BANCFIRST CORP /OK/ - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

BANCFIRST CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

101 North Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (405) 270-1086

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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, 2012 was approximately $300,322,659.

As of February 28, 2013, there were 15,250,327 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the registrant (the “2013 Proxy Statement”) to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

Table of Contents

BANCFIRST CORPORATION

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business.

General

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 trusts), 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 93 banking locations serving 51 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

1

Table of Contents

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 Bank Insurance Fund administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). In addition, certain Bank employees are licensed insurance agents qualified to offer tax deferred annuities.

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, BancFirst Agency, Inc., a credit life insurance agency, and BancFirst Community Development Corporation, a certified community development entity. All of these companies are Oklahoma corporations.

The Company had approximately 1,635 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2012, compared to approximately 1,641 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2011. Its principal executive offices are located at 101 North Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, telephone number (405) 270-1086.

Market Areas and Competition

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

2

Table of Contents

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 6.88% as of June 30, 2012 and 6.90% as of June 30, 2011 (including 1^st Bank Oklahoma acquired in July 2011).

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.

Operating Segments

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.

Control of Company

Affiliates of the Company beneficially own approximately 53% of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as of February 28, 2013. Under Oklahoma law and the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, 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 affiliates have the ability to control the business and affairs of the Company.

Supervision and Regulation

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.

Regulatory Agencies

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

3

Table of Contents

“Bank Holding Company Act”), as well as other Federal and state laws governing the banking business. The Bank Holding Company Act (“the BHC Act”) provides generally for regulation of financial 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”), and, as a company whose shares are traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market System, the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. (the “NASDAQ”).

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.

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.

Bank Holding Company and Financial Holding Company Activities

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 and travelers’ checks; 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.

However, Federal and state laws impose notice and approval requirements for mergers and acquisitions of other depository institutions or bank holding companies. Prior Federal Reserve Board approval is required before the Company may acquire the beneficial ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of a bank holding company (including a financial holding company) or a bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, Federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, financial condition, and future prospects including current and projected capital ratios and levels, the competence, experience, and integrity of management and record of compliance with laws and regulations, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, including the acquiring institution’s record of compliance under the CRA, and the effectiveness of the acquiring institution in combating money laundering activities.

As a bank holding company that has elected to become a financial holding company pursuant to the BHC Act, the Company may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature. “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.

4

Table of Contents

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.

The Dodd-Frank Act amends the BHC Act to require the federal financial regulatory agencies to adopt rules that prohibit banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (defined as hedge funds and private equity funds). The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule”. In October 2011, federal regulators proposed rules to implement the Volcker Rule that included an extensive request for comments on the proposal. Although the comment period has been closed for some time, a final rule has not been adopted. The proposed rules are highly complex, and many aspects of their application remain uncertain. Based on the proposed rules, the Company does not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will have a material effect on the operations of the Company and its subsidiaries, as the Company does not engage in the businesses prohibited by the Volcker Rule. The Company may incur costs if it is required to adopt additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule, but any such costs are not expected to be material. Until a final rule is adopted, the precise financial impact of the rule on the Company, its customers or the financial industry more generally, cannot be determined.

Dividend Restrictions

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 FDIC has formal and informal policies which provide that insured banks should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

5

Table of Contents

In October 2012, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board announced publication of final rules regarding company-run stress testing, utilizing methodologies providing for results 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 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, 2012 of approximately $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.

Transactions with Affiliates

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. Generally, Sections 23A and 23B: (1) limit the extent to which a financial institution or its subsidiaries may engage in covered transactions (a) with an affiliate (as defined in such sections) to an amount equal to 10% of such institution’s capital and surplus, and (b) with all affiliates, in the aggregate to an amount equal to 20% of such capital and surplus; and (2) require all transactions with an affiliate, whether or not covered transactions, to be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the institution or subsidiary, as the terms provided or that would be provided to a non-affiliate. “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.

Source of Strength

Federal Reserve Board policy requires bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to each of its 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.

The FDIC may order the assessment of the Company if the capital of the Bank were to become impaired. If the Company failed to pay the assessment within three months, the FDIC could order the sale of the Company’s stock in the 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.

Capital Requirements

The Company and the Bank are subject to the regulatory capital requirements administered by the Federal Reserve Board and, for the Bank, the FDIC. The requirements are intended to ensure that banking organizations have adequate capital given the risk levels of assets and off-balance sheet financial instruments. The risk-based guidelines define a three-tier capital framework. Core, or “Tier 1” capital, consists of common and qualifying preferred stockholders’ equity, less certain intangibles and other adjustments. Supplementary or “Tier 2” capital

6

Table of Contents

includes, among other items, certain other debt and equity investments that do not qualify as Tier 1 capital. Market risk, or “Tier 3” capital, includes qualifying unsecured subordinated debt. The sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital less investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries represents qualifying total capital. Risk-based capital ratios are calculated by dividing Tier 1 and total capital by risk-weighted assets. Assets and off-balance sheet exposures are assigned to one of four categories of risk-weights, based primarily on relative credit risk. The minimum Tier 1 capital ratio is 4% and the minimum total capital ratio is 8%.

Applicable banking regulations also require banking holding companies and banks to maintain a minimum “leverage ratio” (Tier 1 capital to adjusted total assets) of 3%. The principal objective of this measure is to place a constraint on the maximum degree to which banking organizations can leverage their equity capital base. These ratio requirements are minimums. Any institution operating at or near those levels would be expected by the regulators to have well-diversified risk, including no undue interest rate risk exposures, excellent asset quality, high liquidity, and good earnings and, in general, would have to be considered a strong banking organization. All other organizations and any institutions experiencing or anticipating significant growth are expected to maintain capital ratios at least one to two percent above the minimum levels, and higher capital ratios can be required if warranted by particular circumstances or risk profile.

The various regulatory agencies have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five capital categories (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) for classifying insured depository institutions, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and leverage capital ratios as the relevant capital measures, and requires the respective Federal regulatory agencies to implement systems for “prompt corrective action” for insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements within such categories. Such regulations establish progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions depending on the category in which an institution is classified. See the section captioned “Prompt Corrective Action” included elsewhere in this item.

To be “well capitalized” under Federal bank regulatory agency definitions, a depository institution must have (i) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater, (ii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, and (iii) a leverage ratio of 5% or greater. An “adequately capitalized” bank is defined as one that has (i) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4% or greater, (ii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, and (iii) a leverage ratio of 4% or greater, and an “undercapitalized” bank is defined as one that has (i) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4%, (ii) a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8%, and (iii) a leverage ratio of less than 4%. A bank is considered “significantly undercapitalized” if the bank has (i) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3%, (ii) a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6%, and (iii) a leverage ratio of less than 3%, and “critically undercapitalized” if the bank has a ratio of tangible equity to average quarterly tangible assets equal to or less than 2%. The applicable Federal regulatory agency for a bank that is “well capitalized” may reclassify it as an “adequately capitalized” or “undercapitalized” institution and subject it to the supervisory actions applicable to the next lower capital category, if it determines that the bank is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the bank to be engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice and not to have corrected the deficiency. Under Federal banking laws, failure to meet the minimum regulatory capital requirements could subject a banking institution to a variety of enforcement remedies available to Federal regulatory authorities, including the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC and seizure of the institution. As of December 31, 2012, the Bank had a Tier 1 ratio of 12.54%, a combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 ratio of 13.61%, and a leverage ratio of 7.63% and, accordingly, was considered to be “well capitalized” as of such date.

The Federal Reserve Board has established minimum risk based capital guidelines and leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies that are substantially similar to those adopted by bank regulatory agencies with respect to depository institutions. These guidelines provide for a minimum leverage ratio of 3% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including those having the highest regulatory rating. All other bank holding companies generally are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4%. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had a Tier 1 ratio of 13.29%, a combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 ratio of 14.36%, and a leverage ratio of 8.10% and, accordingly, was in compliance with all of the Federal Reserve Board’s capital guidelines.

7

Table of Contents

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“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.

As an additional means to identify problems in the financial management of depository institutions, 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.

The Federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines are based upon the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervisions (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. In 2004, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a new capital accord to replace Basel I, with an update in November 2005 (“Basel II”). Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk—an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances (which for many asset classes is itself broken into a “foundation” approach and an “advanced or A-IRB” approach, the availability of which is subject to additional restrictions) and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines. Basel II also sets capital requirements for operational risk and refines the existing capital requirements for market risk exposures.

In July 2007, the U.S. banking and thrift agencies reached an agreement on the implementation of the capital adequacy regulations and standards based on Basel II. In November 2007, the agencies approved final rules to implement the new risk-based capital requirements in the United States for large, internationally active banking organizations, or “core banks”—defined as those with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated balance sheet foreign exposures of $10 billion or more. The final rule was effective as of April 1, 2008. We are not a core bank and do not apply the BIS II approach to computing risk-weighted assets.

In response to the recent economic and financial industry crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and their oversight body—the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS)—set out in late 2009 to work on global initiatives to strengthen the financial regulatory system. In July 2010, the GHOS agreed on key design elements and in September 2010 agreed to transition and implementation measures. This work is known as Basel III, and it is designed to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of the banking sector. In particular, Basel III will strengthen existing capital requirements and introduce a global liquidity standard.

In June 2012, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) jointly issued three notices of proposed rulemaking (“NPRs”) to, among other things; implement the Basel III minimum capital requirements. The comment period on the NPRs expired on October 22, 2012. Following the receipt of comment letters from multiple U.S. financial institutions, on November 9, 2012, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC indefinitely delayed the start date for the Basel III capital requirements and stated that they did not expect the final rules to implement the Basel III capital requirements to be in effect on January 1, 2013, the initial deadline. If approved, in their current form, the NPRs would be effective over a phased-in-period from 2013 to 2019. We are in the process of evaluating the impact of the proposed rules on both the Company and the Bank.

Prompt Corrective Action

The FDI Act, requires among other things, the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” in respect of depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements, as discussed above in the

8

Table of Contents

section entitled “Capital Requirements.” An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

The FDI Act generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept such a plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The bank holding company must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company under the guaranty is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.”

“Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, dismissal of certain senior executive officers or directors, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

The appropriate federal banking agency may, under certain circumstances, reclassify a well capitalized insured depository institution as adequately capitalized. The FDI Act provides that an institution may be reclassified if the appropriate federal banking agency determines (after notice and opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the institution to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice. The appropriate agency is also permitted to require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory provisions as if the institution were in the next lower category (but not treat a significantly undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) based on supervisory information other than the capital levels of the institution.

Deposit Insurance Assessments

The deposits of the Bank are insured up to the applicable limits by the DIF, of the FDIC. Under current law, the basic deposit insurance limit is $250,000 per depositor. From December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2012, the Dodd-Frank Act provided unlimited FDIC insurance for all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, regardless of amount.

The FDIC maintains the DIF by assessing each depository institution an insurance premium. 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 October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. In February 2011, the FDIC issued a final rule, effective April 1, 2011, to change the deposit insurance assessment base from total domestic deposits to average total assets minus average tangible equity, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, and to update the assessment rates. The DIF assessment base rate currently ranges from 2.5 to 45 basis points for institutions that do not trigger factors

9

Table of Contents

for brokered deposits and unsecured debt, and higher rates for those that do trigger those risk factors. On October 9, 2012, the FDIC revised this guidance to clarify definitions used to identify concentrations in certain high risk assets of depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. This guidance will be effective April 1, 2013, and provides for higher premiums in cases where high risk assets are in excess of prescribed thresholds.

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.

In November 2009, the FDIC issued a rule that required all insured depository institutions, with limited exceptions, to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. As of December 31, 2012, $9.7 million in prepaid deposit insurance is included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

The Company’s FDIC insurance expense totaled $2.9 million, $3.7 million and $5.7 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, 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 of 66 cents for each $100 of assessable deposits in 2012.

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.

Safety and Soundness Standards

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. Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. 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

10

Table of Contents

“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.

Fiscal and Monetary Policies

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.

Privacy Provisions of the GLB Act

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.

Patriot Act

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 has 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.

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation

The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (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

11

Table of Contents

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.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or 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, a rating of “satisfactory” was received by the Bank.

Interstate Banking and Branching

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 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 and 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.

Depositor Preference

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.

The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act significantly revised and expanded the rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority of the Federal bank regulatory agencies. The numerous rules and regulations that have been promulgated and are yet to be promulgated and finalized under the Dodd-Frank Act are likely to significantly impact the Company’s operations and compliance costs. The Dodd-Frank Act followed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) as legislative responses to the economic downturn and financial industry instability. Additional

12

Table of Contents

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.

The Dodd-Frank Act impacts many aspects of the financial industry and, in many cases, will impact larger and smaller financial institutions and community banks differently over time. Many of the following key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act affecting the financial industry are now either effective or are in the proposed rule or implementation stage:

13

Table of Contents

In general, more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements are expected to impact our business as the Dodd-Frank Act is fully implemented. The Federal agencies have issued rules which apply directly to larger institutions with either more than $50 billion in assets or more than $10 billion in assets, such as Federal Reserve regulations for financial institutions deemed systemically significant. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have issued rules requiring stress tests and the Federal Reserve has proposed rules to implement the Volcker Rule. Further, the requirements and policies imposed on larger institutions may, in some cases, become “best practices” for smaller institutions. Therefore, as a result of the changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the profitability of our business activities may be impacted and we may be required to make changes to certain of our business practices. These changes may also require us to devote significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements.

State Regulation

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

14

Table of Contents

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.

Securities Laws

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, as described above under “the Dodd-Frank Act”.

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

Available Information

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:

BancFirst Corporation

101 N. Broadway

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

ATTENTION: Randy Foraker

Executive Vice President

(405) 270-1044

15

Table of Contents

1A. Risk Factors

In the course of conducting our business operations, the Company and our subsidiaries are 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. Other factors besides those discussed below or elsewhere in this report also could adversely affect our business and operations, and these risk factors should not be considered a complete list of potential risks that may affect the Company and our subsidiaries.

Risks Related to Our Industry

Changes in the economic and financial environment 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. The fiscal and monetary policies of the United States government and its level of indebtedness may have an impact on interest rates and inflation, which may adversely affect our profitability and financial condition. 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 and other governmental and regulatory bodies for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets will achieve the intended 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 TARP Capital Purchase Program, 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 impact that any such initiatives or governmental programs will have on the financial markets, including the high levels of volatility and limited credit availability. The failure of these efforts to stabilize the financial markets, the continuation or worsening of current financial market conditions or 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.

Fluctuations in interest rates could reduce our profitability.

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

16

Table of Contents

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.

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. Additional legislation and regulations may be enacted or adopted in the future that could significantly affect our powers, authority and operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, regulators have significant discretion and power to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of laws by banks and bank holding companies in the performance of their supervisory and enforcement duties. The exercise of regulatory power may have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may be required to pay significantly higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments in the future.

During 2008 and continuing in 2009, higher levels of bank failures dramatically increased resolution costs of the FDIC and depleted the DIF. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act has permanently increased the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per depositor, retroactive to January 1, 2009, and noninterest-bearing transactions accounts have unlimited deposit insurance through December 31, 2012. These programs have placed additional stress on the DIF. In order to maintain a strong funding position and restore reserve ratios of the DIF, the FDIC has increased assessment rates of insured depository institutions. In addition, on November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a rule requiring banks to prepay three years’ worth of estimated deposit insurance premiums by December 31, 2009. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If additional bank or financial institution failures continue or increase, or if the cost of resolving prior failures exceeds expectations, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than these recently increased levels. Any future increases or required prepayments of FDIC insurance premiums may adversely impact our earnings and financial condition.

Our FDIC insurance related costs were $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared with $3.7 million and $5.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We are unable to predict the impact in future periods; including whether and when additional special assessments will occur, in the event the economic crisis continues.

Tax law changes may adversely affect our net income, effective tax rate and our overall results of operations and financial condition.

Our financial performance is impacted by Federal and state tax laws. Given the current economic and political environment, and ongoing state budgetary pressures, the enactment of new Federal or state tax legislation may occur. The enactment of such legislation, or changes in the interpretation of existing law, including provisions impacting tax rates, apportionment, consolidation or combination, income, expenses, and credits, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Recently enacted regulatory reforms could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Recently enacted and proposed changes in the laws and regulations affecting public companies or financial institutions could cause us to incur increased costs as we evaluate the implications of new rules and respond to new requirements. We continue to evaluate and monitor developments with respect to these new and proposed rules, and we cannot predict or estimate the amount of the additional costs, if any, we may incur or the timing of such costs.

17

Table of Contents

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a significant overhaul of many aspects of the regulation of the financial-services industry, addressing, among other things, systemic risk, capital adequacy, deposit insurance assessments, consumer financial protection, interchange fees, derivatives, lending limits, and changes among the bank regulatory agencies. Many of these provisions are subject to further study, rulemaking, and the discretion of regulatory bodies, such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which will regulate the systemic risk of the financial system. While the provisions of the Act receiving the most public attention have generally been those more likely to affect larger institutions with assets over $10 billion and most likely to affect institutions with assets greater than $50 billion, the Dodd-Frank Act also contains many provisions which will affect smaller institutions such as ours in substantial ways. For example, one year after the date of its enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the Federal prohibitions on paying interest on business checking accounts, thus allowing businesses to have interest-bearing checking accounts. Depending on competitive responses, this significant change to existing law could have an adverse impact on our interest expense. Compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions may curtail our revenue opportunities, increase our operating costs, require us to hold higher levels of regulatory capital or liquidity or both or otherwise adversely affect our business or financial results in the future. Our management continues to actively review the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and assess its probable impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. However, because many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to future rulemaking, it is difficult to precisely anticipate its overall financial impact on us at this time.

Regulatory reforms under consideration could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Recently proposed changes in the laws and regulations affecting financial institutions could cause us to report capital under new methodologies or incur increased costs as we evaluate the implications of new rules and respond to new requirements. Compliance with the proposed rules under Basel III and some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act related to the capital treatment of junior subordinated debentures may increase our operating costs, require us to hold higher levels of regulatory capital or liquidity or both or otherwise adversely affect our business or financial results in the future. Our management is actively reviewing the provisions of Basel III and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and assessing its probable impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. However, because many aspects of Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act are in the comment phase or subject to future rulemaking, it is difficult to precisely anticipate its overall financial impact on us at this time.

Changes in monetary policies may have an adverse effect on our business.

Our results of operations are affected by credit policies of monetary authorities, particularly the Federal Reserve. Actions by monetary and fiscal authorities, including the Federal Reserve, could have an adverse effect on our deposit levels, loan demand or business earnings. See “Item 1—Business-Supervision and Regulation.”

Risks Related to Our Business

Our recent results may not be indicative of future results.

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.

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 when due. If borrower defaults cause losses in excess of our allowance for loan losses, it could have an adverse effect on our

18

Table of Contents

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.

Adverse changes in economic conditions, especially in the State of Oklahoma, could have a material adverse effect on our business, growth, and profitability.

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.

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.

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. Certain 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.

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, 2012, this percentage was 66.0% compared to 65.2% at December 31, 2011. While our record of asset quality has

19

Table of Contents

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 (“CRE”) 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.

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 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.

Our information systems may experience an interruption or breach in security.

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 rely on certain external vendors.

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.

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

20

Table of Contents

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.

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, incur a one-time charge or be required to record an impairment of goodwill, or any combination of the foregoing.

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.

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.

21

Table of Contents

We have businesses other than banking.

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.

We have a continuing need for technological change.

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.

The recent 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 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.

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.

22

Table of Contents

Risks Associated with Our Common Stock

Our stock price can be volatile.

Investors should carefully consider the risks described in this “Risk Factors” section and the other information in this report, including our consolidated financial statements with related notes and documents incorporated by reference. If any of these risks or other risks, which have not been identified or which we may believe are immaterial or unlikely, actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed. 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.

We may not continue to pay dividends on our common stock in the future.

We have historically paid a common stock dividend. However, BancFirst Corporation is a bank holding company, and our ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain Federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends. In the current stressed financial markets and declining economy, which has resulted in higher FDIC insurance premiums and special assessments on FDIC-insured financial institutions, including the Bank, 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.

An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit.

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 is inherently risky 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.

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 53% of our outstanding common stock as of February 28, 2013. As a result of their ownership, the directors and executive officers have the ability, by voting their shares in concert, to influence the outcome of any matter submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors. The directors and executive officers may vote to cause us to take actions with which our other stockholders do not agree.

23

Table of Contents

Our stockholder rights plan, amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as well as provisions of Oklahoma 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.

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.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

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 92 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).

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

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 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

24

Table of Contents

PART II

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

Common Stock Market Prices and Dividends

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 February 28, 2013 there were 321 holders of record of the Common Stock. The closing price of our Common Stock on February 28, 2013 was $40.04 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.

Stock Repurchases

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, 2012 there were 234,964 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.

25

Table of Contents

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, 2012.

Performance Graph

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

26

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following table sets forth certain historical consolidated financial data as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2012. 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.

27

Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATED AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS AND INTEREST MARGIN ANALYSIS

Taxable Equivalent Basis (Dollars in thousands)

28

Table of Contents

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, 2012. 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.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

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. Actual results may differ materially from forward-looking statements.

SUMMARY

BancFirst Corporation’s net income for 2012 was $51.9 million, or $3.36 per diluted share, compared to $45.6 million, or $2.93 per diluted share for 2011 and $42.3 million, or $2.70 per diluted share for 2010.

In 2012, net interest income was $164.8 million, compared to $156.9 million in 2011 and $142.8 million in 2010. The Company’s net interest margin was 3.13% for 2012, down from 3.20% for 2011 and 3.37% for 2010. The net interest margin has continued to be negatively impacted by the historically low interest rate environment. Provision for loan losses was $3.1 million in 2012 compared to $4.5 million in 2011 and $3.0 million in 2010. Noninterest income was $87.7 million in 2012 compared to $77.0 million in 2011 and $69.9 million in 2010, while noninterest expense was $170.4 million in 2012 compared to $158.6 million in 2011and $144.1 million in 2010.

Total assets at December 31, 2012 were $6.0 billion, up from $5.6 billion at December 31, 2011 and $5.1 billion at December 31, 2010. Total loans at December 31, 2012 were $3.2 billion versus $3.0 billion for 2011 and $2.8 billion for 2010. Total deposits increased to $5.4 billion from $5.0 billion for 2011 and $4.5 billion for 2010. A temporary inflow of deposits at year end 2012 was responsible for much of the increase in total assets and total deposits over year end 2011. The Company’s liquidity remained strong as its average loan-to-deposit ratio was 60.3% for 2012, compared to 60.6% for 2011 and 67.6% for 2010. Stockholders’ equity was $519.6 million compared to $483.0 million for 2011 and $458.6 million for 2010. Average stockholders’ equity to average assets was 8.79% at December 31, 2012, compared to 8.85% at December 31, 2011 and 9.74% at December 31, 2010.

Asset quality remained strong with a ratio of nonperforming and restructured assets to total assets of 0.81% for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to 0.71% at December 31, 2011 and 1.01% at December 31, 2010. Net charge-offs to average loans for 2012 decreased to 0.07%, compared to 0.09% for 2011 and 0.13% for 2010. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 1.19% for 2012 compared to 1.25% for 2011 and 1.27% for 2010.

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.

On July 12, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of FBC Financial Corporation and its subsidiary bank, 1st Bank Oklahoma with banking locations in Claremore, Verdigris, and Inola, Oklahoma. The Company

29

Table of Contents

paid a premium of $1.5 million above the equity capital of FBC Financial Corporation. At acquisition, 1st Bank Oklahoma had approximately $217 million in total assets, $116 million in loans, $178 million in deposits and $18 million in equity capital. 1st Bank Oklahoma operated as a subsidiary of BancFirst Corporation until it was merged into BancFirst on February 17, 2012. The acquisition did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

On December 15, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of OK Bancorporation, Inc., and its subsidiary bank, The Okemah National Bank. At acquisition, The Okemah National Bank had approximately $73 million in total assets, $32 million in loans, $62 million in deposits, and $9 million in equity capital. The Okemah National Bank operated as a subsidiary of BancFirst Corporation until it was merged into BancFirst on October 21, 2011. The acquisition did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

On December 10, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of Exchange Bancshares of Moore, Inc., and its subsidiary bank, Exchange National Bank of Moore. At acquisition, Exchange National Bank of Moore had approximately $147 million in total assets, $47 million in loans, $116 million in deposits, and $10 million in equity capital. Exchange National Bank operated as a subsidiary of BancFirst Corporation until it was merged into BancFirst on June 17, 2011. The acquisition did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

On October 8, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of Union National Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary bank, Union Bank of Chandler with offices in Chandler and Tulsa, Oklahoma. At acquisition, Union Bank of Chandler had approximately $134 million in total assets, $90 million in loans, $117 million in deposits, and $15 million in equity capital. Union Bank of Chandler operated as a subsidiary of BancFirst Corporation until it was merged into BancFirst on November 12, 2010. The acquisition did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company recorded a total of $13.3 million of goodwill and core deposit intangibles as a result of the three acquisitions completed in 2010. The combined acquisitions added approximately $371 million in total assets, $169 million in loans and $295 million in deposits. The effects of these acquisitions are included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company from the date of acquisition forward. The Company does not believe these acquisitions, individually or in aggregate are material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In November 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued a final rule to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that provide for temporary unlimited coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. The separate coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts became effective on December 31, 2010 and terminated on December 31, 2012.

On April 1, 2010, the Company’s insurance agency BancFirst Insurance Services, Inc., formerly known as Wilcox, Jones & McGrath, Inc., completed its acquisition of RBC Agency, Inc., which had offices in Shawnee and Stillwater. BancFirst Insurance Services, Inc. also has offices in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Lawton and Muskogee. The acquisition did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

On March 21, 2010, Congress passed student loan reform legislation centralizing student lending in a governmental agency, which as of June 30, 2010 resulted in an end to the student loan programs provided by the Company. The Company sold all student loans held for sale of $144.5 million in October 2010.

In November 2009, the FDIC issued a rule that required insured depository institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. Prepaid deposit insurance of approximately $9.7 million and $12.3 million was included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

30

Table of Contents

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

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.

Allowance for Loan Losses

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 adequacy 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 adequacy 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.

Income Taxes

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

31

Table of Contents

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.

Intangible Assets and Goodwill

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 twelve 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 quarterly, 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, 2012, 2011 and 2010 resulted in no impairments.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

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.

Future Application of Accounting Standards

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.

32

Table of Contents

Segment Information

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

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, which is the Company’s principal source of operating revenue, increased in 2012 by $7.9 million, to a total of $164.8 million, compared to an increase of $14.1 million in 2011 and an increase of $11.4 million in 2010. In 2012, net interest income increased due primarily to higher loan volume. In 2011, $12.0 million of the increase in net interest income was related to the Company’s acquisitions made in the latter part of 2010 and during 2011. In 2010, net interest income increased due to the decrease in interest rates along with approximately $1.7 million of the increase relating to the Company’s acquisitions made in the latter part of 2010.

The net interest margin is the ratio of taxable-equivalent net interest income to average earning assets for the period. The net interest margin for 2012 was 3.13%, compared to 3.20% for 2011 and 3.37% for 2010. Net interest margin has decreased in recent years due to continued historically low interest rates, the maturity or pay down of higher-yielding earning assets and an increase in earning assets at relatively low rates.

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 2012 and 2011. If interest rates and/or loan volume do not increase, management expects continued compression of its net interest margin in 2013 as higher yielding loans and securities mature and are replaced at current market rates.

VOLUME/RATE ANALYSIS

Taxable Equivalent Basis

33

Table of Contents

The following interest rate sensitivity analysis measures the sensitivity of the Company’s net interest margin to changes in interest rates by analyzing the repricing relationship between its earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. This analysis is limited by the fact that it presents a static position as of a single day and is not necessarily indicative of the Company’s position at any other point in time, and does not take into account the sensitivity of rates of specific assets and liabilities to changes in market rates. The Company’s approach to managing the interest sensitivity gap limits risk while taking advantage of the Company’s stable core deposit base and the historical existence of a positively sloped yield curve.

The Analysis of Interest Rate Sensitivity presents the Company’s earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities based on maturity and repricing frequency at December 31, 2012. The Company’s cumulative negative gap position in the one year interval decreased to $65 million at December 31, 2012 from $193 million at December 31, 2011, and decreased as a percentage of total earning assets to 1.2% from 3.7% at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. This negative gap position assumes that the Company’s core savings and transaction deposits are immediately rate sensitive. In a falling rate or sustained low rate environment, the benefit of the Company’s noninterest-bearing funds is decreased, resulting in a decrease in the Company’s net interest margin over time.

ANALYSIS OF INTEREST RATE SENSITIVITY

December 31, 2012