HOME BANCSHARES INC - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017

or

For the Transition period from                  to                 

Commission File Number: 000-51904

HOME BANCSHARES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(501) 339-2929

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

(Title of Class)

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) 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, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2017, was $3.16 billion based upon the last trade price as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market of $24.90.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practical date.

Common Stock Issued and Outstanding: 173,784,964 shares as of February 21, 2018.

Documents incorporated by reference: Part III is incorporated by reference from the registrant’s Proxy Statement relating to its 2018 Annual Meeting to be held on April 19, 2018.

Table of Contents

HOME BANCSHARES, INC.

FORM 10-K

December  31, 2017

INDEX

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Some of our statements contained in this document, including matters discussed under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation,” are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or our future financial performance and include statements about the competitiveness of the banking industry, potential regulatory obligations, our entrance and expansion into other markets, including through potential acquisitions, our other business strategies and other statements that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance or results. When we use words like “may,” “plan,” “contemplate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “continue,” “expect,” “project,” “predict,” “estimate,” “could,” “should,” “would,” and similar expressions, you should consider them as identifying forward-looking statements, although we may use other phrasing. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are based on our beliefs and assumptions, and on the information available to us at the time that these disclosures were prepared. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

3

Table of Contents

All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this Cautionary Note. Our actual results may differ significantly from those we discuss in these forward-looking statements. For other factors, risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from estimates and projections contained in these forward-looking statements, see “Risk Factors”.

4

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. BUSINESS

Company Overview

Home BancShares, Inc. (“Home BancShares”, which may also be referred to in this document as “we”, “us” or the “Company”) is a Conway, Arkansas headquartered bank holding company registered under the federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Company’s common stock is traded through the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “HOMB”. We are primarily engaged in providing a broad range of commercial and retail banking and related financial services to businesses, real estate developers and investors, individuals and municipalities through our wholly owned community bank subsidiary – Centennial Bank. Centennial Bank has branch locations in Arkansas, Florida, South Alabama and New York City. Although the Company has a diversified loan portfolio, at December 31, 2017 and 2016, commercial real estate loans represented 61.8% and 59.1% of gross loans and 289.6% and 328.9% of total stockholders’ equity, respectively. The Company’s total assets, total deposits, total revenue and net income for each of the past three years are as follows:

Home BancShares acquires, organizes and invests in community banks that serve attractive markets. Our community banking team is built around experienced bankers with strong local relationships. The Company was formed in 1998 by an investor group led by John W. Allison, our Chairman, and Robert H. “Bunny” Adcock, Jr., our Vice Chairman. After obtaining a bank charter, we established First State Bank in Conway, Arkansas, in 1999. We acquired Community Bank, Bank of Mountain View and Centennial Bank in 2003, 2005 and 2008, respectively. Home BancShares and its founders were also involved in the formation of Twin City Bank and Marine Bank, both of which we acquired in 2005. During 2008 and 2009, we merged all of our banks into one charter and adopted Centennial Bank as the common name. In 2010, we acquired six banks in Florida through Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) assisted transactions with loss share, including Old Southern Bank, Key West Bank, Coastal Community Bank, Bayside Savings Bank, Wakulla Bank and Gulf State Community Bank. In 2012, we acquired three banks headquartered in Florida including Vision Bank, Premier Bank and Heritage Bank of Florida (“Heritage”). Heritage was acquired through an FDIC-assisted transaction without loss share. In 2013, we acquired Liberty Bancshares, Inc. headquartered in Jonesboro, Arkansas. During 2014, we acquired Florida Traditions Bank headquartered in Dade City, Florida and Broward Financial Holdings, Inc. headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. During 2015, we acquired Doral Bank’s Florida Panhandle operations (“Doral Florida”), a pool of national commercial real estate loans, and Florida Business BancGroup, Inc., headquartered in Tampa, Florida. In connection with the acquisition of the pool of national commercial real estate loans, we opened a loan production office in New York City, which was converted to a branch in 2016, and created Centennial Commercial Finance Group (“Centennial CFG”). During 2017, we completed the acquisitions of Giant Holdings, Inc. headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, The Bank of Commerce headquartered in Sarasota, Florida and Stonegate Bank headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida and opened a loan production office in Los Angeles, California under the management of Centennial CFG.

5

Table of Contents

We believe many individuals and businesses prefer banking with a locally managed community bank capable of providing flexibility and quick decisions. The execution of our community banking strategy has allowed us to rapidly build our network of banking operations through acquisitions. The following summary provides additional details concerning our acquisitions during the previous five fiscal years.

Liberty Bancshares, Inc. – On October 24, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Liberty Bancshares, Inc. (“Liberty”), parent company of Liberty Bank of Arkansas (“Liberty Bank”), and merged Liberty Bank into Centennial Bank. Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 25, 2013 among Home BancShares, Centennial Bank, Liberty, Liberty Bank and an acquisition subsidiary of Home BancShares, the shareholders of Liberty received approximately $290.1 million of the Company’s common stock valued at the time of the closing, plus approximately $30.0 million in cash, in exchange for all outstanding shares of Liberty common stock. The Company also repurchased all of Liberty’s SBLF preferred stock held by the U.S. Treasury shortly after the closing.

Prior to the acquisition, Liberty operated 46 banking offices located in Northeast Arkansas, Northwest Arkansas and Western Arkansas. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, Centennial Bank acquired approximately $2.82 billion in assets, approximately $1.73 billion in loans including loan discounts and approximately $2.13 billion of deposits.

Florida Traditions Bank – On July 17, 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Florida Traditions Bank (“Traditions”) and merged Traditions into Centennial Bank. Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 25, 2014, by and among Home BancShares, Centennial Bank, and Traditions, the shareholders of Traditions received approximately $39.5 million of the Company’s common stock valued at the time of closing, in exchange for all outstanding shares of Traditions common stock.

Prior to the acquisition, Traditions operated eight banking locations in Central Florida, including its main office in Dade City, Florida. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, Traditions had $310.5 million in total assets, $241.6 million in loans after $8.5 million of loan discounts, and $267.3 million in deposits.

Broward Financial Holdings, Inc. – On October 23, 2014, the Company completed its acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Broward Financial Holdings, Inc. (“Broward”), parent company of Broward Bank of Commerce (“Broward Bank”), and merged Broward Bank into Centennial Bank. Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 30, 2014 by and among Home BancShares, Centennial Bank, Broward, Broward Bank and an acquisition subsidiary of Home BancShares, the shareholders of Broward received approximately $30.2 million of the Company’s common stock valued as of the closing date, plus $3.3 million in cash, in exchange for all outstanding shares of Broward common stock. The Company also agreed to pay the Broward shareholders at an undetermined date up to approximately $751,000 in additional consideration, the amount and timing of which, if any, was dependent on future payments received or losses incurred by Centennial Bank from certain current Broward Bank loans. During the first quarter of 2016, we determined and reached an agreement with the Broward shareholders that no additional consideration is owed or will be paid to the Broward shareholders.

Prior to the acquisition, Broward Bank operated two banking locations in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, Broward had approximately $184.4 million in total assets, $121.1 million in total loans after $3.0 million of loan discounts, and $134.2 million in deposits.

Doral Bank’s Florida Panhandle Operations – On February 27, 2015, Centennial Bank, acquired in an FDIC-assisted transaction all the deposits and substantially all the assets of the Florida Panhandle operations of Doral Bank of San Juan, Puerto Rico (“Doral Florida”) through an alliance agreement with Banco Popular of Puerto Rico (“Popular”), who was the successful lead bidder to acquire the assets and liabilities of the failed Doral Bank from the FDIC, as receiver for Doral Bank. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, the acquisition provided the Company with loans of approximately $37.9 million net of loan discounts, deposits of approximately $467.6 million, plus a $428.2 million cash settlement to balance the transaction. The FDIC did not provide any loss-sharing with respect to these acquired assets.

6

Table of Contents

Prior to the acquisition, Doral Florida operated five branch locations in Panama City, Panama City Beach and Pensacola, Florida plus a loan production office in Tallahassee, Florida. At the time of acquisition, Centennial operated 29 branch locations in the Florida Panhandle. As a result, the Company closed all five branch locations during the July 2015 systems conversion and returned the facilities back to the FDIC.

Pool of National Commercial Real Estate Loans – On April 1, 2015, Centennial Bank purchased a pool of national commercial real estate loans totaling approximately $289.1 million from AM PR LLC, an affiliate of J.C. Flowers & Co. (collectively, the “Seller”) for a purchase price of 99% of the total principal value of the acquired loans. The acquired loans were originated by the former Doral Bank within its Doral Property Finance portfolio and were transferred to the Seller by Popular upon its acquisition of the assets and liabilities of Doral Bank from the FDIC. This pool of loans is now managed by Centennial CFG, which is responsible for servicing the acquired loan pool and originating new loan production.

In connection with this acquisition of loans, the Company opened a loan production office on April 23, 2015 in New York City, which became a full branch on September 1, 2016.

Florida Business BancGroup, Inc. – On October 1, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of Florida Business BancGroup, Inc. (“FBBI”), parent company of Bay Cities Bank (“Bay Cities”). The Company paid a purchase price to the FBBI shareholders of $104.1 million for the FBBI acquisition. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of FBBI received shares of the Company’s common stock valued at approximately $83.8 million as of October 1, 2015, plus approximately $20.3 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of FBBI common stock. A portion of the cash consideration, $2.0 million, was placed into escrow with the FBBI shareholders having a contingent right to receive their pro-rata portions of such amount. The amount, if any, of such escrowed funds to be released to FBBI shareholders would depend upon the amount of losses that the Company incurred in the two years following the completion of the merger related to two class action lawsuits that were pending against Bay Cities. In August 2017 the Company distributed the contingent cash consideration to the former FBBI shareholders, less $10,000 for compensation paid to a representative designated by FBBI who acted on behalf of the FBBI shareholders in connection with the escrow arrangements.

FBBI formerly operated six branch locations and a loan production office in the Tampa Bay area and in Sarasota, Florida. Including the effects of any purchase accounting adjustments, as of October 1, 2015, FBBI had approximately $564.5 million in total assets, $408.3 million in loans after $14.1 million of loan discounts, and $472.0 million in deposits.

Giant Holdings, Inc. – On February 23, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of Giant Holdings, Inc. (“GHI”), parent company of Landmark Bank, N.A. (“Landmark”), pursuant to a previously announced definitive agreement and plan of merger whereby GHI merged with and into HBI and, immediately thereafter, Landmark merged with and into Centennial. The Company paid a purchase price to the GHI shareholders of approximately $96.0 million for the GHI acquisition. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of GHI received 2,738,038 shares of its common stock valued at approximately $77.5 million as of February 23, 2017, plus approximately $18.5 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of GHI common stock.

GHI formerly operated six branch locations in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, GHI had approximately $398.1 million in total assets, $327.8 million in loans after $8.1 million of loan discounts, and $304.0 million in deposits.

The Bank of Commerce – On February 28, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of The Bank of Commerce, a Florida state-chartered bank that operated in the Sarasota, Florida area (“BOC”), pursuant to an acquisition agreement, dated December 1, 2016, by and between HBI and Bank of Commerce Holdings, Inc. (“BCHI”), parent company of BOC. The Company merged BOC with and into Centennial effective as of the close of business on February 28, 2017.

7

Table of Contents

The acquisition of BOC was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) pursuant to a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code filed by BCHI with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The sale of BOC by BCHI was subject to certain bidding procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. On November 14, 2016, the Company submitted an initial bid to purchase the outstanding shares of BOC in accordance with the bidding procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. An auction was subsequently conducted on November 16, 2016, and the Company was deemed to be the successful bidder. The Bankruptcy Court entered a final order on December 9, 2016 approving the sale of BOC to the Company pursuant to and in accordance with the acquisition agreement.

Under the terms of the acquisition agreement, the Company paid an aggregate of approximately $4.2 million in cash for the acquisition, which included the purchase of all outstanding shares of BOC common stock, the discounted purchase of certain subordinated debentures issued by BOC from the existing holders of the subordinated debentures, and an expense reimbursement to BCHI for approved administrative claims in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding.

BOC formerly operated three branch locations in the Sarasota, Florida area. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, BOC had approximately $178.1 million in total assets, $118.5 million in loans after $5.8 million of loan discounts, and $139.8 million in deposits.

Stonegate Bank – On September 26, 2017, the Company, completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Stonegate Bank (“Stonegate”), and merged Stonegate into Centennial. The Company paid a purchase price to the Stonegate shareholders of approximately $792.4 million for the Stonegate acquisition. Under the terms of the merger agreement, shareholders of Stonegate received 30,863,658 shares of HBI common stock valued at approximately $742.3 million at the time of closing plus approximately $50.1 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of Stonegate common stock. In addition, the holders of outstanding stock options of Stonegate received approximately $27.6 million in cash in connection with the cancellation of their options immediately before the acquisition closed, for a total transaction value of approximately $820.0 million.

Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, Stonegate had approximately $2.89 billion in total assets, $2.37 billion in loans and $2.53 billion in customer deposits. Stonegate formerly operated its banking business from 24 locations in key Florida markets with significant presence in Broward and Sarasota counties.

For an additional discussion regarding the acquisitions of BOC, GHI and Stonegate, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. For an additional discussion regarding the acquisitions of Doral Florida, the pool of national commercial real estate loans and FBBI, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. For an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of Liberty, see Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

8

Table of Contents

Our Management Team

The following table sets forth, as of December 31, 2017, information concerning the individuals who are our executive officers.

9

Table of Contents

Our Growth Strategy

Our goals are to achieve growth in earnings per share and to create and build stockholder value. Our growth strategy entails the following:

Community Banking Philosophy

Our community banking philosophy consists of four basic principles:

These principles, which make up our community banking philosophy, are the driving force for our business. As we streamlined our legacy business into an efficient banking network and have integrated new acquisitions, we have preserved lending authority with local management in most cases by using local loan committees that maintain an integral connection to the communities we serve. These committees are empowered with lending authority of up to $6.0 million in their respective geographic areas. This allows us to capitalize on the strong relationships that these individuals and our local bank officers have in their respective communities to maintain and grow our business. Through experienced and empowered local bankers and board members, we are committed to maintaining a community banking experience for our customers.

10

Table of Contents

Operating Goals

Our operating goals focus on maintaining strong credit quality, increasing profitability, finding experienced bankers, and maintaining a “fortress” balance sheet:

Our Market Areas

As of December 31, 2017, we conducted business principally through 76 branches in Arkansas, 88 branches in Florida, five branches in Alabama and one branch in New York City. Our branch footprint includes markets in which we are the deposit market share leader as well as markets where we believe we have opportunities for deposit market share growth.

11

Table of Contents

Lending Activities

We originate loans primarily secured by single and multi-family real estate, residential construction and commercial buildings. In addition, we make loans to small and medium-sized commercial businesses as well as to consumers for a variety of purposes.

Our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, was comprised as follows:

Real Estate – Non-farm/Non-residential. Non-farm/non-residential real estate loans consist primarily of loans secured by income-producing properties, such as shopping/retail centers, hotel/motel properties, office buildings, and industrial/warehouse properties. Commercial lending on income-producing properties typically involves higher loan principal amounts, and the repayment of these loans is dependent, in large part, on sufficient income from the properties collateralizing the loans to cover operating expenses and debt service. This category of loans also includes specialized properties such as churches, marinas, and nursing homes. Additionally, we make commercial mortgage loans to entities to operate in these types of properties, and the repayment of these loans is dependent, in large part, on the cash flow generated by these entities in the operations of the business. Often, a secondary source of repayment will include the sale of the subject collateral. When this is the case, it is generally our practice to obtain an independent appraisal of this collateral within the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.

Real Estate – Construction/Land Development. This category of loans includes loans to residential and commercial developers to purchase raw land and to develop this land into residential and commercial land developments. In addition, this category includes construction loans for all of the types of real estate loans, including both commercial and residential. These loans are generally secured by a first lien on the real estate being purchased or developed. Often, the primary source of repayment will be the sale of the subject collateral. When this is the case, it is generally our practice to obtain an independent appraisal of this collateral within the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.

Real Estate – Residential. Our residential mortgage loan program primarily originates loans to individuals for the purchase of residential property. We generally do not retain long-term, fixed-rate residential real estate loans in our portfolio due to interest rate and collateral risks. Residential mortgage loans to individuals retained in our loan portfolio primarily consisted of approximately 49.1% owner occupied 1-4 family properties and approximately 38.4% non-owner occupied 1-4 family properties (rental) as of December 31, 2017 with the remaining 12.5% relating to condos and mobile homes. The primary source of repayment for these loans is generally the income and/or assets of the individual to whom the loan is made. Often, a secondary source of repayment will include the sale of the subject collateral. When this is the case, it is generally our practice to obtain an independent appraisal of this collateral within the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.

12

Table of Contents

Consumer. While our focus is on service to small and medium-sized businesses, we also make a variety of loans to individuals for personal, family and household purposes, including secured and unsecured installment and term loans. The primary source of repayment for these loans is generally the income and/or assets of the individual to whom the loan is made. When secured, we may independently assess the value of the collateral using a third-party valuation source.

Commercial and Industrial. Our commercial and industrial loan portfolio primarily consisted of 44.1% inventory/accounts receivable financing, 14.1% equipment/vehicle financing and 41.8% other, including letters of credit at less than 1%, as of December 31, 2017. This category includes loans to smaller business ventures, credit lines for working capital and short-term inventory financing, for example. These loans are typically secured by the assets of the business, and are supplemented by personal guaranties of the principals and often mortgages on the principals’ primary residences. The primary source of repayment may be conversion of the assets into cash flow, as in inventory and accounts receivable, or may be cash flow generated by operations, as in equipment/vehicle financing. Assessing the value of inventory can involve many factors including, but not limited to, type, age, condition, level of conversion and marketability, and can involve applying a discount factor or obtaining an independent valuation, based on the assessment of the above factors. Assessing the value of accounts receivable can involve many factors including, but not limited to, concentration, aging, and industry, and can involve applying a discount factor or obtaining an independent valuation, based on the assessment of the above factors. Assessing the value of equipment/vehicles may involve a third-party valuation source, where applicable.

Agricultural Loans. Agricultural loans include loans for financing agricultural production, including loans to businesses or individuals engaged in the production of timber, poultry, livestock or crops and are not categorized as part of real estate loans. Our agricultural loans are generally secured by farm machinery, livestock, crops, vehicles or other agricultural-related collateral. A portion of our portfolio of agricultural loans is comprised of loans to individuals which would normally be characterized as consumer loans except for the fact that the individual borrowers are primarily engaged in the production of timber, poultry, livestock or crops.

Credit Risks. The principal economic risk associated with each category of the loans that we make is the creditworthiness of the borrower and the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. General economic conditions and the strength of the services and retail market segments affect borrower creditworthiness. General factors affecting a commercial borrower’s ability to repay include interest rates, inflation and the demand for the commercial borrower’s products and services as well as other factors affecting a borrower’s customers, suppliers and employees.

Risks associated with real estate loans also include fluctuations in the value of real estate, new job creation trends, tenant vacancy rates, and in the case of commercial borrowers, the quality of the borrower’s management. Consumer loan repayments depend upon the borrower’s financial stability and are more likely to be adversely affected by divorce, job loss, illness and other personal hardships.

13

Table of Contents

Lending Policies. We have established common loan documentation procedures and policies, based on the type of loan, for our bank subsidiary. The board of directors periodically reviews these policies for validity. In addition, it has been and will continue to be our practice to attempt to independently verify information provided by our borrowers, including assets and income. We have not made loans similar to those commonly referred to as “no doc” or “stated income” loans. We focus on the primary and secondary methods of repayment, and prepare global cash flows where appropriate. There are legal restrictions on the dollar amount of loans available for each lending relationship. The Arkansas Banking Code provides that no loan relationship may exceed 20% of a bank’s risk based capital, and we are in compliance with this restriction. In addition, we are not dependent upon any single lending relationship for an amount exceeding 10% of our revenues. As of December 31, 2017, the maximum amount outstanding to a single borrower was $143.5 million. As a community lender, we believe from time to time it is in our best interest to agree to modifications or restructurings. These modifications/restructurings can take the form of a reduction in interest rate, a move to interest-only from principal and interest payments, or a lengthening in the amortization period or any combination thereof. Occasionally, we will modify/restructure a single loan by splitting it into two loans following the interagency guidance involving the workout of commercial real estate loans. The loan representing the portion that is supported by the current cash flow of the borrower or project will remain on our books, while the new loan representing the portion that cannot be serviced by the current cash flow is charged-off. Furthermore, we may make an additional loan or loans to a borrower or related interest of a borrower who is past due more than 90 days. These circumstances will be very limited in nature, and when approved by the appropriate lending authority, will likely involve obtaining additional collateral that will improve the collectability of the overall relationship. It is our belief that judicious usage of these tools can improve the quality of our loan portfolio by providing our borrowers an improved probability of survival during difficult economic times.

Loan Approval Procedures. Our bank subsidiary has supplemented our common loan policies to establish its loan approval procedures as follows:

Currently, our board of directors has established an in-house consolidated lending limit of $20.0 million to any one borrowing relationship without obtaining the approval of both our Chairman and our director Richard H. Ashley. We have 81 separate relationships that exceed this in-house limit.

14

Table of Contents

Deposits and Other Sources of Funds

Our principal source of funds for loans and investing in securities is core deposits. We offer a wide range of deposit services, including checking, savings, money market accounts and certificates of deposit. We obtain most of our deposits from individuals and small businesses, and municipalities in our market areas. We believe that the rates we offer for core deposits are competitive with those offered by other financial institutions in our market areas. Additionally, our policy also permits the acceptance of brokered deposits. Secondary sources of funding include advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, the Federal Reserve Bank Discount Window and other borrowings. These secondary sources enable us to borrow funds at rates and terms which, at times, are more beneficial to us.

Other Banking Services

Given customer demand for increased convenience and account access, we offer a range of products and services, including 24-hour internet banking, mobile banking and voice response information, cash management, overdraft protection, direct deposit, safe deposit boxes, United States savings bonds and automatic account transfers. We earn fees for most of these services. We also receive ATM transaction fees from transactions performed by our customers participating in a shared network of automated teller machines and a debit card system that our customers can use throughout the United States, as well as in other countries.

As a result of our acquisition of Stonegate in September 2017, we also offer credit cards to both consumers and businesses. Credit cards typically involve a higher degree of credit risk since outstanding balances are unsecured and repayment of such balances is often negatively impacted by a decline in economic conditions. Our credit cards offer a variety of benefits and features designed to meet the needs of our customer. In addition, our consumer credit cards can be used in Cuba.

Insurance

Centennial Insurance Agency, Inc. is an independent insurance agency, originally founded in 1959 and purchased by Centennial Bank in 2000. Centennial Insurance Agency writes policies for commercial and personal lines of business including insurance for property, casualty, life, health and employee benefits. It is subject to regulation by the Arkansas Insurance Department. The offices of Centennial Insurance Agency are currently located in Jacksonville, Cabot and Conway, Arkansas.

Cook Insurance Agency, Inc. is an independent insurance agency, originally founded in 1913 and acquired by Centennial Bank in 2010 during our FDIC-assisted acquisition of Gulf State Community Bank. Cook Insurance Agency writes policies for commercial and personal lines of business including life insurance. It is subject to regulation by the Florida Insurance Department. The offices of Cook Insurance Agency are located in Apalachicola and Crawfordville, Florida.

The Company may merge the book of business of Cook Insurance Agency into the Centennial Insurance Agency at some point in the future.

15

Table of Contents

Competition

As of December 31, 2017, we conducted business through 170 branches in our primary market areas of Pulaski, Faulkner, Craighead, Lonoke, Pope, Washington, White, Benton, Greene, Sebastian, Cleburne, Independence, Stone, Baxter, Clay, Conway, Crawford, Johnson, Saline, Sharp and Yell counties in Arkansas; Broward, Monroe, Hillsborough, Leon, Sarasota, Bay, Franklin, Palm Beach, Gulf, Charlotte, Collier, Escambia, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Walton, Miami-Dade, Lee, Calhoun, Gadsden, Hernando, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Seminole, Wakulla and Manatee counties in Florida; Baldwin County in Alabama; and New York County in New York. Many other commercial banks, savings institutions and credit unions have offices in our primary market areas. These institutions include many of the largest banks operating in these respective states, including some of the largest banks in the country. Many of our competitors serve the same counties we do. Our competitors often have greater resources, have broader geographic markets, have higher lending limits, offer various services that we may not currently offer and may better afford and make broader use of media advertising, support services and electronic technology than we do. To offset these competitive disadvantages, we depend on our reputation as having greater personal service, consistency, and flexibility and the ability to make credit and other business decisions quickly.

Employees

On December 31, 2017, we had 1,744 full-time equivalent employees. Except for any additional employees acquired in future acquisitions, we expect that our 2018 staffing levels will be slightly lower than those at year end 2017 as we continue to achieve efficiencies throughout our Company. We consider our employee relations to be good, and we have no collective bargaining agreements with any employees.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

General

We and our bank subsidiary are subject to extensive state and federal banking regulations that impose restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of our company and its operations. These laws generally are intended to protect depositors, the deposit insurance fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the banking system as a whole, and not shareholders.

The following discussion describes the material elements of the regulatory framework that applies to us. This description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes, regulations and policies that are described. Also, 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 us and our subsidiaries could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Because our bank subsidiary’s total assets exceed $10 billion, it is subject to additional supervision and regulation, including by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), with such additional supervision and regulation discussed throughout this section.

Financial Regulatory Reform

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) made extensive changes in the regulation of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act contains a comprehensive set of provisions designed to govern the practices and oversight of financial institutions and other participants in the financial markets. Some of these provisions are described in more detail below. Many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have delayed effective dates, and the legislation requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new rules and regulations, some of which have not yet been issued in final form. In addition, we and our bank subsidiary will become subject to certain Dodd-Frank Act provisions for the first time in 2018 as our bank subsidiary’s total assets now exceed $10 billion. We expect our operating and compliance costs to continue to increase as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing its regulations.

16

Table of Contents

Home BancShares

We are a bank holding company registered under the federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “Bank Holding Company Act”) and are subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The Bank Holding Company Act and other federal laws subject bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

Acquisitions of Banks. The Bank Holding Company Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the Federal Reserve Board’s prior approval before:

Under the Bank Holding Company Act, if well-capitalized and well managed, we, as well as other bank holding companies located within the states in which we operate, may purchase a bank located outside of those states. Conversely, a well-capitalized and well managed bank holding company located outside of the states in which we operate may purchase a bank located inside those states. In each case, however, restrictions may be placed on the acquisition of a bank that has only been in existence for a limited amount of time or will result in specified concentrations of deposits. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board is required to consider, among other things, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served and various competitive factors.

Permitted Activities. A bank holding company is generally permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act to engage in or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company engaged in the following activities:

Activities that the Federal Reserve Board has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include but are not limited to: factoring accounts receivable; making, acquiring, brokering or servicing loans and usual related activities; leasing personal or real property; operating a non-bank depository institution, such as a savings association; trust company functions; financial and investment advisory activities; conducting securities brokerage activities; underwriting and dealing in government obligations and money market instruments; providing specified management consulting and counseling activities; performing selected data processing services and support services; acting as agent or broker in selling credit life insurance and other types of insurance in connection with credit transactions; and performing selected insurance underwriting activities.

Support of Subsidiary Institutions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, we are required to act as a source of financial strength for our bank subsidiary and to commit resources to support the bank. Under current federal law, the Federal Reserve may require us to make capital injections into our bank subsidiary and may charge us with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices if we fail to commit resources to our bank subsidiary or if we undertake actions that the Federal Reserve believes might jeopardize our ability to commit resources to the bank. As a result, an obligation to support our bank subsidiary may be required at times when, without this requirement, we might not be inclined to provide it.

17

Table of Contents

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

The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their non-banking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1 million for each day the activity continues.

Annual Reporting; Examinations. We are required to file annual reports with the Federal Reserve Board, and such additional information as the Federal Reserve Board may require pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act. The Federal Reserve Board may examine a bank holding company or any of its subsidiaries, and charge the company for the cost of such examination.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted a system using risk-based capital guidelines to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies having $500 million or more in assets on a consolidated basis. Under the guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived credit risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The guidelines in effect as of December 31, 2017 require a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% (of which at least 6.0% is required to consist of Tier 1 capital elements) and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% (of which at least 8.0% is required to consist of Tier 1 capital elements) to be “well-capitalized.” Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. As of December 31, 2017, our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 11.48% and our total risk-based capital ratio was 15.05%. Thus, as of December 31, 2017, we are considered well-capitalized for regulatory purposes.

In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve Board uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly-rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0%, but other bank holding companies are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4.0%. Well-capitalized is a leverage ratio in excess of 5%. As of December 31, 2017, our leverage ratio was 9.98%.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions, substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

18

Table of Contents

The Dodd-Frank Act includes certain provisions concerning the capital regulations of the federal banking agencies. These provisions, often referred to as the “Collins Amendment,” are intended to subject bank holding companies to the same capital requirements as their bank subsidiaries and to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hybrid capital instruments, especially trust preferred securities, as regulatory capital. Under the Collins Amendment, trust preferred securities issued before May 19, 2010 by a company, such as our Company, with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, and treated as regulatory capital are grandfathered, but any such securities issued later are not eligible as regulatory capital. The Collins Amendment requires banking regulators to develop regulations setting minimum risk-based and leverage capital requirements for holding companies and banks on a consolidated basis that are no less stringent than the generally applicable requirements in effect for depository institutions under the prompt corrective action regulations discussed below. The banking regulators also must seek to make capital standards countercyclical so that the required levels of capital increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction.

In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board and the other federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule to revise their risk-based and leverage capital requirements and their method for calculating risk-weighted assets to make them consistent with the agreements that were reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (“Basel III”) and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule applies to all depository institutions, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $500 million or more and savings and loan holding companies (collectively, “banking organizations”). Among other things, the rule establishes a new common equity Tier 1 minimum capital requirement (4.5% of risk-weighted assets) and a higher minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital requirement (6% of risk-weighted assets) and assigns higher risk weightings (150%) to exposures that are more than 90 days past due or are on non-accrual status and certain commercial real estate facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property. As of December 31, 2017, the Company’s common equity Tier 1 capital ratio was 10.86%.

The final rule permanently grandfathers trust preferred securities and other non-qualifying capital instruments that were issued and outstanding as of May 19, 2010 in the Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009. The rule phases out of Tier 1 capital these non-qualifying capital instruments issued before May 19, 2010 by all other bank holding companies. Because our total consolidated assets were less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, our outstanding trust preferred securities will continue to be treated as Tier 1 capital even if we should ever exceed $15 billion assets due to organic growth. However, if we should exceed $15 billion in assets as the result of a merger or acquisition, then the Tier 1 treatment of our outstanding trust preferred securities will be phased out, but those securities will still be treated as Tier 2 capital.

The final rule also limits a banking organization’s capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if the banking organization does not hold a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets, which is in addition to the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements. The final rule became effective for the Company and our bank subsidiary on January 1, 2015. The capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in on January 1, 2016, and the full capital conservation buffer requirement will be effective January 1, 2019. As of January 1, 2016, the required capital conservation buffer was 0.625% of common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets. The required capital conservation buffer increased to 1.25% as of January 1, 2017, and further increased to 1.875% effective January 1, 2018. As of December 31, 2017, our capital conservation buffer was 5.48%.

19

Table of Contents

Liquidity Requirements. Historically, the regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without minimum required formulaic measures. The Basel III liquidity framework requires banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, going forward would be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio, is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other test, referred to as the net stable funding ratio, is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements are expected to incent banking entities to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. The federal banking agencies have not determined to what extent they will apply to U.S. banks that are not large, internationally active banks.

Stress Testing. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, in October 2012, the Federal Reserve Board published its final rules regarding company-run stress testing. The rules require institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion, such as the Company and our bank subsidiary, to conduct an annual company-run stress test of capital and consolidated earnings and losses under one base and at least two stress scenarios provided by bank regulatory agencies. Institutions with total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $50 billion use data as of December 31 and scenarios released by the agencies. The results of these stress tests must be reported to the agencies by July 31 of the following year. Public disclosure of summary stress test results under the severely adverse scenario will occur between October 15 and October 31. The Company’s capital ratios reflected in the stress test calculations are an important factor considered by the Federal Reserve Board in evaluating the capital adequacy of the Company and our bank subsidiary and determining whether proposed payments of dividends or stock repurchases may be an unsafe or unsound practice. As of December 31, 2017, our average assets for the prior four quarters were in excess of $10 billion, subjecting our bank subsidiary and us to stress testing beginning July 1, 2018. As a result, the Bank and Company’s first required annual stress test will occur for 2018, using its financial data as of December 31, 2017.

Payment of Dividends. We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our bank subsidiary and other affiliated entities. The principal sources of our cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to our shareholders, are dividends that our bank subsidiary pays to us as its sole shareholder. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the dividends that our bank subsidiary can pay to us, as well as to the dividends we can pay to our shareholders.

The policy of the Federal Reserve Board that a bank holding company should serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary bank also results in the position of the Federal Reserve Board that a bank holding company should not maintain a level of cash dividends to its shareholders that places undue pressure on the capital of its bank subsidiary or that can be funded only through additional borrowings or other arrangements that may undermine the bank holding company’s ability to serve as such a source of strength. Our ability to pay dividends is also subject to the provisions of Arkansas law.

There are certain state-law limitations on the payment of dividends by our bank subsidiary. Centennial Bank, which is subject to Arkansas banking laws, may not declare or pay a dividend of 75% or more of the net profits of such bank after all taxes for the current year plus 75% of the retained net profits for the immediately preceding year without the prior approval of the Arkansas State Bank Commissioner. Members of the Federal Reserve System must also comply with the dividend restrictions with which a national bank would be required to comply. Among other things, these restrictions require that if losses have at any time been sustained by a bank equal to or exceeding its undivided profits then on hand, no dividend may be paid. Although we have historically paid quarterly dividends on our common stock, there can be no assurances that we will be able to pay dividends in the future under the applicable regulatory limitations.

The payment of dividends by us, or by our bank subsidiary, may also be affected by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under FDICIA, a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would result in the depository institution being undercapitalized.

20

Table of Contents

Subsidiary Bank

General. Our bank subsidiary, Centennial Bank, is chartered as an Arkansas state bank and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, making it primarily subject to regulation and supervision by both the Federal Reserve Board and the Arkansas State Bank Department. In addition, our bank subsidiary is subject to various requirements and restrictions under federal and state law, including requirements to maintain reserves against deposits, restrictions on the types and amounts of loans that may be granted and the interest that they may charge, and limitations on the types of investments they may make and on the types of services they may offer. Various consumer laws and regulations also affect the operations of our bank subsidiary. Further, because our bank subsidiary had total assets of over $10 billion as of December 31, 2017, it is subject to supervision and regulation by the CFPB, which is responsible for implementing, examining and enforcing compliance with federal consumer protection laws.

Prompt Corrective Action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 establishes a system of prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized financial institutions. Under this system, the federal banking regulators have established five capital categories (well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) in which all institutions are placed. Federal banking regulators are required to take various mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions with respect to institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The severity of the action depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. The federal banking agencies have specified by regulation the relevant capital level for each category.

An institution that is categorized as undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal banking agency. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from increasing its average total assets, making acquisitions, establishing any branches or engaging in any new line of business, except under an accepted capital restoration plan or with FDIC approval. The regulations also establish procedures for downgrading an institution to a lower capital category based on supervisory factors other than capital.

The Basel III final rule issued by the federal bank regulatory agencies in July 2013 amended the prompt corrective action rules to incorporate a common equity Tier 1 capital requirement and to raise the capital requirements for certain capital categories. These rules became effective as of January 1, 2015. In order to be adequately capitalized for purposes of the prompt corrective action rules, a banking organization will be required to have at least an 8% total risk-based capital ratio, a 4% Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, a 4.5% common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and a 4% Tier 1 leverage ratio. To be well-capitalized, a banking organization will be required to have at least a 10% total risk-based capital ratio, an 6% Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, a 6.5% common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and a 5% Tier 1 leverage ratio.

Deposit Insurance and Assessments. Centennial Bank’s deposit accounts are insured up to applicable limits by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased the deposit coverage limit to $250,000 per depositor retroactive to January 1, 2008.

The FDIC imposes an assessment against institutions for deposit insurance. This assessment is based primarily on the risk category of the institution and certain risk adjustments specified by the FDIC, with riskier institutions paying higher assessments. Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions with at least $10 billion in assets are assessed on the basis of a scoring system that combines the institution’s regulatory ratings and certain financial measures. The scoring system assesses risk measures to produce two scores, a performance score and a loss severity score, that will be combined and converted to an initial assessment rate. The performance score measures an institution’s financial performance and its ability to withstand stress. The loss severity score quantifies the relative magnitude of potential losses to the FDIC in the event of an institution’s failure. Once the performance and loss severity scores are calculated, these scores will be converted to a total score. The FDIC has the authority to raise or lower assessment rates, subject to limits, and to impose special additional assessments.

21

Table of Contents

The FDIC’s restoration program for the DIF adopted in 2010 is designed to bolster the DIF reserve ratio to 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The plan provides that, 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. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more are required to fund the increase in the designated reserve ratio (“DRR”) to 1.35%.

In 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule implementing changes to the deposit insurance assessment system, as authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act, which, among other things, changed the assessment base for insured depository institutions from adjusted domestic deposits to the institution’s average consolidated total assets during an assessment period less average tangible equity capital (Tier 1 capital) during that period. The rule revised the assessment rate schedule so that it ranges from 2.5 basis points for the least risky institutions to 45 basis points for the riskiest institutions. The rule also suspended indefinitely the requirement of the FDIC to pay dividends from the DIF when it reaches 1.5% of insured deposits. In lieu of the dividends, the FDIC adopted progressively lower assessment rate schedules when the reserve ratio exceeds 1.15%, 2.0% and 2.5%, respectively. In addition, a final rule issued by the FDIC in March 2016 requires insured institutions with an assessment base (total assets less tangible capital) of over $10 billion to pay surcharge insurance assessments at an annual rate of 4.5 basis points of their assessment base, starting the quarter after the DRR surpasses 1.15% and ending when the DRR reaches 1.35%. The 4.5 basis point surcharge will be assessed against each covered institution’s assessment base, less $10 billion.

The DRR exceeded 1.15% as of June 30, 2016. As a result, the base deposit insurance rates now range from (i) 1.5 to 30 basis points of an institution’s assessment base for small banks and (ii) 1.5 to 40 basis points for institutions with an assessment base of over $10 billion, which are also now subject to the 4.5 basis point surcharge. The FDIC has stated that it expects that the DRR will likely reach 1.35%, allowing termination of the surcharge, in 2018.

In addition, all institutions with deposits insured by the FDIC must pay assessments to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, a mixed-ownership government corporation established as a financing vehicle for the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation. The assessment rate for the first quarter of fiscal 2018 is 0.46% of assets and is adjusted quarterly. These assessments will continue until the bonds mature in 2019.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged 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.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act requires, in connection with examinations of financial institutions, that federal banking regulators evaluate the record of each financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low and moderate-income neighborhoods. These facts are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could impose additional requirements and limitations on our bank subsidiary. Additionally, we must publicly disclose the terms of various Community Reinvestment Act-related agreements. Our bank subsidiary received a “satisfactory” CRA rating from the Federal Reserve Bank during its last exam as published in our bank’s CRA Public Evaluation.

Capital Requirements. Our bank subsidiary is also subject to certain restrictions on the payment of dividends as a result of the requirement that it maintain adequate levels of capital in accordance with guidelines promulgated from time to time by applicable regulators. The regulating agencies consider a bank’s capital levels when taking action on various types of applications and when conducting supervisory activities related to the safety and soundness of individual banks and the banking system. The Federal Reserve Bank monitors the capital adequacy of our bank subsidiary by using a combination of risk-based guidelines and leverage ratios.

The FDIC Improvement Act. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or “FDICIA,” made a number of reforms addressing the safety and soundness of the deposit insurance system, supervision of domestic and foreign depository institutions, and improvement of accounting standards. This statute also limited deposit insurance coverage, implemented changes in consumer protection laws and provided for least-cost resolution and prompt regulatory action with regard to troubled institutions.

22

Table of Contents

FDICIA requires every bank with total assets in excess of $500 million to have an annual independent audit made of the bank’s financial statements by an independent public accountant to verify that the financial statements of the bank are presented fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and comply with such other disclosure requirements as prescribed by the FDIC. FDICIA also places certain restrictions on activities of banks depending on their level of capital.

The capital classification of a bank affects the frequency of examinations of the bank and impacts the ability of the bank to engage in certain activities and affects the deposit insurance premiums paid by such bank. Under FDICIA, the federal banking regulators are required to conduct a full-scope, on-site examination of every bank at least once every 12 months.

Brokered Deposits. Under FDICIA, banks may be restricted in their ability to accept brokered deposits, depending on their capital classification. “Well-capitalized” banks are permitted to accept brokered deposits, but banks that are not well-capitalized are not permitted to accept such deposits. The FDIC may, on a case-by-case basis, permit banks that are adequately capitalized to accept brokered deposits if the FDIC determines that acceptance of such deposits would not constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice with respect to the bank.

Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Federal Home Loan Bank system, of which our bank subsidiary is a member, consists of regional FHLBs governed and regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA. The FHLBs serve as reserve or credit facilities for member institutions within their assigned regions. They are funded primarily from proceeds derived from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB system. They make loans (i.e., advances) to members in accordance with policies and procedures established by the FHLB and the Boards of Directors of each regional FHLB.

As a system member, our bank subsidiary is entitled to borrow from the FHLB of its region and is required to own a certain amount of capital stock in the FHLB. Our bank subsidiary is in compliance with the stock ownership rules with respect to such advances, commitments and letters of credit and home mortgage loans and similar obligations. All loans, advances and other extensions of credit made by the FHLB to our bank subsidiary are secured by a portion of its respective loan portfolio, certain other investments and the capital stock of the FHLB held by such bank.

Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve regulations require depository institutions to maintain cash reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and demand deposit accounts). A reserve of 3% is to be maintained against aggregate transaction accounts between $16.0 million and $112.3 million (subject to adjustment by the Federal Reserve) plus a reserve of 10% (subject to adjustment by the Federal Reserve between 8% and 14%) against that portion of total transaction accounts in excess of $122.3 million. The first $16.0 million of otherwise reservable balances (subject to adjustment by the Federal Reserve) is exempt from the reserve requirements. Centennial Bank is in compliance with the foregoing requirements.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations. The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending, which was re-emphasized in December 2015. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (1) total reported loans for construction, land development and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (2) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

Mortgage Banking Operations. Our bank subsidiary is subject to the rules and regulations of FHA, VA, FNMA, FHLMC and GNMA with respect to originating, processing, selling and servicing mortgage loans and the issuance and sale of mortgage-backed securities. Those rules and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination and establish underwriting guidelines which include provisions for inspections and appraisals, require credit reports on prospective borrowers and fix maximum loan amounts, and, with respect to VA loans, fix maximum interest rates.

23

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Loans to One Borrower. Our bank subsidiary generally may not make loans or extend credit to a single or related group of borrowers in excess of 15% of unimpaired capital and surplus. An additional amount may be loaned, up to 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus, if the loan is secured by readily marketable collateral, which generally does not include real estate. As of December 31, 2017, our bank subsidiary was in compliance with the loans-to-one-borrower limitations.

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates. We and our bank subsidiary are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of transactions between the bank and its affiliates, and also requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to affiliates which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the bank or its nonbanking affiliates. An affiliate of a bank is generally any company or entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the bank.

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain other transactions between the bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the bank, as those prevailing at that time for comparable transactions with or involving other non-affiliated persons.

24

Table of Contents

Sections 22(g) and (h) of the Federal Reserve Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation O, also place restrictions on loans by a bank to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders. Under Section 22(h), loans to a director, an executive officer and to a greater than 10% shareholder of a bank and certain of their related interests, or insiders, and insiders of affiliates, may not exceed, together with all other outstanding loans to such person and related interests, the bank’s loans-to-one-borrower limit. Section 22(h) also requires that loans to insiders and to insiders of affiliates be made on terms substantially the same as offered in comparable transactions to other persons, unless the loans are made pursuant to a benefit or compensation program that (i) is widely available to employees of the bank and (ii) does not give preference to insiders over other employees of the bank. In addition, Section 22(h) requires prior board of director’s approval for certain loans, and the aggregate amount of extensions of credit by a bank to all insiders cannot exceed the institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus. Furthermore, Section 22(g) places additional restrictions on loans to executive officers.

Interchange Fees. Under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board adopted rules establishing standards for assessing whether the interchange fees that may be charged with respect to certain electronic debit transactions are “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by issuers for processing such transactions. Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to the Bank and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. Federal Reserve Board rules applicable to financial institutions that have assets of $10 billion or more provide that the maximum permissible interchange fee is equal to no more than 21 cents plus 5 basis points of the transaction value for many types of debit interchange transactions. A debit card issuer may also recover 1 cent per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements required by the Federal Reserve. In addition, the Federal Reserve has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product. We exceeded $10 billion in assets during the first quarter of 2017 and will become subject to these interchange fee restrictions beginning July 1, 2018. The Durbin Amendment is expected to negatively impact debit card and ATM fees beginning in the second half of 2018. During fiscal year 2017, we collected $20.8 million in debit card interchange fees. We estimate that had we been subject to this limitation during 2017, our interchange fee revenue would have been reduced by approximately $7.0 million.

The Volcker Rule. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds. The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule.” In December 2013, federal regulators adopted final rules to implement the Volcker Rule that generally became effective in July 2015. The Volcker Rule also requires covered banking entities, including us and our bank subsidiary, to implement certain compliance programs, and the complexity and rigor of such programs is determined based on the asset size and complexity of the business of the covered company. Since neither we nor our bank subsidiary engages in the types of trading or investing covered by the Volcker Rule, the Volcker Rule does not currently have any effect on our or our bank subsidiary’s operations.

Privacy. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, financial institutions are required to disclose their policies for collecting and protecting confidential information. Customers generally may prevent financial institutions from sharing nonpublic personal financial information with nonaffiliated third parties except under narrow circumstances, such as the processing of transactions requested by the consumer or when the financial institution is jointly sponsoring a product or service with a nonaffiliated third party. Additionally, financial institutions generally may not disclose consumer account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing or other marketing to consumers. We and our subsidiary have established policies and procedures to assure our compliance with all privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

25

Table of Contents

Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Money Laundering Legislation. Our bank subsidiary is subject to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), the Bank Secrecy Act and rules and regulations of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (the “OFAC”). These statutes and related rules and regulations impose requirements and limitations on specific financial transactions and account relationships intended to guard against money laundering, terrorism financing and transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others on whom the United States has imposed economic sanctions. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required.

Incentive Compensation. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements.

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (1) provide incentives that appropriately balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risk, (2) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

In May 2016, the Federal Reserve, other federal banking agencies and the SEC jointly published a revised version of proposed rulemaking initially issued in April 2011 designed to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act prohibiting incentive compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking at a covered institution, which includes a bank or bank holding company with $1 billion or more of assets, such as the Company and our bank subsidiary. The proposed joint compensation regulations would require compensation practices consistent with the three principles discussed above. As of February 1, 2018, these regulations have not been finalized. Unless and until a final rule is adopted, we cannot fully determine whether compliance with such a rule will adversely affect the Company’s or our bank subsidiary’s ability to hire, retain and motivate our key employees.

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

26

Table of Contents

Proposed Legislation and Regulatory Action

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment for us and our bank subsidiary in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether or in what form any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected by any new regulation or statute.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Polices

Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government and its agencies. The Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policies have had, and are likely to continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through its power to implement national monetary policy in order, among other things, to curb inflation or combat a recession. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board affect the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its control over the issuance of United States government securities, its regulation of the discount rate applicable to banks and its influence over reserve requirements to which banks are subject. We cannot predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We are subject to the information requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, we file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the operation of the Public Reference Room. You can also review our filings by accessing the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. The site contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. In addition, we maintain a website at http://www.homebancshares.com. We make available on our website copies of our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such documents as soon as practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish such documents to the SEC.

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

Our business exposes us to certain risks. Risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on may also adversely affect our business and operation. The following is a discussion of the most significant risks and uncertainties that may affect our business, financial condition and future results.

Risks Related to Our Industry

We are subject to extensive regulation that could limit or restrict our activities and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business, and changes in the laws and regulations to which we are subject could adversely affect our profitability.

We and our bank subsidiary are subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. As a registered bank holding company, we are primarily regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. Our bank subsidiary is also primarily regulated by the Federal Reserve Board and the Arkansas State Bank Department.

27

Table of Contents

Banking industry regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not security holders. Complying with such regulations is costly and may limit our growth and restrict certain of our activities, including payment of dividends, mergers and acquisitions, investments, loans and interest rates charged, interest rates paid on deposits and locations of offices. We are also subject to capital requirements by our regulators. Violations of various laws, even if unintentional, may result in significant fines or other penalties, including restrictions on branching or bank acquisitions.

Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. The Dodd-Frank Act instituted major changes to the banking and financial institutions regulatory regimes in light of the performance of and government intervention in the financial services sector during the recession of the last decade. The act requires the issuance of a substantial number of new regulations by federal regulatory agencies which will affect financial institutions, some of which have yet to be issued or implemented.

President Trump and the Congressional majority have indicated that they intend to closely scrutinize the Dodd-Frank Act and that provisions of the act and rules promulgated thereunder may be revised, repealed or amended. While any such reforms are expected to be favorable to our industry, we cannot assure than they will not significantly increase our compliance or operating costs or otherwise have a significant impact on our business. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated under the act may continue to be implemented, and there could be additional new federal or state laws, regulations and policies regarding lending and funding practices and liquidity standards. Additionally, financial institution regulatory agencies have intensified their response to concerns and trends identified in examinations, including through the issuance of formal enforcement actions. Negative developments in the financial services industry or other new legislation or regulations could adversely impact our operations and our financial performance by subjecting us to additional costs, restricting our business operations, including our ability to originate or sell loans, and/or increasing the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services.

As regulation of the banking industry continues to evolve, we expect the costs of compliance to continue to increase and, thus, to affect our ability to operate profitably. In addition, industry, legislative or regulatory developments may cause us to materially change our existing strategic direction, capital strategies, compensation or operating plans. If these developments negatively impact our ability to implement our business strategies, it may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and future prospects.

We have exceeded $10 billion in assets, and as result, we will become subject to increased regulatory requirements, which could materially and adversely affect us.

We and our bank subsidiary exceeded $10 billion in total assets for the first time during the first quarter of 2017, and as of December 31, 2017, our total assets remain in excess of $10 billion. Therefore, we and our bank subsidiary will become subject to increased regulatory requirements beginning in 2018. The Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations impose various additional requirements on bank holding companies with $10 billion or more in total assets, including compliance with portions of the Federal Reserve’s enhanced prudential oversight requirements and annual stress testing requirements. Failure to meet the enhanced prudential standards and stress testing requirements could limit, among other things, our ability to engage in expansionary activities or make dividend payments to our shareholders. In addition, banks with $10 billion or more in total assets are primarily examined by the CFPB with respect to various federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations. Previously, our bank subsidiary has been subject to regulations adopted by the CFPB, but the Federal Reserve was primarily responsible for examining our bank subsidiary’s compliance with consumer protection laws and those CFPB regulations. As a relatively new agency with evolving regulations and practices, there is uncertainty as to how the CFPB’s examination and regulatory authority might impact our business. Further, the possibility of future changes in the authority of the CFPB by Congress or the Trump Administration is uncertain, and we cannot ascertain the impact, if any, changes to the CFPB may have on our business.

28

Table of Contents

With respect to deposit-taking activities, banks with assets in excess of $10 billion are subject to two changes. First, these institutions are subject to a deposit assessment based on a new scorecard issued by the FDIC. This scorecard considers, among other things, the bank’s CAMELS rating, results of asset-related stress testing and funding-related stress, as well as our use of core deposits, among other things. Depending on the results of the bank’s performance under that scorecard, the total base assessment rate is between 1.5 to 40 basis points. Any increase in our bank subsidiary’s deposit insurance assessments may result in an increased expense related to our use of deposits as a funding source. Additionally, banks with over $10 billion in total assets are no longer exempt from the requirements of the Federal Reserve’s rules on interchange transaction fees for debit cards. This means that, beginning on July 1, 2018, our bank subsidiary will be limited to receiving only a “reasonable” interchange transaction fee for any debit card transactions processed using debit cards issued by our bank subsidiary to our customers. The Federal Reserve has determined that it is unreasonable for a bank with more than $10 billion in total assets to receive more than $0.21 plus 5 basis points of the transaction plus a $0.01 fraud adjustment for an interchange transaction fee for debit card transactions. A reduction in the amount of interchange fees we receive for electronic debit interchange will reduce our revenues. During fiscal year 2017, we collected $20.8 million in debit card interchange fees. We estimate that had we been subject to this limitation during 2017, our interchange fee revenue would have been reduced by approximately $7.0 million.

In anticipation of becoming subject to the heightened regulatory requirements, we have hired additional compliance personnel and implemented structural initiatives to address these requirements. However, compliance with these requirements may necessitate that we hire additional compliance or other personnel, design and implement additional internal controls, and/or incur other significant expenses, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Compliance with the annual stress testing requirements, part of which must be publicly disclosed, may also be misinterpreted by the market generally or our customers and, as a result, may adversely affect our stock price or our ability to retain our customers or effectively compete for new business opportunities. Our regulators may also consider our compliance with these regulatory requirements when examining our operations generally or considering any request for regulatory approval we may make, even requests for approvals on unrelated matters.

Difficult market and economic conditions may adversely affect our industry and our business.

The financial crisis and the resulting economic downturn in the latter years of the last decade had a significant adverse impact on the banking industry, and particularly community banks. Dramatic declines in the housing market, with falling home prices and increased delinquencies and foreclosures, negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage and construction loans and resulted in significant write-downs of assets by many financial institutions. Reduced availability of commercial credit and sustained higher unemployment negatively impacted the credit performance of commercial and consumer credit, resulting in additional write-downs. As a result of these market conditions and the raising of credit standards, our industry experienced commercial and consumer deficiencies, low customer confidence, market volatility and generally sluggish business activity.

Although general economic conditions nationally and locally in our market areas have improved in recent years, we cannot be certain that the recent positive economic trends will continue. The improvement of certain economic indicators, such as real estate asset values, rents and unemployment, may vary between geographic markets and may continue to lag behind improvement in the overall economy. These economic indicators typically affect certain industries, such as real estate and financial services, more significantly than other economic sectors. If the positive movement in these economic indicators in our market areas subsides or conditions once again worsen, the adverse effects of an economic downturn on us, our customers and the other financial institutions in our market may result in increased foreclosures, delinquencies and customer bankruptcies as well as more restricted access to funds. Any such negative events may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and stock price.

29

Table of Contents

The short-term and long-term impact of the changing regulatory capital requirements and new capital rules is uncertain.

In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board and the other federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule to revise their risk-based and leverage capital requirements and their method for calculating risk-weighted assets to make them consistent with the agreements that were reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule applies to all banking organizations. Among other things, the rule establishes a new common equity Tier 1 minimum capital requirement (4.5% of risk-weighted assets) and a higher minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital requirement (6% of risk-weighted assets) and assigns higher risk weightings (150%) to exposures that are more than 90 days past due or are on non-accrual status and certain commercial real estate facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property. The final rule also limits a banking organization’s capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if the banking organization does not hold a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% of common equity tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets, which is in addition to the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements. The final rule became effective for our bank subsidiary and us on January 1, 2015. The capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in on January 1, 2016, and the full capital conservation buffer requirement will be effective January 1, 2019. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that can be utilized for such activities. In addition, if the banking organization grows above $15 billion as a result of an acquisition, or organically grows above $15 billion and then makes an acquisition, its trust preferred securities will be included as Tier 2 capital rather than Tier 1 capital.

While our current capital levels well exceed the revised capital requirements and we are currently under the $15 billion threshold, our capital levels could decrease in the future as a result of factors such as acquisitions, faster than anticipated growth, reduced earnings levels, operating losses, exceeding the $15 billion threshold and other factors. The application of more stringent capital requirements for us could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in our inability to pay dividends or repurchase shares if we were to be unable to comply with such requirements.

Our FDIC insurance premiums and assessments may increase and result in higher noninterest expense.

Our bank subsidiary’s deposits are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits, and accordingly, we are subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. As our bank subsidiary has exceeded $10 billion in assets, the method for calculating its FDIC assessments has changed and our FDIC assessments will increase as a result. See “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Deposit Insurance and Assessments.” In addition, the FDIC recently increased the deposit insurance fund’s target reserve ratio to 2.0% of insured deposits following the Dodd-Frank Act’s elimination of the 1.5% cap on the insurance fund’s reserve ratio and has put in place a restoration plan to restore the deposit insurance fund to its 1.35% minimum reserve ratio mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act by September 30, 2020. In March 2016, the FDIC approved a final rule to meet this requirement by 2018. To meet the minimum reserve ratio by 2018, during the third calendar quarter of 2016 the FDIC began assessing banks with consolidated assets of more than $10.0 billion a surcharge assessment of 0.045%. The surcharge will continue through the earlier of the quarter that the reserve ratio first reaches or exceeds 1.35% and December 31, 2018. In the event the reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by December 31, 2018, the FDIC has approved imposing a shortfall assessment on banks with $10.0 billion or more in consolidated assets on March 31, 2019.

We are generally unable to control the amount and timetable for payment of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. There is no guarantee that our assessment rate will not increase in the future. Additionally, if there is another increase in bank or financial institution failures or the recently adopted changes do not have their desired effect of strengthening the DIF reserve ratio, the FDIC may further revise the assessment rates or the risk-based assessment system. Such changes may require us to pay higher FDIC premiums than our current levels, or the FDIC may charge additional special assessments, either of which would increase our noninterest expense.

30

Table of Contents

Our profitability is vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations and monetary policy.

Most of our assets and liabilities are monetary in nature, and thus subject us to significant risks from changes in interest rates. Consequently, our results of operations can be significantly affected by changes in interest rates and our ability to manage interest rate risk. Changes in market interest rates, or changes in the relationships between short-term and long-term market interest rates, or changes in the relationship between different interest rate indices can affect the interest rates charged on interest-earning assets differently than the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities. This difference could result in an increase in interest expense relative to interest income or a decrease in interest rate spread. In addition to affecting our profitability, changes in interest rates can impact the valuation of our assets and liabilities. Changes in interest rates can also affect our business and profitability in numerous other ways. For example, increases in interest rates can have a negative impact on our results of operations by reducing loan demand and the ability of borrowers to repay their current obligations, while decreases in interest rates may affect loan prepayments.

As of December 31, 2017, our one-year ratio of interest-rate-sensitive assets to interest-rate-sensitive liabilities was 117.9% and our cumulative repricing gap position was 9.1% of total earning assets, resulting in a limited impact on earnings for various interest rate change scenarios. Floating rate loans made up 49.9% of our $10.33 billion total loan portfolio. A loan is considered fixed rate if the loan is currently at its adjustable floor or ceiling. In addition, 62.7% of our loans receivable and 69.9% of our time deposits at December 31, 2017, were scheduled to reprice within 12 months and our other rate sensitive asset and rate sensitive liabilities composition is subject to change. As a result, our interest rate sensitivity profile was asset sensitive as of December 31, 2017, meaning that we estimate our net interest income would increase more from rising interest rates than from falling interest rates. Significant composition changes in our rate sensitive assets or liabilities could result in a more unbalanced position and interest rate changes would have more of an impact on our earnings.

Our results of operations are also affected by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board. Actions by the Federal Reserve Board involving monetary policies could have an adverse effect on our deposit levels, loan demand or business and earnings.

Risks Related to Our Business

The total impact of Hurricane Irma on our financial condition and results of operations may not be known for some time and may negatively impact our future earnings.

Hurricane Irma caused significant property damage in our South Florida market areas, particularly in the Florida Keys and southwestern Florida, and resulted in widespread disruptions in power, transportation and the local economies of these areas, as well as less extensive damage throughout other parts of the state of Florida. A substantial amount of our loans are secured by real estate located in the market areas affected by this powerful storm. On most collateral dependent loans, our exposure is limited due to the existence of flood and property insurance. We monitor our borrower’s insurance coverage on a regular basis and force place insurance, as necessary.

We are continuing to evaluate Hurricane Irma’s impact on our customers and our business, including our properties, assets and loan portfolios. However, we expect to experience increased loan delinquencies and loan restructurings as a result of the storm, particularly in the short term as customers undertake recovery and clean-up efforts, including the submission of insurance claims. Based on our initial assessments of the potential credit impact and damage, we accrued $33.4 million of pre-tax hurricane expenses during the third quarter of 2017. The $33.4 million of hurricane expenses includes $32.9 million to establish a storm-related provision for loan losses and a $556,000 charge related to direct damage expenses incurred through December 31, 2017. In addition, in order to assist our customers during this crisis, we offered customers located in the disaster area a 90-day deferment on outstanding loans. During the fourth quarter of 2017, customers with loan balances totaling approximately $211.7 million accepted the 90-day deferment. As of December 31, 2017, loan balances totaling approximately $63.6 million remained on the 90-day deferment.

31

Table of Contents

Because the total impact of the storm may not be known for some time, it is impossible to know at this time whether our current accrual for hurricane-related expenses will be sufficient to cover our actual losses. We may experience more extensive loan delinquencies and restructurings than we currently expect, which could negatively impact our cash flow and, if not timely cured, increase our non-performing assets and reduce our net interest income. Such increases could require us to further increase our provision for loan losses and result in higher loan charge-offs, either of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition in future periods.

Our decisions regarding credit risk could be inaccurate and our allowance for loan losses may be inadequate, which would materially and adversely affect us.

Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of our secured loans. We endeavor to maintain an allowance for loan losses that we consider adequate to absorb future losses that may occur in our loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2017, our allowance for loan losses was approximately $110.3 million, or 1.07% of our total loans. In determining the size of the allowance, we analyze our loan portfolio based on our historical loss experience, volume and classification of loans, volume and trends in delinquencies and non-accruals, national and local economic conditions, and other pertinent information.

If our assumptions are incorrect, our current allowance may be insufficient to absorb future loan losses, and increased loan loss reserves may be needed to respond to different economic conditions or adverse developments in our loan portfolio. When there is an economic downturn it is more difficult for us to estimate the losses that we will experience in our loan portfolio. In addition, federal and state regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs based on judgments different than those of our management. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge-offs could have a negative effect on our operating results.

Our high concentration of real estate loans and especially commercial real estate loans exposes us to increased lending risk.

As of December 31, 2017, 85.1% of our total loan portfolio was comprised of loans with real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. This includes commercial real estate loans (excluding construction/land development) of $4.68 billion, or 45.3% of total loans, construction/land development loans of $1.70 billion, or 16.4% of total loans, and residential real estate loans of $2.41 billion, or 23.4% of total loans. This high concentration of real estate loans could subject us to increased credit risk in the event of a decrease in real estate values in our markets, a real estate recession or a natural disaster. Also, in any such event, our ability to recover on defaulted loans by foreclosing and selling real estate collateral would be diminished, and we would be more likely to suffer losses on defaulted loans.

In addition to the risks associated with the high concentration of real estate-secured loans, the commercial real estate and construction/land development loans, which comprised 61.7% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, expose us to a greater risk of loss than our residential real estate loans, which comprised 23.4% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017. Commercial real estate and land development loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to residential loans. Consequently, an adverse development with respect to one commercial loan or one credit relationship exposes us to a significantly greater risk of loss compared to an adverse development with respect to one residential mortgage loan.

The repayment of loans secured by commercial real estate is typically dependent upon the successful operation of the related real estate or commercial project. If the cash flows from the project are reduced, a borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. This cash flow shortage may result in the failure to make loan payments. In such cases, we may be compelled to modify the terms of the loan, or in the most extreme cases, we may have to foreclose.

32

Table of Contents

Our geographic concentration of banking activities and loan portfolio makes us more vulnerable to adverse conditions in our local markets.

Our bank subsidiary operates through branch locations in Arkansas, Florida, Alabama and New York City and a loan production office in Los Angeles, California. However, approximately 90.4% of our total loans and 90.8% of our real estate loans as of December 31, 2017, are to borrowers whose collateral is located in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida and New York, the states in which the Company has its branch locations. An adverse development with respect to the market conditions of any of these specific market areas or a decrease in real estate values in those market areas could expose us to a greater risk of loss than a portfolio that is spread among a larger geographic base.

Depressed local economic and housing markets have led to loan losses and reduced earnings in the past and could lead to additional loan losses and reduced earnings.

During the latter years of the last decade, our Florida markets experienced a dramatic reduction in housing and real estate values, coupled with significantly higher unemployment. These conditions contributed to increased non-performing loans and reduced asset quality during this time period. While market conditions in our Florida markets have improved in recent years leading to resulting improvements in our non-performing loans and asset quality, any similar future economic downturn or deterioration in real estate values could cause us to incur additional losses relating to increased non-performing loans. We do not record interest income on non-accrual loans or other real estate owned, thereby adversely affecting our income and our loan administration costs. When we take collateral in foreclosures and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the related loan to the then-fair market value of the collateral, which may result in a loss. These loans and other real estate owned also increase our risk profile and the capital our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. In addition, the resolution of non-performing assets requires significant commitments of time from management and our directors, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. These factors, individually or in the aggregate, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, our success significantly depends upon the growth in population, income levels, deposits and housing starts in our markets. If the communities in which we operate do not grow or if prevailing economic conditions deteriorate locally or nationally, our business may be adversely affected. We are less able than a larger institution to spread the risks of unfavorable local economic conditions across a large number of diversified economies. Moreover, we cannot give any assurance we will benefit from any market growth or favorable economic conditions in our primary market areas if they do occur.

If the value of real estate in our Florida markets were to once again deteriorate, a significant portion of our loans in our Florida market could become under-collateralized, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

As of December 31, 2017, loans in the Florida market totaled $5.26 billion, or 50.9% of our loans receivable. Of the Florida loans, approximately 88.7% were secured by real estate. In prior years, the difficult local economic conditions have adversely affected the values of our real estate collateral in Florida, and they could do so again if the markets were to once again deteriorate in the future. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment on our loans in the event of default by the borrower but may deteriorate in value during the time credit is extended. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected.

Because we have a concentration of exposure to a number of individual borrowers, a significant loss on any of those loans could materially and adversely affect us.

We have a concentration of exposure to a number of individual borrowers. Under applicable law, our bank subsidiary is generally permitted to make loans to one borrowing relationship up to 20% of its Tier 1 capital plus the allowance for loan losses. As of December 31, 2017, the legal lending limit of our bank subsidiary for secured loans was approximately $331.3 million. Our board of directors has established an in-house lending limit of $20.0 million to any one borrowing relationship without obtaining the approval of both our Chairman, John W. Allison, and our director Richard H. Ashley. As of December 31, 2017, we had a total of $3.60 billion, or 34.8% of our total loans, committed to the aggregate group of borrowers whose total debt exceeds the established in-house lending limit of $20.0 million.

33

Table of Contents

Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates and competitive pressures.

Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates and competitive pressures. We have traditionally obtained funds principally through local deposits, and we have a base of lower cost transaction deposits. Generally, we believe local deposits are a more stable source of funds than other borrowings because interest rates paid for local deposits are typically lower than interest rates charged for borrowings from other institutional lenders. In addition, local deposits reflect a mix of transaction and time deposits, whereas brokered deposits typically are less stable time deposits, which may need to be replaced with higher cost funds. Our costs of funds and our profitability and liquidity are likely to be adversely affected if and to the extent we have to rely upon higher cost borrowings from other institutional lenders or brokers to fund loan demand or liquidity needs, and changes in our deposit mix and growth could adversely affect our profitability and the ability to expand our loan portfolio.

The loss of key officers may materially and adversely affect us.

Our success depends significantly on our Chairman, John W. Allison, and our executive officers, especially C. Randall Sims, Brian S. Davis, J. Stephen Tipton and Kevin D. Hester plus Centennial Bank Chief Executive Officer and President, Tracy M. French, and our regional Centennial Bank presidents. Centennial Bank, in particular, relies heavily on its management team’s relationships in its local communities to generate business. The loss of services from a member of our current management team may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

The value of securities in our investment portfolio may decline in the future.

As of December 31, 2017, we owned $1.89 billion of investment securities. The fair value of our investment securities may be adversely affected by market conditions, including changes in interest rates, and the occurrence of any events adversely affecting the issuer of particular securities in our investments portfolio. We analyze our securities on a quarterly basis to determine if an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires complex, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting issuers, we may be required to recognize other-than-temporary impairment in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our recent results do not indicate our future results and may not provide guidance to assess the risk of an investment in our common stock.

We are unlikely to sustain our historical rate of growth, and may not even be able to expand our business at all. Further, our recent growth may distort some of our historical financial ratios and statistics. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations and competition, may also impede or prohibit our ability to expand our market presence. If we are not able to successfully grow our business, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may not be able to raise the additional capital we need to grow and, as a result, our ability to expand our operations could be materially impaired.

Federal and state regulatory authorities require us and our bank subsidiary to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. While we believe that our existing capital (which well exceeds the federal and state capital requirements) will be sufficient to support our current operations, anticipated expansion and potential acquisitions, factors such as faster than anticipated growth, reduced earnings levels, operating losses, changes in economic conditions, revisions in regulatory requirements, or additional acquisition opportunities may lead us to seek additional capital.

34

Table of Contents

Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on our financial performance and on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control. If we need additional capital but cannot raise it on terms acceptable to us, our ability to expand our operations could be materially impaired, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected, and our stock price may decline.

Our growth and expansion strategy may not be successful and our market value and profitability may suffer.

Growth through the acquisition of banks, including FDIC-assisted transactions, and de novo branching represent important components of our business strategy. Acquisitions are subject to regulatory approval, and we cannot assure that we will be able to obtain approval for a proposed acquisition in a timely manner or at all. Any future acquisitions we might make will also be accompanied by other risks commonly encountered in acquisitions. These risks include, among other things:

We expect that competition for suitable acquisition candidates may be significant. We may compete with other banks or financial service companies with similar acquisition strategies, many of which are larger and have greater financial and other resources. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully identify and acquire suitable acquisition targets on acceptable terms and conditions.

We may continue to have opportunities from time to time to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions. These acquisitions involve risks similar to acquiring existing banks even though the FDIC might provide assistance to mitigate certain risks such as sharing in exposure to loan losses and providing indemnification against certain liabilities of the failed institution. However, because these acquisitions are structured in a manner that would not allow us the time normally associated with preparing for integration of an acquired institution, we may face additional risks in FDIC-assisted transactions. These risks include, among other things, the loss of customers, strain on management resources related to collection and management of problem loans and problems related to integration of personnel and operating systems.

In addition to the acquisition of existing financial institutions, as opportunities arise, we may grow through de novo branching. De novo branching and any acquisition carry with them numerous risks, including the following:

35

Table of Contents

We cannot assure that we will be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with acquisitions (including FDIC-assisted transactions) and de novo branching. Our inability to overcome these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to achieve our business strategy and maintain our market value and profitability.

There may be undiscovered risks or losses associated with our bank acquisitions which would have a negative impact upon our future income.

Our growth strategy includes strategic acquisitions of banks. We have acquired 22 banks since we started our first subsidiary bank in 1999, including a total of 17 banks since 2010. We will continue to consider strategic acquisitions, with a primary focus on Arkansas, Florida, South Alabama and other nearby markets. In most cases, our acquisition of a bank includes the acquisition of all or a substantial portion of the target bank’s assets and liabilities, including all or a substantial portion of its loan portfolio. There may be instances when we, under our normal operating procedures, may find after the acquisition that there may be additional losses or undisclosed liabilities with respect to the assets and liabilities of the target bank, and, with respect to its loan portfolio, that the ability of a borrower to repay a loan may have become impaired, the quality of the value of the collateral securing a loan may fall below our standards, or our determination of the fair value of any such loan may be inadequate. One or more of these factors might cause us to have additional losses or liabilities, additional loan charge-offs, or increases in allowances for loan losses, which would have a negative impact upon our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in national and local economic conditions could lead to higher loan charge-offs in connection with our acquisitions.

In connection with our acquisitions since 2010, we have acquired a significant portfolio of loans. Although we marked down the loan portfolios we have acquired, there is no assurance that the non-impaired loans we acquired will not become impaired or that the impaired loans will not suffer further deterioration in value resulting in additional charge-offs to the acquired loan portfolio. Fluctuations in national, regional and local economic conditions, including those related to local residential and commercial real estate and construction markets, may increase the level of charge-offs we make to our loan portfolio, and, may consequently, reduce our net income. Such fluctuations may also increase the level of charge-offs on the loan portfolios we have acquired in the acquisitions and correspondingly reduce our net income. These fluctuations are not predictable, cannot be controlled and may have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition even if other favorable events occur.

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

When we acquire a business, a portion of the purchase price of the acquisition is generally allocated to goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets. The amount of the purchase price that is allocated to goodwill and other intangible assets is determined by the excess of the purchase price over the net identifiable assets acquired. At December 31, 2017, our goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets were $977.3 million. Under current accounting standards, if we determine goodwill or intangible assets are impaired because, for example, the acquired business does not meet projected revenue targets or certain key employees leave, we are required to write down the carrying value of these assets. We conduct a review at least annually to determine whether goodwill is impaired. Our annual goodwill impairment evaluation performed during the fourth quarter of 2017 indicated no impairment of goodwill for our reporting segments. We cannot provide assurance, however, that we will not be required to take an impairment charge in the future. Any impairment charge would have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and financial results and could cause a decline in our stock price.

36

Table of Contents

Our acquisitions have caused us to modify our disclosure controls and procedures, which may not result in the material information that we are required to disclose in our SEC reports being recorded, processed, summarized, and reported timely.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to cause the material information that we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act to be recorded, processed, summarized, and reported to the extent applicable within the time periods required by the SEC’s rules and forms. As a result of our acquisitions, we may implement changes to processes, information technology systems and other components of internal control over financial reporting as part of our integration activities. Notwithstanding any changes to our disclosure controls and procedures resulting from our evaluation of the same after the acquisition, our control systems, no matter how well designed and operated, may not result in the material information that we are required to disclose in our SEC reports being recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within required time periods. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected. If, as a result of our acquisitions or otherwise, we are unable to achieve and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, investors and customers may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, we may suffer adverse regulatory consequences or violate listing standards, and the market price of our common stock could decline.

Competition from other financial institutions and financial service providers may adversely affect our profitability.

We face substantial competition in all phases of our operations from a variety of different competitors. We experience strong competition, not only from commercial banks, savings and loan associations and credit unions, but also from mortgage banking firms, consumer finance companies, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds and other financial services providers operating in or near our market areas. We compete with these institutions both in attracting deposits and in making loans.

Many of our competitors are much larger national and regional financial institutions. We may face a competitive disadvantage against them as a result of our smaller size and resources and our lack of geographic diversification. Due to their size, larger competitors can achieve economies of scale and may offer a broader range of products and services or more attractive pricing than us. If we are unable to offer competitive products and services, our business may be negatively affected. Many of our competitors are not subject to the same degree of regulation that we are as an FDIC-insured institution, which gives them greater operating flexibility and reduces their expenses relative to ours. As a result, these non-bank competitors have certain advantages over us in accessing funding and in providing various services.

We also compete against community banks that have strong local ties. These smaller institutions are likely to cater to the same small and mid-sized businesses that we target and to use a relationship-based approach similar to ours. In addition, our competitors may seek to gain market share by pricing below the current market rates for loans and paying higher rates for deposits. The banking business in our primary market areas is very competitive, and the level of competition facing us may increase further, which may limit our asset growth and financial results.

We continually encounter technological change, and we may have fewer resources than many of our competitors to continue to invest in technological improvements and innovations.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services, including innovative ways that customers can make payments or manage their accounts, such as through the use of digital wallets or digital currencies. In addition to better serving customers, 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. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our clients, which may adversely affect our results of operations and future prospects.

37

Table of Contents

A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems, or those of our third party service providers, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could disrupt our business, result in unintentional disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses.

As a financial institution, our operations rely heavily on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information on our computer systems and networks. Any failure, interruption or breach in security or operational integrity of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in our online banking system, customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit and loan servicing and other systems. The security and integrity of our systems could be threatened by a variety of interruptions or information security breaches, including those caused by computer hacking, cyber-attacks, electronic fraudulent activity or attempted theft of financial assets. We cannot assure you that any such failures, interruption or security breaches will not occur, or if they do occur that they will be adequately addressed. While we have certain protective policies and procedures in place, the nature and sophistication of the threats continue to evolve. We may be required to expend significant additional resources in the future to modify and enhance our protective measures.

Additionally, we face the risk of operational disruption, failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the third parties that facilitate our business activities, including exchanges, clearing agents, clearing houses or other financial intermediaries. Such parties could also be the source of an attack on, or breach of, our operational systems. Any failures, interruptions or security breaches in our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, result in a violation of privacy or other laws, or expose us to civil litigation, regulatory fines or losses not covered by insurance.

Future hurricanes or other adverse weather events could negatively affect our local economies or disrupt our operations, which would have an adverse effect on us.

As illustrated by the impact of Hurricane Irma, our markets in Alabama and Florida, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to hurricanes and tropical storms. Such weather events can disrupt our operations, result in damage to our properties and negatively affect the local economies in which we operate. We cannot predict whether or to what extent damage that may be caused by future hurricanes or other weather events will affect our operations or the economies in our market areas, but such weather events could result in a decline in loan originations, a decline in the value or destruction of properties or other collateral securing our loans and an increase in the delinquencies, foreclosures and loan losses. Our business or results of operations may be adversely affected by these and other negative effects of hurricanes or other significant weather events.

We may incur environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. In the course of our business, we may own or foreclose and take title to real estate and could become subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. In addition, we acquire branches and real estate in connection with our acquisitions of banks. We may become responsible to a governmental agency or third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by those parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean-up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with environmental investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we were to become subject to significant environmental liabilities, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

38

Table of Contents

Our operations could be interrupted if certain external vendors on which we rely experience difficulty, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking laws and regulations.

We depend to a significant extent on relationships with third party service providers. Specifically, we utilize third party core banking services and receive credit card and debit card services, branch capture services, Internet banking services and services complementary to our banking products from various third party service providers. If these third party service providers experience difficulties or terminate their services and we are unable to replace them with other service providers, our operations could be interrupted. It may be difficult for us to replace some of our third party vendors, particularly vendors providing our core banking, credit card and debit card services, in a timely manner if they were unwilling or unable to provide us with these services in the future for any reason. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Even if we are able to replace them, it may be at higher cost to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, if a third party provider fails to provide the services we require, fails to meet contractual requirements, such as compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or suffers a cyber-attack or other security breach, our business could suffer economic and reputational harm that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our earnings could be adversely impacted by incidences of fraud and compliance failure.

Financial institutions are inherently exposed to fraud risk. A fraud can be perpetrated by a customer of our bank subsidiary, an employee, a vendor, or members of the general public. We are most subject to fraud and compliance risk in connection with the origination of loans, ACH transactions, wire transactions, ATM transactions, and checking transactions. Our largest fraud risk, associated with the origination of loans, includes the intentional misstatement of information in property appraisals or other underwriting documentation provided to us by third parties. Compliance risk is the risk that loans are not originated in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and our standards. There can be no assurance that we can prevent or detect acts of fraud or violation of law or our compliance standards by the third parties that we deal with. Repeated incidences of fraud or compliance failures would adversely impact the performance of our loan portfolio.

Risks Related to Our Acquisition of Stonegate Bank

Our financial results and condition could be adversely affected if we fail to realize the expected benefits of the Stonegate acquisition or it takes longer than expected to realize those benefits.

Following our acquisition of Stonegate Bank (“Stonegate”) on September 26, 2017, we began the process of integrating the businesses of Stonegate. We have plans to complete the overall integration of the two businesses during the first quarter of 2018. This integration process could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of ongoing businesses and the loss of customers and their business and deposits. It may also divert management attention and resources from other operations and limit our ability to pursue other acquisitions. There is no assurance that we will realize the cost savings and other financial benefits of the acquisition when and in the amounts expected.

We may incur losses on loans, securities and other acquired assets of Stonegate that are materially greater than reflected in our fair value adjustments.

As of December 31, 2017, we have recorded at fair value all credit-impaired loans acquired in the merger of Stonegate Bank into Centennial Bank based on a discounted cash flow methodology that considered factors including the type of loan and related collateral, classification status, fixed or variable interest rate, term of loan and whether or not the loan was amortizing, and current discount rates. The discount rates used for loans are based on current market rates for new originations of comparable loans and include adjustments for liquidity concerns. We may not realize the estimated cash flows or fair value of these loans. In addition, although the difference between the pre-merger carrying value of the credit-impaired loans and their expected cash flows—the “non-accretable difference”—is available to absorb future charge-offs, we may be required to increase our allowance for credit losses and related provision expense because of subsequent additional credit deterioration in these loans.

39

Table of Contents

Our banking relationships with the Cuban government and Banco Internacional de Comercia, S.A. (“BICSA”) as a result of our Stonegate acquisition may increase our compliance risk and compliance costs.

U.S. persons, including U.S. banks, are restricted in their ability to establish relationships and engage in transactions with Cuba and Cuban persons pursuant to the existing U.S. embargo and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. However, we maintain a customer relationship to handle the accounts for Cuba’s diplomatic missions at the United Nations and for the Cuban Interests Section (now the Cuban Embassy) in Washington, D.C. This relationship was established in May 2015 pursuant to a special license granted to Stonegate Bank by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) in connection with the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba. In July 2015, Stonegate Bank established a correspondent banking relationship with Banco Internacional de Comercio, S.A. (“BICSA”) in Havana, Cuba.

Cross-border correspondent banking relationships pose unique risks because they create situations in which a U.S. financial institution will be handling funds from a foreign financial institution whose customers may not be transparent to the U.S. financial institution. Moreover, Cuban financial institutions are not subject to the same or similar regulatory guidelines as U.S. banks; therefore, these foreign institutions may pose a higher money laundering risk to their respective U.S. bank correspondent(s). Investigations have determined that, in the past, foreign correspondent accounts have been used by drug traffickers and other criminal elements to launder funds. Shell companies are sometimes used in the layering process to hide the true ownership of accounts at foreign correspondent financial institutions. Because of the large amount of funds, multiple transactions, and the U.S. bank’s potential lack of familiarity with a foreign correspondent financial institution’s customer, criminals and terrorists can more easily conceal the source and use of illicit funds. Consequently, we may have a higher risk of noncompliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering (“BSA/AML”) rules due to its new correspondent banking relationship with BICSA and will likely need to more closely monitor transactions related to correspondent accounts in Cuba, potentially resulting in increased compliance costs. Our failure to strictly adhere to the terms and requirements of our OFAC license or our failure to adequately manage our BSA/AML compliance risk in light of our new correspondent banking relationship with BICSA could result in regulatory or other actions being taken against us, which could significantly increase our compliance costs and materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Risks Related to Owning Our Stock

The rights of our common shareholders are subordinate to the holders of any debt securities that we may issue from time to time and may be subordinate to the holders of any series of preferred stock that may issue in the future.

On April 3, 2017, we issued $300.0 million of 5.625% fixed-to-floating rate subordinated notes, which mature in 2027. Because these subordinated notes are senior to our shares of common stock, in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of the subordinated notes must be satisfied before any distributions can be made to the holders of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2017, we also have $73.3 million of outstanding subordinated debentures issued in connection with trust preferred securities. Payments of the principal and interest on the trust preferred securities are unconditionally guaranteed by us. The subordinated debentures are senior to our shares of common stock. As a result, we must make payments on the subordinated debentures (and the related trust preferred securities) before any dividends can be paid on our common stock and, in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of the debentures must be satisfied before any distributions can be made to the holders of our common stock. We have the right to defer distributions on the subordinated debentures (and the related trust preferred securities) for up to five years, during which time no dividends may be paid to holders of our capital stock. If we elect to defer or if we default with respect to our obligations to make payments on these subordinated debentures, this would likely have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common stock.

40

Table of Contents

Our Board of Directors has the authority to issue in the aggregate up to 5,500,000 shares of preferred stock, and to incur senior or subordinated indebtedness, generally without shareholder approval. Our preferred stock could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights that may be superior to the rights of our common stock. In addition, like our outstanding subordinated debentures, any future indebtedness that we incur would be expected to be senior to our common stock with respect to payment upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Accordingly, common shareholders bear the risk that our future issuances of debt or equity securities or our incurrence of other borrowings will negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

We may be unable to, or choose not to, pay dividends on our common stock.

Although we have paid a quarterly dividend on our common stock since 2003 and expect to continue this practice, we cannot assure you of our ability to continue. Our ability to pay dividends depends on the following factors, among others:

If we fail to pay dividends, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock may be the sole opportunity for gains on an investment in our common stock. In addition, in the event our bank subsidiary becomes unable, due to regulatory restrictions, capital planning needs or otherwise, to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service our debt, pay our other obligations or pay dividends on our common stock. Accordingly, our inability to receive dividends from our bank subsidiary could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and the value of your investment in our common stock.

Our stock trading volume may not provide adequate liquidity for investors.

Although shares of our common stock are listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, the average daily trading volume in the 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 a sufficient number of willing buyers and sellers of the 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 daily average trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of the common stock in a brief period of time, or the expectation of these sales, could cause a decline in the price of our common stock.

Item 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

There are currently no unresolved Commission staff comments received by the Company more than 180 days prior to the end of the fiscal year covered by this annual report.

41

Table of Contents

Item 2. PROPERTIES

The Company’s main office is located in a Company-owned 33,000 square foot building located at 719 Harkrider Street in downtown Conway, Arkansas. As of December 31, 2017, our bank subsidiary owned or leased a total of 76 branches located in Arkansas, 88 branches in Florida, five branches in South Alabama and one branch in New York City. The Company also owns or leases other buildings that provide space for operations, mortgage lending and other general purposes. We believe that our banking and other offices are in good condition and are suitable to our needs.

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

While we and our bank subsidiary and other affiliates are from time to time parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of their business, management believes, after consultation with legal counsel, that there are no proceedings threatened or pending against us or our bank subsidiary or other affiliates that will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business or consolidated financial condition.

Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Not applicable.

42

Table of Contents

PART II

Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “HOMB.” Set forth below are the high and low sales prices for our common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the two most recently completed fiscal years. Also set forth below are dividends declared per share in each of these periods:

As of February 23, 2018, there were approximately 1,499 stockholders of record of the Company’s common stock.

Our policy is to declare regular quarterly dividends based upon our earnings, financial position, capital improvements and such other factors deemed relevant by the Board of Directors. The dividend policy is subject to change, however, and the payment of dividends is not necessarily dependent upon the availability of earnings and future financial condition. Information regarding regulatory restrictions on our ability to pay dividends is discussed in “Supervision and Regulation – Payment of Dividends.”

There were no sales of our unregistered securities during the period covered by this report.

43

Table of Contents

During the three months ended December 31, 2017, the Company utilized a portion of its stock repurchase program approved by the Board of Directors, on January 20, 2017. Additionally, on February 21, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Company authorized the repurchase of up to an additional 5,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock under this repurchase program. The following table sets forth information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of the Company of shares of the Company’s common stock during the periods indicated:

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

44

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

Below is a graph which summarizes the cumulative return earned by the Company’s stockholders since December 31, 2012, compared with the cumulative total return on the Russell 2000 Index and SNL Bank and Thrift Index. This presentation assumes that the value of the investment in the Company’s common stock and each index was $100.00 on December 31, 2012 and that subsequent cash dividends were reinvested.

45

Table of Contents

Item 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

46

Table of Contents

Summary Consolidated Financial Data – Continued

47

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis presents our consolidated financial condition and results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. This discussion should be read together with the “Summary Consolidated Financial Data,” our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, and other financial data included in this document. In addition to the historical information provided below, we have made certain estimates and forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ significantly from those anticipated in these estimates and in the forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those discussed in the section of this document captioned “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this document. Unless the context requires otherwise, the terms “Company”, “us”, “we”, and “our” refer to Home BancShares, Inc. on a consolidated basis.

General

We are a bank holding company headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, offering a broad array of financial services through our wholly owned bank subsidiary, Centennial Bank (“Centennial”). As of December 31, 2017, we had, on a consolidated basis, total assets of $14.45 billion, loans receivable, net of $10.22 billion, total deposits of $10.39 billion, and stockholders’ equity of $2.20 billion.

We generate most of our revenue from interest on loans and investments, service charges, and mortgage banking income. Deposits and FHLB borrowed funds are our primary source of funding. Our largest expenses are interest on our funding sources, salaries and related employee benefits and occupancy and equipment. We measure our performance by calculating our net interest margin, return on average assets and return on average common equity. We also measure our performance by our efficiency ratio and core efficiency ratio (non-GAAP). The efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing non-interest expense less amortization of core deposit intangibles by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income. The core efficiency ratio is a meaningful non-GAAP measure for management, as it excludes non-core items and is calculated by dividing non-interest expense less amortization of core deposit intangibles by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income excluding non-core items such as merger expenses and/or gains and losses.

48

Table of Contents

2017 Overview

Our net income decreased $42.0 million, or 23.7%, to $135.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $177.1 million for the same period in 2016. On a diluted earnings per share basis, our earnings were $0.89 per share and $1.26 per share for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, representing a decrease of $0.37 per share or 29.37% for the year ended 2017 when compared to the previous year. Excluding the $36.9 million one-time Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) charge, $33.4 million of hurricane expense, and $25.7 million of merger expenses associated with the 2017 acquisitions offset by $3.8 million of one-time non-taxable gain on acquisition, 2017 annual after-tax earnings excluding non-fundamental items were $204.8 million, an increase of $27.8 million, or 15.7%, from 2016 annual after-tax earnings excluding non-fundamental items of $177.0 million (See Table 27 for the non-GAAP tabular reconciliation). The $27.8 million increase in earnings excluding non-fundamental items is primarily associated with additional net interest income largely resulting from our acquisitions combined with $125.2 million of organic loan growth plus a decrease in the non-hurricane related provision for loan losses during 2017, growth in non-interest income and the reduced amortization of the indemnification asset when compared to the same period in 2016. These improvements were partially offset by an increase in the costs associated with the asset growth plus an increase in interest expense on deposits and an increase in interest expense related to the issuance of $300 million of subordinated notes during the second quarter of 2017 when compared to the same period in 2016.

Our GAAP net interest margin decreased from 4.81% for the year ended December 31, 2016 to 4.51% for the year ended December 31, 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recognized $35.7 million and $42.3 million, respectively, in total net accretion for acquired loans and deposits. The non-GAAP margin excluding accretion income was 4.12% and 4.26% for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Additionally, the non-GAAP yield on loans excluding accretion income was 5.21% and 5.10% for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Other than the previously mentioned reduction in net accretion income for acquired loans and deposits, the net interest margin was negatively impacted by our April 2017 issuance of $300 million of 5.625% fixed-to-floating rate subordinated notes, which added approximately $13.1 million of interest expense when compared to the same period in 2016, and by our strategic decision to keep excess cash liquidity on the books during 2017.

Our efficiency ratio was 41.89% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 37.65% for the same period in 2016. For year ended 2017, our core efficiency ratio was 37.66% which increased from the 36.55% reported for the year ended 2016 (See Table 32 for the non-GAAP tabular reconciliation). The core efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP measure and is calculated by dividing non-interest expense less amortization of core deposit intangibles by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income excluding non-core items such as merger expenses and/or gains and losses.

Our return on average assets was 1.17% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 1.85% for the same period in 2016. Excluding non-fundamental items, our return on average assets was 1.78% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 1.85% for the same period in 2016 (See Table 29 for the non-GAAP tabular reconciliation). Our return on average common equity was 8.23% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 14.08% for the same period in 2016. Excluding non-fundamental items, our return on average common equity was 12.48% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 14.07% for the same period in 2016 (See Table 30 for the non-GAAP tabular reconciliation).

Our total assets as of December 31, 2017 increased $4.64 billion to $14.45 billion from the $9.81 billion reported as of December 31, 2016. Our loan portfolio increased $2.94 billion to $10.33 billion as of December 31, 2017, from $7.39 billion as of December 31, 2016. This increase is primarily a result of our acquisitions since December 31, 2016. Stockholders’ equity increased $876.8 million to $2.20 billion as of December 31, 2017, compared to $1.33 billion as of December 31, 2016. The increase in stockholders’ equity is primarily associated with the $77.5 million and $742.3 million of common stock issued to the GHI and Stonegate shareholders, respectively, plus the $74.7 million increase in retained earnings offset by $3.8 million of comprehensive loss and the repurchase of $20.8 million of our common stock during 2017. The improvement in stockholders’ equity for 2017, excluding the $77.5 million and $742.3 million of common stock issued to the GHI and Stonegate shareholders, respectively, was 4.3%.

49

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2017, our non-performing loans decreased to $44.7 million, or 0.43%, of total loans from $63.1 million, or 0.85%, of total loans as of December 31, 2016. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of non-performing loans increased to 246.70% as of December 31, 2017, compared to 126.74% as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing loans from our Arkansas franchise were $15.5 million at December 31, 2017 compared to $28.5 million as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing loans from our Florida franchise were $28.2 million at December 31, 2017 compared to $34.0 million as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing loans from our Alabama franchise were $929,000 at December 31, 2017 compared to $656,000 as of December 31, 2016. There were no non-performing loans from our Centennial CFG franchise.

As of December 31, 2017, our non-performing assets decreased to $63.6 million, or 0.44%, of total assets from $79.1 million, or 0.81%, of total assets as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing assets from our Arkansas franchise were $25.6 million at December 31, 2017 compared to $41.0 million as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing assets from our Florida franchise were $36.4 million at December 31, 2017 compared to $36.8 million as of December 31, 2016. Non-performing assets from our Alabama franchise were $1.6 million at December 31, 2017 compared to $1.2 million as of December 31, 2016. There were no non-performing assets from our Centennial CFG franchise.

2016 Overview

Our net income increased $38.9 million, or 28.2%, to $177.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, from $138.2 million for the same period in 2015. On a diluted earnings per share basis, our earnings were $1.26 per share and $1.01 per share for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, representing an increase of $0.25 per share or 24.8% for the year ended 2016 when compared to the previous year. The $38.9 million increase in net income is primarily associated with additional net interest income during 2016 largely resulting from our 2015 acquisitions, organic loan growth, a slight decrease in provision for loan losses, growth in non-interest income and the reduced amortization of the indemnification asset, when compared to the same period in 2015. These improvements were partially offset by an increase in the costs associated with the asset growth when compared to the same period in 2015.

Our GAAP net interest margin decreased from 4.98% for the year ended December 31, 2015 to 4.81% for the year ended December 31, 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recognized $42.3 million and $47.6 million, respectively, in total net accretion for acquired loans and deposits. The non-GAAP margin excluding accretion income was flat at 4.24% and 4.23% for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. Additionally, the non-GAAP yield on loans excluding accretion income was also relatively flat at 5.10% and 5.05% for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Consequently, with a growth of the average loan balance of $1.25 billion, we experienced a decline in the GAAP yield on loans and net interest margin because the organic loan growth was approximately at our lower non-GAAP loan yields.

Our efficiency ratio was 37.65% for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 40.44% for the same period in 2015. For year ended 2016, our core efficiency ratio was 36.55% which is improved from the 39.48% reported for the year ended 2015. While we have realized the cost savings from our acquisitions and reduced costs from our recent branch closures, the improvement in the core efficiency ratio was primarily achieved through revenue from additional net interest income during 2016 resulting from our acquisitions and our organic loan growth, growth in non-interest income and our July 2016 buy-out of the FDIC loss share portfolio. Core efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP measure and is calculated by dividing non-interest expense less amortization of core deposit intangibles by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income excluding non-fundamental items such as merger expenses, FDIC loss share buy-out expense and/or gains and losses.

Our return on average assets was 1.85% for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 1.68% for the same period in 2015. Our return on average common equity was 14.08% for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 12.77% for the same period in 2015. We have been making notable progress in improving the performance of our legacy and acquired franchises, which is reflected in the improvement in our return on average assets and return on average common equity from 2015 to 2016.

50

Table of Contents

Our total assets as of December 31, 2016 increased $519.3 million to $9.81 billion from the $9.29 billion reported as of December 31, 2015. Our loan portfolio increased $746.1 million to $7.39 billion as of December 31, 2016, from $6.64 billion as of December 31, 2015. This increase is a result of our organic loan growth since December 31, 2015. Stockholders’ equity increased $127.7 million to $1.33 billion as of December 31, 2016, compared to $1.20 billion as of December 31, 2015. The improvement in stockholders’ equity for the year ended 2016 was 10.6%. The increase in stockholders’ equity is primarily associated with the $129.1 million increase in retained earnings.

As of December 31, 2016, our non-performing loans decreased to $63.1 million, or 0.85%, of total loans from $63.5 million, or 0.96%, of total loans as of December 31, 2015. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of non-performing loans increased to 126.74% as of December 31, 2016, compared to 109.00% as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing loans from our Arkansas franchise were $28.5 million at December 31, 2016 compared to $28.3 million as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing loans from our Florida franchise were $34.0 million at December 31, 2016 compared to $35.1 million as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing loans from our Alabama franchise were $656,000 at December 31, 2016 compared to $132,000 as of December 31, 2015. There were no non-performing loans from our Centennial CFG franchise.

As of December 31, 2016, our non-performing assets decreased to $79.1 million, or 0.81%, of total assets from $82.7 million, or 0.89%, of total assets as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing assets from our Arkansas franchise were $41.0 million at December 31, 2016 compared to $40.3 million as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing assets from our Florida franchise were $36.8 million at December 31, 2016 compared to $41.5 million as of December 31, 2015. Non-performing assets from our Alabama franchise were $1.2 million at December 31, 2016 compared to $892,000 as of December 31, 2015. There were no non-performing assets from our Centennial CFG franchise.

Critical Accounting Policies

Overview. We prepare our consolidated financial statements based on the selection of certain accounting policies, generally accepted accounting principles and customary practices in the banking industry. These policies, in certain areas, require us to make significant estimates and assumptions. Our accounting policies are described in detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included as part of this document.

We consider a policy critical if (i) the accounting estimate requires assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the accounting estimate; and (ii) different estimates that could reasonably have been used in the current period, or changes in the accounting estimate that are reasonably likely to occur from period to period, would have a material impact on our financial statements. Using these criteria, we believe that the accounting policies most critical to us are those associated with our lending practices, including the accounting for the allowance for loan losses, foreclosed assets, investments, intangible assets, income taxes and stock options.

Investments – Available-for-sale. Securities available-for-sale are reported at fair value with unrealized holding gains and losses reported as a separate component of stockholders’ equity and other comprehensive income (loss), net of taxes. Securities that are held as available-for-sale are used as a part of our asset/liability management strategy. Securities that may be sold in response to interest rate changes, changes in prepayment risk, the need to increase regulatory capital, and other similar factors are classified as available-for-sale.

Investments – Held-to-Maturity. Securities held-to-maturity, which include any security for which we have the positive intent and ability to hold until maturity, are reported at historical cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts. Premiums and discounts are amortized and accreted, respectively, to interest income using the constant yield method over the period to maturity.

Loans Receivable and Allowance for Loan Losses. Except for loans acquired during our acquisitions, substantially all of our loans receivable are reported at their outstanding principal balance adjusted for any charge-offs, as it is management’s intent to hold them for the foreseeable future or until maturity or payoff, except for mortgage loans held for sale. Interest income on loans is accrued over the term of the loans based on the principal balance outstanding.

51

Table of Contents

The allowance for loan losses is established through a provision for loan losses charged against income. The allowance represents an amount that, in management’s judgment, will be adequate to absorb probable credit losses on identifiable loans that may become uncollectible and probable credit losses inherent in the remainder of the loan portfolio. The amounts of provisions for loan losses are based on management’s analysis and evaluation of the loan portfolio for identification of problem credits, internal and external factors that may affect collectability, relevant credit exposure, particular risks inherent in different kinds of lending, current collateral values and other relevant factors.

The allowance consists of allocated and general components. The allocated component relates to loans that are classified as impaired. For those loans that are classified as impaired, an allowance is established when the discounted cash flows, collateral value or observable market price of the impaired loan is lower than the carrying value of that loan. The general component covers non-classified loans and is based on historical charge-off experience and expected loss given default derived from the bank’s internal risk rating process. Other adjustments may be made to the allowance for pools of loans after an assessment of internal or external influences on credit quality that are not fully reflected in the historical loss or risk rating data.

Loans considered impaired, under FASB ASC 310-10-35, are loans for which, based on current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. The aggregate amount of impairment of loans is utilized in evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and amount of provisions thereto. Losses on impaired loans are charged against the allowance for loan losses when in the process of collection it appears likely that such losses will be realized. The accrual of interest on impaired loans is discontinued when, in management’s opinion the collection of interest is doubtful, or generally when loans are 90 days or more past due. When accrual of interest is discontinued, all unpaid accrued interest is reversed. Interest income is subsequently recognized only to the extent cash payments are received in excess of principal due. Loans are returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured.

Groups of loans with similar risk characteristics are collectively evaluated for impairment based on the group’s historical loss experience adjusted for changes in trends, conditions and other relevant factors that affect repayment of the loans.

Loans are placed on non-accrual status when management believes that the borrower’s financial condition, after giving consideration to economic and business conditions and collection efforts, is such that collection of interest is doubtful, or generally when loans are 90 days or more past due. Loans are charged against the allowance for loan losses when management believes that the collectability of the principal is unlikely. Accrued interest related to non-accrual loans is generally charged against the allowance for loan losses when accrued in prior years and reversed from interest income if accrued in the current year. Interest income on non-accrual loans may be recognized to the extent cash payments are received, although the majority of payments received are usually applied to principal. Non-accrual loans are generally returned to accrual status when principal and interest payments are less than 90 days past due, the customer has made required payments for at least six months, and we reasonably expect to collect all principal and interest.

Acquisition Accounting and Acquired Loans. We account for our acquisitions under FASB ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, which requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting. All identifiable assets acquired, including loans, are recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans is recorded on the acquisition date as the fair value of the purchased loans incorporates assumptions regarding credit risk. All purchased loans are recorded at fair value in accordance with the fair value methodology prescribed in FASB ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements. The fair value estimates associated with the loans include estimates related to expected prepayments and the amount and timing of undiscounted expected principal, interest and other cash flows.

52

Table of Contents

Over the life of the purchased credit impaired loans, we continue to estimate cash flows expected to be collected on pools of loans sharing common risk characteristics, which are treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. We evaluate at each balance sheet date whether the present value of our pools of loans determined using the effective interest rates has decreased and if so, recognize a provision for loan loss in its consolidated statement of income. For any increases in cash flows expected to be collected, we adjust the amount of accretable yield recognized on a prospective basis over the pool’s remaining life.

Foreclosed Assets Held for Sale. Real estate and personal properties acquired through or in lieu of loan foreclosure are to be sold and are initially recorded at fair value at the date of foreclosure, establishing a new cost basis. Valuations are periodically performed by management, and the real estate and personal properties are carried at fair value less costs to sell. Gains and losses from the sale of other real estate and personal properties are recorded in non-interest income, and expenses used to maintain the properties are included in non-interest expenses.

Intangible Assets. Intangible assets consist of goodwill and core deposit intangibles. Goodwill represents the excess purchase price over the fair value of net assets acquired in business acquisitions. The core deposit intangible represents the excess intangible value of acquired deposit customer relationships as determined by valuation specialists. The core deposit intangibles are being amortized over 48 to 121 months on a straight-line basis. Goodwill is not amortized but rather is evaluated for impairment on at least an annual basis. We perform an annual impairment test of goodwill and core deposit intangibles as required by FASB ASC 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other, in the fourth quarter.

Income Taxes. We account for income taxes in accordance with income tax accounting guidance (ASC 740, Income Taxes). The income tax accounting guidance results in two components of income tax expense: current and deferred. Current income tax expense reflects taxes to be paid or refunded for the current period by applying the provisions of the enacted tax law to the taxable income or excess of deductions over revenues. We determine deferred income taxes using the liability (or balance sheet) method. Under this method, the net deferred tax asset or liability is based on the tax effects of the differences between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and enacted changes in tax rates and laws are recognized in the period in which they occur.

Deferred income tax expense results from changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities between periods. Deferred tax assets are recognized if it is more likely than not, based on the technical merits, that the tax position will be realized or sustained upon examination. The term “more likely than not” means a likelihood of more than 50 percent; the terms “examined” and “upon examination” also include resolution of the related appeals or litigation processes, if any. A tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is initially and subsequently measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon settlement with a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. The determination of whether or not a tax position has met the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold considers the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting date and is subject to the management’s judgment. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of evidence available, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized.

Both we and our subsidiary file consolidated tax returns. Our subsidiary provides for income taxes on a separate return basis, and remits to us amounts determined to be currently payable.

Stock Compensation. In accordance with FASB ASC 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation, and FASB ASC 505-50, Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees, the fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant. We recognize compensation expense for the grant-date fair value of the option award over the vesting period of the award.

53

Table of Contents

Acquisitions

Stonegate Bank

On September 26, 2017, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Stonegate Bank (“Stonegate”), and merged Stonegate into Centennial. The Company paid a purchase price to the Stonegate shareholders of approximately $792.4 million for the Stonegate acquisition. Under the terms of the merger agreement, shareholders of Stonegate received 30,863,658 shares of HBI common stock valued at approximately $742.3 million plus approximately $50.1 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of Stonegate common stock. In addition, the holders of outstanding stock options of Stonegate received approximately $27.6 million in cash in connection with the cancellation of their options immediately before the acquisition closed, for a total transaction value of approximately $820.0 million.

Including the effects of the known purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, Stonegate had approximately $2.89 billion in total assets, $2.37 billion in loans and $2.53 billion in customer deposits. Stonegate formerly operated its banking business from 24 locations in key Florida markets with significant presence in Broward and Sarasota counties.

Through our acquisition and merger of Stonegate into Centennial, we maintain a customer relationship to handle the accounts for Cuba’s diplomatic missions at the United Nations and for the Cuban Interests Section (now the Cuban Embassy) in Washington, D.C. This relationship was established in May 2015 pursuant to a special license granted to Stonegate Bank by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in connection with the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba. In July 2015, Stonegate established a correspondent banking relationship with Banco Internacional de Comercio, S.A. in Havana, Cuba. As of December 31, 2017, this correspondent banking relationship does not have a material impact to the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

See Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of Stonegate.

The Bank of Commerce

On February 28, 2017, the Company completed its previously announced acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of The Bank of Commerce, a Florida state-chartered bank that operated in the Sarasota, Florida area (“BOC”), pursuant to an acquisition agreement, dated December 1, 2016, by and between the Company and Bank of Commerce Holdings, Inc. (“BCHI”), parent company of BOC. The Company merged BOC with and into Centennial effective as of the close of business on February 28, 2017.

The acquisition of BOC was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) pursuant to a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code filed by BCHI with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The sale of BOC by BCHI was subject to certain bidding procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. On November 14, 2016, the Company submitted an initial bid to purchase the outstanding shares of BOC in accordance with the bidding procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. An auction was subsequently conducted on November 16, 2016, and the Company was deemed to be the successful bidder. The Bankruptcy Court entered a final order on December 9, 2016 approving the sale of BOC to the Company pursuant to and in accordance with the acquisition agreement.

Under the terms of the acquisition agreement, the Company paid an aggregate of approximately $4.2 million in cash for the acquisition, which included the purchase of all outstanding shares of BOC common stock, the discounted purchase of certain subordinated debentures issued by BOC from the existing holders of the subordinated debentures, and an expense reimbursement to BCHI for approved administrative claims in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding.

54

Table of Contents

BOC formerly operated three branch locations in the Sarasota, Florida area. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, BOC had approximately $178.1 million in total assets, $118.5 million in loans after $5.8 million of loan discounts, and $139.8 million in deposits.

See Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of BOC.

Giant Holdings, Inc.

On February 23, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of Giant Holdings, Inc. (“GHI”), parent company of Landmark Bank, N.A. (“Landmark”), pursuant to a previously announced definitive agreement and plan of merger whereby GHI merged with and into HBI and, immediately thereafter, Landmark merged with and into Centennial. The Company paid a purchase price to the GHI shareholders of approximately $96.0 million for the GHI acquisition. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of GHI received 2,738,038 shares of its common stock valued at approximately $77.5 million as of February 23, 2017, plus approximately $18.5 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of GHI common stock.

GHI formerly operated six branch locations in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, as of acquisition date, GHI had approximately $398.1 million in total assets, $327.8 million in loans after $8.1 million of loan discounts, and $304.0 million in deposits.

See Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of GHI.

Florida Business BancGroup, Inc.

On October 1, 2015, we completed our acquisition of FBBI, parent company of Bay Cities Bank (“Bay Cities”). We paid a purchase price to the FBBI shareholders of $104.1 million for the FBBI acquisition. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of FBBI received 4,159,708 shares of our common stock valued at approximately $83.8 million as of October 1, 2015, plus approximately $20.3 million in cash in exchange for all outstanding shares of FBBI common stock. A portion of the cash consideration, $2.0 million, was placed into escrow with the FBBI shareholders having a contingent right to receive their pro-rata portions of such amount. The amount, if any, of such escrowed funds to be released to FBBI shareholders would depend upon the amount of losses that the Company incurred in the two years following the completion of the merger related to two class action lawsuits pending against Bay Cities. In August 2017, the Company distributed the full amount of this contingent cash consideration to the former FBBI shareholders, less $10,000 for compensation paid to a representative designated by FBBI who acted on behalf of the FBBI shareholders in connection with the escrow arrangements.

FBBI formerly operated six branch locations and a loan production office in the Tampa Bay area and in Sarasota, Florida. Including the effects of any purchase accounting adjustments, as of October 1, 2015, FBBI had approximately $564.5 million in total assets, $408.3 million in loans after $14.1 million of loan discounts, and $472.0 million in deposits.

See Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of FBBI.

55

Table of Contents

Pool of National Commercial Real Estate Loans

On April 1, 2015, Centennial acquired a pool of national commercial real estate loans from AM PR LLC, an affiliate of J.C. Flowers & Co., totaling approximately $289.1 million for a purchase price of 99% of the total principal value of the acquired loans. The acquired loans were originated by the former Doral Bank of San Juan, Puerto Rico within its Doral Property Finance portfolio and were transferred to the Seller by Banco Popular of Puerto Rico (“Popular”) upon its acquisition of the assets and liabilities of Doral Bank from the FDIC, as receiver for the failed Doral Bank. This pool of loans is now managed by a division of Centennial known as the Centennial Commercial Finance Group (“Centennial CFG”), which is responsible for servicing the acquired loan pool and originating new loan production.

In connection with this acquisition of loans, the Company opened a loan production office on April 23, 2015 in New York City, which became a branch on September 1, 2016. Through the New York office, Centennial CFG is building out a national lending platform focusing on commercial real estate plus commercial and industrial loans. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, Centennial CFG had $1.44 billion and $1.11 billion in total loans net of discount, respectively.

Doral Bank’s Florida Panhandle operations

On February 27, 2015, Centennial acquired all the deposits and substantially all the assets of Doral Florida through an alliance agreement with Popular who was the successful lead bidder to acquire the assets and liabilities of the failed Doral Bank from the FDIC. Including the effects of the purchase accounting adjustments, the acquisition provided us with loans of approximately $37.9 million net of loan discounts, deposits of approximately $467.6 million, plus a $428.2 million cash settlement to balance the transaction. We recorded a bargain purchase gain of $1.6 million, in connection with the Doral Florida acquisition. The FDIC did not provide loss-sharing with respect to the acquired assets.

Prior to the acquisition, Doral Florida operated five branch locations in Panama City, Panama City Beach and Pensacola, Florida plus a loan production office in Tallahassee, Florida. At the time of acquisition, Centennial operated 29 branch locations in the Florida Panhandle. As a result, we closed all five branch locations during the July 2015 systems conversion and returned the facilities back to the FDIC.    

See Note 2 “Business Combinations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for an additional discussion regarding the acquisition of Doral Florida.

Termination of Remaining Loss-Share Agreements

Effective July 27, 2016, we reached an agreement terminating our remaining loss-share agreements with the FDIC. As a result, $57.4 million of these loans including their associated discounts previously classified as covered loans migrated to non-covered loans status during 2016. Under the terms of the agreement, Centennial made a net payment of $6.6 million to the FDIC as consideration for the early termination of the loss share agreements, and all rights and obligations of Centennial and the FDIC under the loss share agreements, including the clawback provisions and the settlement of loss share and expense reimbursement claims, have been resolved and terminated. This transaction with the FDIC created a one-time acceleration of the indemnification asset plus the negotiated settlement for the true-up liability, and resulted in a negative $3.8 million pre-tax financial impact to the third quarter of 2016. It will, however, create a positive financial impact to earnings of approximately $1.5 million annually on a pre-tax basis through the year 2020 as a result of the one-time acceleration of the indemnification asset amortization.

56

Table of Contents

Future Acquisitions

In our continuing evaluation of our growth plans, we believe properly priced bank acquisitions can complement our organic growth and de novo branching growth strategies. In the near term, our principal acquisition focus will be to continue to expand our presence in Arkansas, Florida and Alabama and into other contiguous markets through pursuing both non-FDIC-assisted and FDIC-assisted bank acquisitions. However, as financial opportunities in other market areas arise, we may expand into those areas.

We will continue evaluating all types of potential bank acquisitions to determine what is in the best interest of our Company. Our goal in making these decisions is to maximize the return to our investors.

Branches

As opportunities arise, we will continue to open new (commonly referred to as de novo) branches in our current markets and in other attractive market areas. During 2017, the Company opened a branch location in Clearwater, Florida and a loan production office in Los Angeles, California which is under the management of Centennial CFG.

As a result of our continued focus on efficiency, during 2017, we closed four branch locations in our Florida footprint and one branch location in Daphne, Alabama.                

During 2017, the Company acquired a total of 33 branches through the acquisitions of GHI, BOC and Stonegate. In an effort to achieve efficiencies, primarily from the Stonegate acquisition, the Company plans to close or merge several Florida locations during the first quarter of 2018. During the remainder of 2018, we may announce additional strategic consolidations where it improves efficiency in certain markets.                

As of December 31, 2017, we had 170 branch locations. There were 76 branches in Arkansas, 88 branches in Florida, five branches in Alabama and one branch in New York City.

Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Our net income decreased $42.0 million, or 23.7%, to $135.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $177.1 million for the same period in 2016. On a diluted earnings per share basis, our earnings were $0.89 per share and $1.26 per share for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, representing a decrease of $0.37 per share or 29.37% for the year ended 2017 when compared to the previous year. Excluding the $36.9 million one-time TCJA charge, $33.4 million of hurricane expense, and $25.7 million of merger expenses associated with the 2017 acquisitions offset by $3.8 million of one-time non-taxable gain on acquisition, 2017 annual after-tax earnings excluding non-fundamental items were $204.8 million, an increase of $27.8 million, or 15.7%, from 2016 annual after-tax earnings excluding non-fundamental items of $177.0 million (See Table 27 for the non-GAAP tabular reconciliation). The $27.8 million increase in earnings excluding non-fundamental items is primarily associated with additional net interest income largely resulting from our acquisitions combined with $125.2 million of organic loan growth plus a decrease in the non-hurricane related provision for loan losses during 2017, growth in non-interest income and the reduced amortization of the indemnification asset when compared to the same period in 2016. These improvements were partially offset by an increase in the costs associated with the asset growth plus an increase in interest expense on deposits and an increase in interest expense related to the issuance of $300 million of subordinated notes during the second quarter of 2017 when compared to the same period in 2016.

Our net income increased $38.9 million, or 28.2%, to $177.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, from $138.2 million for the same period in 2015. On a diluted earnings per share basis, our earnings were $1.26 per share and $1.01 per share for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, representing an increase of $0.25 per share, or 24.8%, for the year ended 2016 when compared to the previous year. The $38.9 million increase in net income is primarily associated with additional net interest income during 2016 largely resulting from our 2015 acquisitions, organic loan growth, a slight decrease in provision for loan losses, growth in non-interest income, and the reduced amortization of the indemnification asset, when compared to the same period in 2015. These improvements were partially offset by an increase in the costs associated with the asset growth when compared to the same period in 2015.

57

Table of Contents

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, our principal source of earnings, is the difference between the interest income generated by earning assets and the total interest cost of the deposits and borrowings obtained to fund those assets. Factors affecting the level of net interest income include the volume of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, yields earned on loans and investments and rates paid on deposits and other borrowings, the level of non-performing loans and the amount of non-interest-bearing liabilities supporting earning assets. Net interest income is analyzed in the discussion and tables below on a fully taxable equivalent basis. The adjustment to convert certain income to a fully taxable equivalent basis consists of dividing tax-exempt income by one minus the combined federal and state income tax rate (39.225% for years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015).

The Federal Reserve Board sets various benchmark rates, including the Federal Funds rate, and thereby influences the general market rates of interest, including the deposit and loan rates offered by financial institutions. The Federal Funds target rate, which is the cost to banks of immediately available overnight funds, was lowered on December 16, 2008 to a historic low of 0.25% to 0%, where it remained until December 16, 2015, when the target rate was increased slightly to 0.50% to 0.25%. Since December 31, 2016, the Federal Funds target rate has increased 100 basis points and is currently at 1.50% to 1.25%.

Our GAAP net interest margin decreased from 4.81% for the year ended December 31, 2016 to 4.51% for the year ended December 31, 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recognized $35.7 million and $42.3 million, respectively, in total net accretion for acquired loans and deposits. The non-GAAP margin excluding accretion income was 4.12% and 4.26% for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Additionally, the non-GAAP yield on loans excluding accretion income was 5.21% and 5.10% for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Other than the previously mentioned reduction in net accretion income for acquired loans and deposits, the net interest margin was negatively impacted by our April 2017 issuance of $300 million of 5.625% fixed-to-floating rate subordinated notes, which added approximately $13.1 million of interest expense when compared to the same period in 2016, and by our strategic decision to keep excess cash liquidity on the books during 2017.

Net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis increased $49.9 million, or 12.1%, to $463.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $413.9 million for the same period in 2016. This increase in net interest income was the result of an $83.6 million increase in interest income combined with a $33.8 million increase in interest expense. The $83.6 million increase in interest income was primarily the result of a higher level of earning assets offset by lower yields on our loans. The higher level of earning assets resulted in an increase in interest income of $84.9 million. The lower yield was primarily driven by the decline of loan accretion income on our historical acquisitions offset by increased loan production in the higher rate environment, which resulted in a $1.3 million decrease in interest income. The $33.8 million increase in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2017, is primarily the result of an increase in interest bearing liabilities repricing in a rising interest rate environment combined with a higher level of our interest bearing liabilities. The repricing of our interest bearing liabilities in a rising interest rate environment resulted in an approximately $22.0 million increase in interest expense. The higher level of our interest bearing liabilities, primarily subordinated debentures, resulted in an increase in interest expense of approximately $11.8 million.

Our net interest margin decreased from 4.98% for the year ended December 31, 2015 to 4.81% for the year ended December 31, 2016. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recognized $42.3 million and $47.6 million, respectively, in total net accretion for acquired loans and deposits. The non-GAAP margin excluding accretion income was flat at 4.24% and 4.23% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Additionally, the non-GAAP yield on loans excluding accretion income was also relatively flat at 5.10% and 5.05% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Consequently, with growth of the average loan balance of $1.25 billion, we experienced a decline in the GAAP yield on loans and net interest margin because the organic loan growth was approximately at our lower non-GAAP loan yields.

58

Table of Contents

Net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis increased $50.5 million, or 13.9%, to $413.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, from $363.4 million for the same period in 2015. This increase in net interest income was the result of a $59.3 million increase in interest income combined with an $8.8 million increase in interest expense. The $59.3 million increase in interest income was primarily the result of a higher level of earning assets offset by lower yields on our loans. The higher level of earning assets resulted in an increase in interest income of $74.2 million. The lower yield was primarily driven by the repricing of our loans, which resulted in a $14.9 million decrease in interest income. The $8.8 million increase in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2016, is primarily the result of an increase in higher level of our interest bearing liabilities from our acquisitions combined with our interest bearing liabilities repricing in a slightly higher interest rate environment. The higher level of our interest bearing liabilities resulted in an increase in interest expense of approximately $4.9 million. The repricing of our interest bearing liabilities in a slightly higher interest rate environment resulted in a $3.9 million increase in interest expense.

Net interest margin, on a fully taxable equivalent basis, was 4.51% for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 4.81% and 4.98% for the same periods in 2016 and 2015, respectively. The non-GAAP margin excluding accretion income was 4.12%, 4.26% and 4.23% for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Additional information and analysis for our net interest margin can be found in Tables 24 through 26 of our Non-GAAP Financial Measurements section of this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Tables 2 and 3 reflect an analysis of net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, as well as changes in fully taxable equivalent net interest margin for the years 2017 compared to 2016 and 2016 compared to 2015.

Table 2: Analysis of Net Interest Income

Table 3: Changes in Fully Taxable Equivalent Net Interest Margin

59

Table of Contents

Table 4 shows, for each major category of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, the average amount outstanding, the interest income or expense on that amount and the average rate earned or expensed for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. The table also shows the average rate earned on all earning assets, the average rate expensed on all interest-bearing liabilities, the net interest spread and the net interest margin for the same periods. The analysis is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis. Non-accrual loans were included in average loans for the purpose of calculating the rate earned on total loans.

Table 4: Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis

60

Table of Contents

Table 5 shows changes in interest income and interest expense resulting from changes in volume and changes in interest rates for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to 2016 and 2016 compared to 2015 on a fully taxable basis. The changes in interest rate and volume have been allocated to changes in average volume and changes in average rates, in proportion to the relationship of absolute dollar amounts of the changes in rates and volume.