using the tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the periods when the related temporary differences are expected to be realized.

The amount of accrued current and deferred income taxes is based on estimates of taxes due or receivable from taxing authorities either currently or in the future. Changes in these accruals are reported as tax expense, and involve estimates of the various components included in determining taxable income, tax credits, other taxes and temporary differences. Changes periodically occur in the estimates due to changes in tax rates, tax laws and regulations and implementation of new tax planning strategies. The process of determining the accruals for income taxes necessarily involves the exercise of considerable judgment and consideration of numerous subjective factors.

Management performs an analysis of the Company’s tax positions annually and believes it is more likely than not that all of its tax positions will be utilized in future years.

Core deposit intangibles are amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of seven to ten years and customer relationship intangibles are amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of three to eighteen years. Mortgage servicing rights are amortized based on current prepayment assumptions. Goodwill is not amortized, but is evaluated at a reporting unit level at least annually for impairment or more frequently if other indicators of impairment are present. At least annually in the fourth quarter, intangible assets, excluding mortgage servicing rights, are evaluated for possible impairment. Impairment losses are measured by comparing the fair values of the intangible assets with their recorded amounts. Any impairment losses are reported in the statement of comprehensive income. Mortgage servicing rights are adjusted to fair value semi-annually, if impaired.

The evaluation of remaining core deposit intangibles for possible impairment involves reassessing the useful lives and the recoverability of the intangible assets. The evaluation of the useful lives is performed by reviewing the levels of core deposits of the respective branches acquired. The actual life of a core deposit base may be longer than originally estimated due to more successful retention of customers, or may be shorter due to more rapid runoff. Amortization of core deposit intangibles would be adjusted, if necessary, to amortize the remaining net book values over the remaining lives of the core deposits. The evaluation for recoverability is only performed if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the intangibles may not be recoverable.

The evaluation of goodwill for possible impairment is performed by comparing the fair values of the related reporting units with their carrying amounts including goodwill. The fair values of the related business units are estimated using market data for prices of recent acquisitions of banks and branches.

The evaluation of intangible assets and goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 resulted in no impairments.

Securities that are being held for indefinite periods of time, or that may be sold as part of the Company’s asset/liability management strategy, to provide liquidity or for other reasons, are classified as available for sale and are stated at estimated fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on securities available for sale are reported as a component of stockholders’ equity, net of income tax. Securities that are determined to be impaired, and for which such impairment is determined to be other than temporary, are adjusted to fair value and a corresponding loss is recognized in earnings.

The estimates of fair values of securities and other financial instruments are based on a variety of factors. In some cases, fair values represent quoted market prices for identical or comparable instruments. In other cases, fair values have been estimated based on

assumptions concerning the amount and timing of estimated future cash flows and assumed discount rates reflecting varying degrees of risk. Accordingly, the fair values may not represent actual values of the financial instruments that could have been realized as of year-end or that will be realized in the future.

See Note (1) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of recently issued accounting pronouncements and their expected impact on the Company’s financial statements.

See Note (22) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for disclosure regarding the Company’s operating business segments.

Net interest income, which is the Company’s principal source of operating revenue, increased in 2014 by $17.8 million, to a total of $181.4 million, compared to a decrease of $1.3 million in 2013, and an increase of $7.9 million in 2012. In 2014, net interest income increased due primarily to loan growth and recognition of $2.2 million of discounts from payoffs of acquired loans. In 2013, net interest income decreased slightly due to lower loan rates offset by lower deposit rates and increased loan volume. In 2012, net interest income increased due primarily to higher loan volume and lower deposit rates.

Net interest margin is the ratio of taxable-equivalent net interest income to average earning assets for the period. The Company’s net interest margin was 3.09% for 2014, compared to 3.04% for 2013 and 3.13% for 2012. Net interest margin increased slightly in 2014 despite interest rates remaining at historically low levels. This was due to loan growth and recognition of discounts from payoffs of acquired loans.

Changes in the volume of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and changes in interest rates, determine the changes in net interest income. The following volume/rate analysis summarizes the relative contribution of each of these components to the changes in net interest income in 2014 and 2013. If interest rates and/or loan volume do not increase, management would expect its net interest margin to continue to compress in 2015 as higher yielding loans and securities mature and are replaced at current market rates.

	Change in 2014									Change in 2013
	Total			Due to Volume(1)			Due to Rate			Total			Due to Volume(1)			Due to Rate
	(Dollars in thousands)
INCREASE (DECREASE)
Interest Income:
Loans	$	15,935		$	18,640		$	(2,705	)	$	(2,165	)	$	9,901		$	(12,066	)
Investments—taxable		780			(782	)		1,562			(2,739	)		(582	)		(2,157	)
Investments—tax exempt		(248	)		(19	)		(229	)		(512	)		(353	)		(159	)
Interest-bearing deposits with banks and Federal funds sold		327			299			28			(137	)		(123	)		(14	)
Total interest income		16,794			18,138			(1,344	)		(5,553	)		8,843			(14,396	)
Interest Expense:
Transaction deposits		104			77			27			(323	)		(151	)		(172	)
Savings deposits		289			291			(2	)		(1,340	)		(1,036	)		(304	)
Time deposits		(1,177	)		(73	)		(1,104	)		(2,008	)		616			(2,624	)
Short-term borrowings		10			10			—			(21	)		(8	)		(13	)
Long-term borrowings		(191	)		(178	)		(13	)		(144	)		(89	)		(55	)
Junior subordinated debentures		—			—			—			(168	)		(297	)		129
Total interest expense		(965	)		127			(1,092	)		(4,004	)		(965	)		(3,039	)
Net interest income	$	17,759		$	18,011		$	(252	)	$	(1,549	)	$	9,808		$	(11,357	)

The Company’s provision for loan losses was $3.1 million for 2014, compared to $1.3 million for 2013 and $3.1 million for 2012. The increase in 2014 was primarily a result of internal loan growth. The 2014 provision for loan losses included a reversal of $5.3 million as a result of a change in the loan loss factors due to extraordinarily low charge offs realized over the past several years. The Company establishes an allowance as an estimate of the probable inherent losses in the loan portfolio at the balance sheet date. Management believes the allowance for loan losses is appropriate based upon management’s best estimate of probable losses that have been incurred within the existing loan portfolio. Should any of the factors considered by management in evaluating the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses change, the Company’s estimate of probable loan losses could also change, which could affect the amount of future provisions for loan losses. Net loan charge-offs were $1.2 million for 2014 compared to $949,000 for 2013 and $2.0 million for 2012. The net charge-offs equated to 0.03%, 0.03% and 0.07% of average loans for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. A more detailed discussion of the allowance for loan losses is provided under “Loans (Including Acquired Loans).”

Noninterest income was $96.4 million in 2014 versus $90.2 million in 2013 and $87.7 million in 2012. Total noninterest income increased $6.2 million in 2014, or 6.9%. This compares to an increase of $2.4 million in 2013, or 2.8%, and an increase of $10.7 million, or 14.0%, in 2012. For 2014, service charges on deposits have increased due primarily to an increase in deposit accounts from our acquisition and internal growth. Trust revenue and cash management revenue also increased due to growth in the number of customers and increased activity. For 2013, the increases in revenues were due to increases in service charge revenue as a result of increases in deposits, trust revenue and insurance commissions. For 2012, the increases in revenues were primarily from the pretax securities gain from the sale of an investment by Council Oak Investment Corporation. In addition, revenues from trust services, deposit revenues and insurance commissions increased in 2012. The Company’s operating noninterest income has increased in each of the last five years due to improved pricing strategies, enhanced product lines, acquisitions and internal deposit growth.

The Company had fees from debit card usage totaling $22.8 million, $18.1 million and $16.5 million for the years 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Dodd-Frank Act has given the Federal Reserve Board the authority to establish rules regarding debit card interchange fees charged for electronic debit transactions by payment card issuers. Because of the uncertainty as to any future rulemaking by the Federal Reserve Board and the inability to forecast competitive responses, the Company cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on the amount of revenue from debit card usage reported in future periods.

The Company recognized a net gain on the sale of securities of $1.6 million in 2014, $0.4 million in 2013 and $4.9 million in 2012, due primarily to sales of investments by Council Oak Investment Corporation. The Company’s practice is to maintain a liquid portfolio of securities and not engage in trading activities. The Company has the ability and intent to hold securities classified as available for sale that were in an unrealized loss position until they mature or until fair value exceeds amortized cost.

The Company earned $1.8 million on the sale of loans in 2014 compared to $2.3 million in 2013 and $2.8 million in 2012. Activity in the secondary mortgage market has continued to decrease as volumes have declined in the continued low interest rate environment.

Total noninterest expense increased by $11.9 million, or 7.0% to $183.5 million for 2014. This compares to increases of $1.1 million, or 0.7%, for 2013, and $11.8 million, or 7.4%, for 2012. The increase in noninterest expense during 2014 was partly due to the acquisition of The Bank of Union, which added $4.7 million of expense for the year and the amortization of the Company’s investment in historic tax credits, which added approximately $2.9 million. In addition, salaries and benefits increased $3.5 million before the impact of the acquisition, primarily due to standard annual merit increases during 2014. The increase in noninterest expense during 2013 primarily related to an increase in salaries and benefits of approximately $2.6 million, partially offset by a decrease in other real estate owned expense of $1.1 million. The increase in noninterest expense during 2012 primarily related to an increase in salaries and benefits of approximately $7.3 million and merger related costs of approximately $1.6 million.

Noninterest expense included deposit insurance expense which totaled $3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, compared to $3.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 and $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Income tax expense totaled $27.3 million in 2014, compared to $26.5 million in 2013 and $27.1 million in 2012. The effective tax rates for 2014, 2013 and 2012 were 29.9%, 32.8% and 34.3%, respectively. The primary reasons for the difference between the Company’s effective tax rate and the federal statutory rate were tax-exempt income, nondeductible amortization, federal and state tax credits and state tax expense. The Company’s effective tax rate decreased in 2014 due primarily to new tax credits utilized and the recognition of state deferred tax benefits. The Company’s effective tax rate decreased in 2013 and 2012 due to increased federal tax credits allowed for those years.

Certain financial information is prepared on a taxable equivalent basis to facilitate analysis of yields and changes in components of earnings. Average balance sheets, comprehensive income statements and other financial statistics are also presented on a taxable equivalent basis.

The impact of inflation on financial institutions differs significantly from that of industrial or commercial companies. The assets of financial institutions are predominantly monetary, as opposed to fixed or nonmonetary assets such as premises, equipment and inventory. As a result, there is little exposure to inflated earnings by understated depreciation charges or significantly understated current values of assets. Although inflation can have an indirect effect by leading to higher interest rates, financial institutions are in a position to monitor the effects on interest costs and yields and respond to inflationary trends through management of interest rate sensitivity. Inflation can also have an impact on noninterest expenses such as salaries and employee benefits, occupancy, services and other costs.

In a period of deflation, it would be reasonable to expect widely decreasing prices for real assets. In such an economic environment, assets of businesses and individuals, such as real estate, commodities or inventory, could decline. The inability of customers to repay or refinance their loans could result in loan losses incurred by the Company far in excess of historical experience due to deflated collateral values.

Cash consists of cash and cash items on hand, noninterest-bearing deposits and amounts due from other banks, reserves deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank, and interest-bearing deposits with other banks. Federal funds sold consist of overnight

investments of excess funds with other financial institutions. Due to the Federal Reserve Bank’s intervention into the funds market that has resulted in near zero overnight funds rates, the Company has continued to maintain the majority of its excess funds with the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank pays interest on these funds based upon the lowest target rate for the maintenance period which continues to be 0.25%.

The amount of cash, federal funds sold and interest-bearing deposits with the Federal Reserve Bank carried by the Company is a function of the availability of funds presented to other institutions for clearing, and the Company’s requirements for liquidity, operating cash and reserves, available yields and interest rate sensitivity management. Balances of these items can fluctuate widely based on these various factors. The aggregate of cash and due from banks, interest-bearing deposits with banks and federal funds sold increased $56.4 million from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014 and decreased $88.3 million from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013. The increase in 2014 was due to an increase in deposits. The decrease in 2013 was due to a decrease in year end deposit balances and an increase in loans.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, total securities decreased $2.8 million, or 0.5%, to $524.8 million. This compares to a decrease of $34.9 million, or 6.2%, in 2013 and a decrease of $52.4 million, or 8.5%, in 2012. The decreases were the result of historically low yields on U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities and the Company’s decision to not reinvest maturing securities by purchasing longer term fixed rate securities at such low yields. Securities available for sale represented 98.4% of the total securities portfolio at December 31, 2014, compared to 97.7% at December 31, 2013 and 97.1% at December 31, 2012. Securities available for sale had a net unrealized gain of $6.8 million at December 31, 2014, compared to a net unrealized gain of $6.0 million at December 31, 2013 and a net unrealized gain of $9.7 million at December 31, 2012. These unrealized gains are included in the Company’s stockholders’ equity as accumulated other comprehensive income, net of income tax, in the amounts of $4.2 million, $3.9 million and $6.3 million for December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The Company does not engage in securities trading activities. Any sales of securities are for the purpose of executing the Company’s asset/liability management strategy, eliminating a perceived credit risk in a specific security, or providing liquidity. Securities that are being held for indefinite periods of time, or that may be sold as part of the Company’s asset/liability management strategy, to provide liquidity, or for other reasons, are classified as available for sale and are stated at estimated fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on securities available for sale are reported as a component of stockholders’ equity, net of income tax. Securities for which the Company has the intent and ability to hold to maturity are classified as held for investment and are stated at cost, adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts computed under the interest method. Securities that are determined to be impaired, and for which such impairment is determined to be other than temporary, are adjusted to fair value and a corresponding loss is recognized. Gains or losses from sales of securities are based upon the book values of the specific securities sold.

Declines in the fair value of held for investment and available-for-sale securities below their cost that are deemed to be other than temporary are reflected in earnings as realized losses. In estimating other-than-temporary impairment losses, management considers, among other things, (i) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (ii) the financial

condition and near-term prospects of the issuer and (iii) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value.

Management has the ability and intent to hold the securities classified as held for investment until they mature, at which time the Company will receive full value for the securities. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had net unrealized gains largely due to decreases in market interest rates from the yields available at the time the underlying securities were purchased. The fair value of those securities having unrealized losses is expected to recover as the securities approach their maturity date or repricing date, or if market yields for similar investments decline. Management does not believe any of the securities are impaired due to reasons of credit quality. Furthermore, as of December 31, 2014, management also had the ability and intent to hold all securities classified as available for sale with an unrealized loss for a period of time sufficient for a recovery of cost. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2014, management believes the impairments were temporary and no impairment loss was realized in the Company’s consolidated statement of comprehensive income.

The following maturity distribution of securities table summarizes the weighted average maturity and weighted average taxable equivalent yields of the securities portfolio at December 31, 2014. The Company manages its securities portfolio for liquidity and as a tool to execute its asset/liability management strategy. Consequently, the average maturity of the portfolio is relatively short. Securities maturing within five years represent 79.4% of the total portfolio.

	Within One Year						After One Year But Within Five Years						After Five Years But Within Ten Years						After Ten Years						Total
	Amount			Yield*			Amount			Yield*			Amount			Yield*			Amount			Yield*			Amount			Yield*
	(Dollars in thousands)
Held for Investment
U.S. Treasury other federal agencies and mortgage-backed securities	$	6			3.47	%	$	453			4.54	%	$	12			6.14	%	$	—			—	%	$	471			4.57	%
State and political subdivisions		5,109			3.44			2,903			4.21			110			6.36			—			—			8,122			3.76
Total	$	5,115			3.44		$	3,356			4.26		$	122			6.34		$	—			—		$	8,593			3.81
Percentage of total		59.5	%					39.1	%					1.4	%					—	%					100.0	%
Available for Sale
U.S. Treasury other federal agencies and mortgage-backed securities	$	32,295			0.51	%	$	338,837			1.03	%	$	59,751			0.97	%	$	17,016			1.08	%	$	447,899			0.99	%
State and political subdivisions		9,756			2.67			23,443			3.02			12,181			5.26			7,993			6.24			53,373			3.95
Other securities		—			—			3,491			1.75			—			—			11,427			4.55			14,918			3.89
Total	$	42,051			1.01		$	365,771			1.17		$	71,932			1.70		$	36,436			3.30		$	516,190			1.38
Percentage of total		8.2	%					70.8	%

OKLAHOMA		73-1221379
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value Per Share		NASDAQ Global Select Market System

Large accelerated filer	¨	Accelerated filer	x

Non-accelerated filer	¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	¨

	Price Range
	High		Low		Cash Dividends Declared
2014
Fourth Quarter	$	69.49	$	61.24	$	0.34
Third Quarter		68.00		57.31		0.34
Second Quarter		62.90		56.19		0.31
First Quarter		58.29		50.62		0.31
2013
Fourth Quarter	$	58.02	$	52.01	$	0.31
Third Quarter		56.19		46.46		0.31
Second Quarter		47.14		40.11		0.29
First Quarter		43.65		39.13		0.29


	(a)	(b)		(c)
Plan Category	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))
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders:
BancFirst Corporation Nonqualified Incentive Stock Option Plan and BancFirst Corporation Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan	1,029,657		$36.55	134,985
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders:
BancFirst Corporation Directors’ Deferred Stock Compensation Plan	60,859		37.41	12,446

Total	1,090,516		$36.59	147,431

Item		Page
	PART I
1.	Business	1
1a.	Risk Factors	13
1b.	Unresolved Staff Comments	20
2.	Properties	20
3.	Legal Proceedings	21
4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	21
	PART II
5.	Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	21
6.	Selected Financial Data	23
7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	25
7a.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	40
8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	42
9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	84
9a.	Controls and Procedures	84
9b.	Other Information	87
	PART III
10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	87
11.	Executive Compensation	87
12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management	87
13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	87
14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	87
	PART IV
15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	87
Signatures		90

	December 31
	2014		2013		2012
	(Dollars in thousands)
Held for Investment (at amortized cost)
U.S. Treasury, other federal agencies and mortgage-backed securities	$	471	$	607	$	781
States and political subdivisions		8,122		11,379		15,635
Total	$	8,593	$	11,986	$	16,416
Estimated fair value	$	8,671	$	12,094	$	16,689
Available for Sale (at estimated fair value)
U.S. Treasury, other federal agencies and mortgage-backed securities	$	447,899	$	449,824	$	475,968
States and political subdivisions		53,373		50,334		56,767
Other securities		14,918		15,483		13,391
Total	$	516,190	$	515,641	$	546,126
Total Securities	$	524,783	$	527,627	$	562,542