Hilltop
Annual Report 2015

Plain-text annual report

2015 Annual Report, Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting & Proxy Statement To Our Stockholders, Customers and Employees: 2015 was another outstanding year for Hilltop Holdings. As we continue to expand our premier Texas- based diversified financial services platform, we are proud to state that all four of the operating companies reported a profitable year in 2015, excluding transaction and integration costs. Hilltop generated $209 million of net income, representing an ROAE of 12.3% and an increase to tangible book value per share of $2.99 for the year. During 2015, we successfully integrated our two broker-dealers, Southwest Securities and FirstSouthwest, into HilltopSecurities, the largest full-service brokerage firm based in the Southwest. We are now well positioned to grow and execute on our long-term vision for HilltopSecurities, particularly given the strong leadership and employees that are in place at the entity. While 2015 was the year of integration for the broker-dealers, our other operating companies had very successful years and demonstrated improvements in their core fundamentals. PlainsCapital Bank generated strong loan growth while maintaining its credit standards, and PrimeLending produced over $13 billion in originations and increased its national market share. National Lloyds also had a profitable year and enhanced its core business and risk profile under its improved management team. As of December 31, 2015, Hilltop had $11.9 billion of assets, $1.7 billion of common equity and approximately 5,300 employees. Because of the sound results of Hilltop’s operating subsidiaries, we are well-situated to pursue strategic M&A and organic growth opportunities. We take pride in our recent accomplishments and look forward to continued success for many years to come. Operating Subsidiaries: (cid:190) PlainsCapital Bank offers commercial banking, personal banking and wealth management products and services throughout Texas. The bank ended the year with $8.7 billion of assets, $6.5 billion of deposits and 67 branches. As part of its drive to generate organic growth, PlainsCapital Bank opened a new Houston headquarters in December of 2015 and hired an accomplished market president for the region. Although the bank operates in a part of the United States that has a strong energy presence, PlainsCapital Bank has a limited portion of the overall loan portfolio with direct exposure to the energy sector. As of December 31, 2015, PlainsCapital Bank had 3.6% of its total loans concentrated in the energy sector. Overall, the bank continues to produce healthy loan growth, gather low cost deposits and generate a strong net interest margin, while it also successfully works through problem assets and divests noncore branches acquired in the FNB Transaction. For 2015, the bank reported pre-tax income of $188 million. (cid:190) PrimeLending had an exceptional year as the 6th ranked home purchase lender in the nation, marking the fourth year in a row with a ranking in the top 10. PrimeLending also is celebrating its 30th anniversary in 2016, as it has grown from a staff of 20 to more than 2,500 professionals with 300 branches in 42 states. PrimeLending originated $13.4 billion in mortgage loans in 2015 with a pre-tax income of $47.5 million. 2016 is expected to be another strong year for mortgage lending, and PrimeLending is in a great position for success. (cid:190) HilltopSecurities delivers a broad range of investment banking and related financial services to corporate, individual and institutional investors, broker-dealers, governmental entities and financial intermediaries. 2015 was a pivotal year for HilltopSecurities, as a large effort was put into successfully merging FirstSouthwest and the recently acquired Southwest Securities into one entity. The broker-dealer has approximately 1,000 employees in more than 50 offices across the country. Excluding integration related expenses, HilltopSecurities generated pre-tax income of $14.9 million in 2015. (cid:190) National Lloyds is a niche property & casualty underwriter offering primarily fire and limited homeowners insurance for low value dwellings and manufactured homes in Texas, Arizona and other southern states. Despite a very active year in weather events, the company had another strong year with pre-tax income of $15.7 million on $162 million of net premiums earned. The management team at National Lloyds continues to focus on controlling risk and executing on strategic initiatives. Growth via acquisitions is a strength of Hilltop and a stated part of our long-term strategy. We are actively seeking M&A opportunities that build on our core banking franchise and maintain ample excess capital to support a sizable transaction. However, we will continue to be patient, diligent and disciplined in our pursuit of the right acquisitions. As Hilltop has grown organically and through M&A, we have also invested in our risk management and compliance systems, policies and professionals. Hilltop is committed to maintaining positive relationships with our regulators and remaining well capitalized. In closing, I would like to thank all of the Hilltop family of employees for their tremendous work in 2015. On behalf of everyone at Hilltop, I would like to thank our customers and the communities in which we operate. I also would like to extend my gratitude to our Board members for their sound guidance and dedication. And finally, I would like to thank our stockholders for your confidence and support in our stewardship of Hilltop Holdings. Sincerely, Jeremy B. Ford President & Chief Executive Officer Hilltop Holdings Inc. April 29, 2016 Hilltop Holdings Inc. 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: 214.855.2177 Fax: 214.855.2173 www.hilltop-holdings.com NYSE: HTH NOTICE OF 2016 ANNUAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT April 29, 2016 You are cordially invited to attend our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders at 10:00 a.m., Dallas, Texas, local time, on June 13, 2016. The meeting will be held at 2323 Victory Avenue, 5th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75219. This booklet includes the formal notice of the meeting and our proxy statement. The proxy statement tells you about the matters to be addressed, and the procedures for voting, at the meeting. YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. Even if you only have a few shares, we want your shares to be represented. If your shares are held in a brokerage account, your broker no longer has discretion to vote on your behalf with respect to electing directors or certain other non-routine matters. Accordingly, you must provide specific voting instructions to your broker in order to vote. Please vote promptly in order to ensure that your shares are represented at the meeting. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or this proxy statement and the accompanying proxy card, as applicable, Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and annual report for the year ended December 31, 2015 were first provided to stockholders of record on or about May 4, 2016. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Very truly yours, Jeremy B. Ford Chief Executive Officer IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE STOCKHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 13, 2016. Our proxy statement and our annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 are both available at www.proxyvote.com. Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders To Be Held on June 13, 2016 WHEN: WHERE: Monday, June 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., Dallas, Texas local time 2323 Victory Avenue, 5th Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 WHY: At this meeting, you will be asked to: 1. Elect 21 directors to serve on our Board of Directors until the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors are duly elected and qualified; 2. Conduct an advisory vote to approve executive compensation; 3. Ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016; and 4. Transact any other business that may properly come before the meeting and any adjournments or postponements of the meeting. WHO MAY VOTE: Stockholders of record at the close of business on April 21, 2016. ANNUAL REPORT: Our 2015 Annual Report is enclosed. Pursuant to rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are providing access to our proxy materials, including this proxy statement and our annual report for the year ended December 31, 2015, over the Internet. As a result, we are providing to many of our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials instead of a paper copy of our proxy materials. The notice contains instructions on how to access those proxy materials over the Internet, as well as instructions on how to request a paper copy of our proxy materials. All stockholders who are not sent a notice will be sent a paper copy of our proxy materials by mail. This electronic distribution process reduces the environmental impact and lowers the costs of printing and distributing our proxy materials. Your vote is very important. Please read the proxy statement and voting instructions on the enclosed proxy card. Then, whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting in person, and no matter how many shares you own, please vote by Internet, telephone or by marking, signing, dating and promptly returning the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed envelope, which requires no additional postage if mailed in the United States. Please see “General Information – What should I do if I want to attend in person?” for information on how to obtain directions to be able to attend the meeting and vote in person. By Order of the Board of Directors, Corey G. Prestidge Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary April 29, 2016 Dallas, Texas PROXY STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROPOSAL ONE — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nominees for Election as Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meeting Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vote Necessary to Elect Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Board Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corporate Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director Nomination Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 6 6 6 12 12 13 13 15 18 21 SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Principal Stockholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Security Ownership of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 24 MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Executive Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compensation Discussion and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compensation Committee Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 27 40 40 52 52 CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 PROPOSAL TWO — ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Vote Necessary to Approve, on an Advisory Basis, Executive Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 PROPOSAL THREE — RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM . 56 Vote Necessary to Ratify the Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report of the Audit Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent Auditor’s Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 56 57 STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 OTHER MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 MULTIPLE STOCKHOLDERS SHARING ONE ADDRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 ANNUAL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 i HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 PROXY STATEMENT 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders To be Held on June 13, 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or this Proxy Statement and the accompanying proxy card, as applicable, Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 were first provided to stockholders of record on or about May 4, 2016. Unless the context otherwise indicates, all references in this Proxy Statement to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” or “ours” or similar words are to Hilltop Holdings Inc. and its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, references to “Hilltop” refer solely to Hilltop Holdings Inc., references to “PlainsCapital” refer to PlainsCapital Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Securities Holdings” refer to Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Hilltop Securities” refer to Hilltop Securities Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as Southwest Securities, Inc.), references to “HTS Independent Network” refer to Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as SWS Financial Services, Inc.), references to the “Bank” refer to PlainsCapital Bank (a wholly owned subsidiary of PlainsCapital), references to “FNB” refer to First National Bank, references to “SWS” refer to the former SWS Group, Inc., references to “First Southwest” refer to First Southwest Holdings, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “FSC” refer to First Southwest Company, LLC (a former wholly owned subsidiary of First Southwest), references to “PrimeLending” refer to PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLC” refer to National Lloyds Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLIC” refer to National Lloyds Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC) and references to “ASIC” refer to American Summit Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC). Why am I receiving these proxy materials? The Board of Directors of Hilltop, or the Board of Directors, has made these materials available to you on the Internet or has delivered printed versions of these materials to you by mail in connection with the Board of Directors’ solicitation of proxies for use at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or the Annual Meeting, which will take place at 10:00 a.m. (Dallas, Texas local time) on Monday, June 13, 2016, at 2323 Victory Avenue, 5th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75219. This Proxy Statement describes matters on which you, as a stockholder, are entitled to vote. This Proxy Statement also gives you information on these matters so that you can make an informed decision with respect to your vote. Why did I receive a one-page notice in the mail regarding the Internet availability of proxy materials instead of printed proxy materials? In accordance with rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, instead of mailing a printed copy of our proxy materials to all of our stockholders, we have elected to furnish such materials to selected stockholders by providing access to these documents over the Internet. Accordingly, on or about May 4, 2016, we provided a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, or the Notice, to selected stockholders of record and beneficial owners. These stockholders have the ability to access the proxy materials on a website referred to in the Notice or to request to receive a printed set of the proxy materials by calling the toll-free number found on the Notice. We encourage you to take advantage of the availability of the proxy materials on the Internet in order to help reduce the environmental impact of the printing and distribution of our proxy materials. 1 How can I get electronic access to the proxy materials? The Notice provides you with instructions regarding how to: (cid:190) view our proxy materials for the Annual Meeting on the Internet; (cid:190) vote your shares after you have viewed our proxy materials; (cid:190) register to attend the meeting in-person; (cid:190) request a printed copy of the proxy materials; and (cid:190) instruct us to send our future proxy materials to you electronically by email. Copies of the proxy materials are available for viewing at www.proxyvote.com. You may have received proxy materials by email. Even if you received a printed copy of our proxy materials, you may choose to receive future proxy materials by email. Choosing to receive your future proxy materials by email will lower our costs of delivery and will reduce the environmental impact of printing and distributing our proxy materials. If you choose to receive our future proxy materials by email, you will receive an email next year with instructions containing a link to view those proxy materials and a link to the proxy voting site. Your election to receive proxy materials by email will remain in effect until you terminate it or for so long as the email address provided by you is valid. What am I voting on? At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will be asked to: (cid:190) Elect 21 directors to serve on our Board of Directors until the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors are duly elected and qualified; (cid:190) Conduct an advisory vote to approve executive compensation; (cid:190) Ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016; and (cid:190) Transact any other business that may properly come before the Annual Meeting and any adjournments or postponements of the Annual Meeting. What are the Board of Directors’ recommendations? The Board of Directors recommends that you vote your shares: (cid:190) FOR each of our director candidates; (cid:190) FOR the approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation of our named executive officers; and (cid:190) FOR the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. Who is entitled to vote? Holders of record of our common stock at the close of business on April 21, 2016, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. With respect to each matter presented, a stockholder is entitled to cast one vote for each share of common stock owned at the close of business on April 21, 2016. 2 How do I vote? If you are a stockholder of record, there are four ways to vote: (cid:190) In Person. You may vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Bring your printed proxy card if you received one by mail. Otherwise, we will provide stockholders of record with a ballot at the Annual Meeting. We recommend that you vote by proxy even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. You always can change your vote at the Annual Meeting. (cid:190) Via the Internet. You may vote by proxy via the Internet by visiting www.proxyvote.com. Have your proxy card or Notice in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form. (cid:190) Via Telephone. If you received or requested printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you may vote by proxy by calling the toll-free number found on the proxy card. (cid:190) Via Mail. If you received or requested printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you may vote by proxy by marking, signing and dating the proxy card and sending it back in the envelope provided. If you are the beneficial owner of shares held by a broker or other nominee, you may instruct your broker or nominee to vote your shares by following the instructions that the broker or nominee provides to you. New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, rules prohibit your broker from voting for the election of directors and to approve executive compensation on your behalf without specific voting instructions from you. Many brokers allow stockholders to provide voting instructions by mail, telephone and the Internet. How do proxies work? Our Board of Directors is asking for your proxy. Giving your proxy to the persons named by us means you authorize them to vote your shares at the Annual Meeting in the manner you direct. You may vote for all of our director candidates or withhold your vote as to one or more director candidates, and you may vote for or against, or abstain from voting on, executive compensation and the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. If you are a stockholder of record and (a) you indicate when voting on the Internet or by telephone that you wish to vote as recommended by our Board of Directors or (b) you sign and return the enclosed proxy card but do not specify how your shares are to be voted, your shares will be voted FOR the election of all of our director candidates, FOR the approval of our executive compensation and FOR the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. If you are the beneficial owner of shares held by a broker or other nominee, also referred to as held in “street name,” and you do not provide such broker or nominee with specific voting instructions, under the rules promulgated by the NYSE, the broker or nominee that holds your shares may generally vote on “routine” matters at its discretion, but cannot vote on “non-routine” matters. If the broker or nominee that holds your shares does not receive instructions from you on how to vote your shares on a “non-routine” matter, that broker or nominee will inform the inspector of election that it does not have the authority to vote on such matters with respect to your shares, which is generally referred to as a “broker non-vote.” You may receive more than one proxy or voting card depending on how you hold your shares. Shares registered in your name are covered by one card. If you also hold shares through a broker or other nominee, you also may receive material from them asking how you want those shares voted. To be sure that all of your shares are voted, we encourage you to respond to each request you receive. 3 Which matters are considered “routine” or “non-routine”? The ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016 is considered to be a “routine” matter. A broker or other nominee may generally vote on routine matters and, therefore, no broker non-votes are expected to exist with respect to this matter. All other matters set forth in this Proxy Statement are matters that we believe will be designated “non-routine” matters. A broker or other nominee cannot vote without instructions on non-routine matters and, therefore, there may be broker non-votes on all matters other than the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Can I change my vote or revoke my proxy after I have voted? You may revoke your proxy and change your vote at any time before the final vote at the Annual Meeting (or before any earlier deadline specified in the Notice or the proxy card) by (a) voting again via the Internet or by telephone (only your latest Internet or telephone proxy submitted prior to the Annual Meeting will be counted), (b) signing and returning a new proxy card or vote instruction form with a later date or (c) attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. Your attendance at the Annual Meeting, however, will not automatically revoke your proxy unless you vote again at the Annual Meeting or specifically request that your prior proxy be revoked by delivering, prior to the Annual Meeting, a written notice of revocation to the corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” on page 58. Will my shares be voted if I don’t sign a proxy? If you hold your shares directly in your own name, they will not be voted unless you provide a proxy or attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. Under certain conditions, shares that you own that are held by a broker or nominee may be voted even if you do not provide voting instructions to the broker or nominee. As discussed above under “— How do proxies work?”, brokerage firms have the authority under applicable rules to vote on certain “routine” matters, including the ratification of the appointment of auditors. What constitutes a quorum? In order to carry on the business of the Annual Meeting, we must have a quorum present. This means that the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares eligible to be cast must be represented at the Annual Meeting, either in person or by proxy. Any shares that we hold for our own benefit may not be voted and are not counted in the total number of outstanding shares eligible to be voted. Both abstentions and broker non-votes (described above) are counted as present for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum. On April 21, 2016, we had 98,498,077 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. How many votes are needed for approval? Election of Directors Election of the director nominees requires the affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes cast on the matter. The director candidates receiving the highest number of affirmative votes will be elected as directors. For purposes of the election of directors, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. Stockholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors. Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the matter is required to approve, on an advisory basis, our executive compensation. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will review the results of this matter and will take the results into account in making future determinations concerning executive compensation. For purposes of the advisory vote on executive compensation, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. 4 Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016 will be ratified if this proposal receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the matter. Brokers have the authority to vote on this proposal in the absence of contrary instructions from a beneficial owner. If this appointment is not ratified by our stockholders, the Audit Committee may reconsider its selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. With respect to this proposal, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. Who conducts the proxy solicitation? Our Board of Directors is soliciting the proxies, and we will bear all costs of this solicitation, including the preparation, assembly, printing and mailing of this Proxy Statement. Copies of proxy materials will be furnished to banks, brokerage houses and other agents and nominees holding shares in their names that are beneficially owned by others so that they may forward the proxy materials to those beneficial owners. In addition, if asked, we will reimburse these persons for their reasonable expenses in forwarding the proxy materials to the beneficial owners. We have requested banks, brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries to forward all proxy materials to the beneficial owners of the shares that they hold of record. Certain of our officers and employees also may solicit proxies on our behalf by mail, email, phone or fax or in person. What should I do if I want to attend in person? You will need an admission ticket to attend the Annual Meeting. Attendance at the Annual Meeting will be limited to stockholders of record at the close of business on April 21, 2016 (or their authorized representatives) having an admission ticket or proof of their share ownership, and guests of the Company. If you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, please indicate that you intend to do so when you are voting by telephone or Internet or follow the instructions on your proxy card, and we will promptly mail an admission ticket to you. If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other nominee and you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, you can obtain an admission ticket in advance by providing proof of your ownership, such as a bank or brokerage account statement, to the corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” on page 58. If you do not have an admission ticket, you must show proof of your ownership of the Company’s common stock at the registration table at the door. 5 PROPOSAL ONE — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS General At the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, our Board of Directors has nominated the director candidates named under “— Nominees for Election as Directors” below. Our Board of Directors oversees our management on your behalf. The Board of Directors reviews our long-term strategic plans and exercises direct decision-making authority on key issues, such as the approval of business combination transactions, the authorization of dividends, the selection of the Chief Executive Officer, setting the scope of his authority to manage our day-to-day operations and the evaluation of his performance. Our Board of Directors is not classified; thus, all of our directors are elected annually. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has recommended, and our Board of Directors has nominated, for re-election all 21 persons currently serving as directors whose terms are expiring at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. If elected, each of the persons nominated as a director will serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified. Personal information on each of our nominees is given below. Nominees for Election as Directors Charlotte Jones Anderson Age 49 Rhodes R. Bobbitt Age 70 Tracy A. Bolt Age 52 Ms. Anderson has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. She previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from September 2009 to November 2012. She currently serves as Executive Vice President and Chief Brand Officer for the Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., a National Football League team. She has worked in various capacities for the Dallas Cowboys organization since 1990. Since 2012, she has served as Chairman of the NFL Foundation and in 2014 she was appointed by the NFL commissioner to be a member of the NFL Personal Conduct Committee. Ms. Anderson is actively involved with a number of charitable and philanthropic organizations, including The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the Salvation Army, The Rise School, the Southwest Medical Foundation, the Dallas Symphony, The Dallas Center for Performing Arts Foundation, the Shelton School, TACA, and Make-a-Wish North Texas Foundation. Mr. Bobbitt has served as a director of Hilltop since November 2005. Mr. Bobbitt is retired. From 1987 until June 2004, he served as a Managing Director and the Regional Office Manager of the Private Client Service Group of Credit Suisse First Boston/Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. Mr. Bobbitt was formerly Vice President of Security Sales in the Dallas office of Goldman, Sachs & Company from 1969 until 1987. He also serves on the Board of Directors of First Acceptance Corporation, including the Nominating and Corporate Governance, Investment, and Audit Committees of that company. Mr. Bolt has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from September 2009 to November 2012. In 1994, Mr. Bolt co-founded Hartman Leito & Bolt, LLP, an accounting and consulting firm based in Fort Worth, Texas, where he served as a partner and a member of the firm’s leadership committees until its sale in June 2014. Mr. Bolt holds a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science from the University of North Texas, and he is a certified public accountant. He currently serves as a business advisor to numerous management teams, public and private company boards, not for profit organizations and trusts. 6 W. Joris Brinkerhoff Age 64 J. Taylor Crandall Age 62 Charles R. Cummings Age 79 Hill A. Feinberg Age 69 Mr. Brinkerhoff has served as a director of Hilltop since June 2005. Mr. Brinkerhoff founded a Native American-owned joint venture, Doyon Drilling Inc. J.V., in 1981 and served as its operations Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer until selling his venture interests in 1992. Doyon Drilling Inc. J.V. designed, built, leased and operated state of the art mobile drilling rigs for ARCO and British Petroleum in conjunction with their development of the North Slope Alaska petroleum fields. Mr. Brinkerhoff currently manages, on a full-time basis, family interests, including oil and gas production, a securities portfolio and various other business interests. He actively participates in numerous philanthropic organizations. Mr. Crandall was appointed as a director of Hilltop effective April 13, 2015. Mr. Crandall is a founding Managing Partner of Oak Hill Capital Management, LLC (“OHCM”) and has served OHCM (or its predecessors) since 1986. He has senior responsibility for originating, structuring and managing investments for OHCM’s Media and Telecom and Technology industry groups. Mr. Crandall has also served as Chief Operating Officer of Keystone, Inc., the primary investment vehicle for Robert M. Bass. Prior to joining OHCM, Mr. Crandall was a Vice President with the First National Bank of Boston. Mr. Crandall serves on the board of directors of Intermedia.net, Inc., Wave Division Holdings, LLC, Dave & Buster’s, Inc., Omada International, Pulsant Limited, Berlin Packaging LLC and Powdr Corporation. Mr. Crandall is the secretary-treasurer of the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Foundation, the trustee of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health and currently serves on the boards of trustees of The Park City Foundation and the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation. Mr. Cummings has served as a director of Hilltop since October 2005. Mr. Cummings currently serves as the Co-Manager of Acoustical Control LLC, a provider of noise abatement equipment primarily for the oil and gas industry; DQB Solutions, LLC, a service provider to the waste industry; and Argyle Equipment, LLC, a lessor of equipment to the waste industry. In addition, Mr. Cummings is the President and Chief Executive Officer of CB Resources LLC, an investor in the oil and natural gas industry, and Container Investments, LLC, a lessor of equipment to the waste industry, each of which positions he has held since 1999 and 1991, respectively. Until its sale in January 2014, he served as the Chairman of Aaren Scientific, Inc., a manufacturer of intraocular lenses used in cataract surgery. From 1998 through 2008, he was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Aaren Scientific, Inc. and its predecessors. In 1994, Mr. Cummings co-founded I.E.S.I. Corporation, a regional, non-hazardous waste management company, and serving as a director until its sale in 2005. Prior to that, he served as a Managing Director of AEA Investors, Inc., a private investment firm. Prior to 1979, he was a partner with Arthur Young & Company. Mr. Feinberg serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Securities, a continuation of Mr. Feinberg’s previous role with First Southwest since 1991. He has also served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from December 31, 2008 (in conjunction with PlainsCapital’s acquisition of First Southwest) to November 2012. Prior to joining First Southwest, Mr. Feinberg was a senior managing director at Bear Stearns & Co. Mr. Feinberg is a past chairman of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the self-regulatory organization with responsibility for authoring the rules that govern the municipal securities activities of registered brokers. Mr. Feinberg also is a member of the board of directors of Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited, a public company. Mr. Feinberg also formerly served as a member of the board of directors of Compass Bancshares, Inc. and Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc., as an advisory director of Hall Phoenix Energy, LLC and as the non-executive chairman of the board of directors of General Cryogenics, Inc. 7 Gerald J. Ford Age 71 Jeremy B. Ford Age 41 J. Markham Green Age 72 Mr. Gerald J. Ford has served as Chairman of the Board of Hilltop since August 2007, and has served as a director of Hilltop since June 2005. Mr. Gerald J. Ford served as interim Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop from January 1, 2010 until March 11, 2010. Mr. Gerald J. Ford is a banking and financial institutions entrepreneur who has been involved in numerous mergers and acquisitions of private and public sector financial institutions, primarily in the Southwestern United States, over the past 40 years. In that capacity, he acquired and consolidated 30 commercial banks from 1975 to 1993, forming First United Bank Group, Inc., a multi-bank holding company for which he functioned as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer until its sale in 1994. During this period, he also led investment consortiums that acquired numerous financial institutions, forming in succession, First Gibraltar Bank, FSB, First Madison Bank, FSB and First Nationwide Bank. Mr. Gerald J. Ford also served as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Golden State Bancorp Inc. and its subsidiary, California Federal Bank, FSB, from 1998 to 2002. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc. and as a director of Scientific Games Corporation and Mechanics Bank. Mr. Gerald J. Ford previously served as Chairman of Pacific Capital Bancorp and a director of First Acceptance Corporation, SWS Group, Inc. and McMoRan Exploration Co. Mr. Gerald J. Ford also currently serves on the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University, is the Co-Managing Partner of Ford Financial Fund II, L.P., a private equity fund. Hilltop’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy B. Ford, is the son of Mr. Gerald J. Ford, and Hilltop’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Corey G. Prestidge, is the son-in-law of Mr. Gerald J. Ford. Mr. Jeremy B. Ford has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hilltop since March 2010. Mr. Jeremy B. Ford has worked in the financial services industry for over 15 years, primarily focused on investments in, and acquisitions of, depository institutions and insurance and finance companies. He also is one of the individuals who provided services to Hilltop under the prior Management Services Agreement with Diamond A Administration Company, LLC. Accordingly, he was actively involved in numerous potential acquisitions for Hilltop prior to 2010, and the divestiture of the mobile home communities business in 2007. Mr. Jeremy B. Ford also is currently Chairman of the Board of First Acceptance Corporation. Prior to becoming President and Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop, he was a principal of Ford Financial Fund, L.P., a private equity fund. From 2004 to 2008, he worked for Diamond A-Ford Corporation, where he was involved in various investments made by a family limited partnership. Prior to that, he worked at Liberté Investors Inc. (now First Acceptance Corporation), California Federal Bank, FSB (now Citigroup Inc.), and Salomon Smith Barney (now Citigroup Inc.). Jeremy B. Ford is the son of Gerald J. Ford, Hilltop’s Chairman of the Board, and the brother-in-law of Corey G. Prestidge, Hilltop’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Mr. Green has served as a director of Hilltop since February 2004. Mr. Green is a private investor. From 2001 to 2003, he served as Vice Chairman of the Financial Institutions and Governments Group in investment banking at JP Morgan Chase. From 1993 until joining JP Morgan Chase, Mr. Green was involved in the start-up, and served on the boards, of eight companies, including Affordable Residential Communities Inc., the predecessor company to Hilltop. From 1973 to 1992, Mr. Green served in various capacities at Goldman, Sachs & Co. in investment banking. He was a general partner of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and co-head of its Financial Services Industry Group. Mr. Green is a member of the board of directors of MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership. Mr. Green previously served as Chairman of the Board of PowerOne Media LLC. 8 William T. Hill, Jr. Age 73 James R. Huffines Age 65 Lee Lewis Age 64 Andrew J. Littlefair Age 55 Mr. Hill has served as a director of Hilltop since April 2008. He currently has his own law firm. Prior to 2012, Mr. Hill was of counsel at Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith & Uhl, a criminal defense firm. Prior to that, Mr. Hill served as the Dallas District Attorney and the Chief Prosecuting Attorney of the Dallas District Attorney’s office. During his tenure at the District Attorney’s office, Mr. Hill restructured the office of 250 lawyers and 150 support personnel, including the computerization of the office in 1999. For more than four decades, Mr. Hill has been a strong community leader serving on a number of charitable boards and receiving numerous civic awards, including President of the SMU Mustang Board of Directors and Chairman of the Doak Walker Running Back Award for its first year. Mr. Hill currently serves on the board of directors of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Oncor Electric Delivery Holdings Company LLC and Baylor Hospital Foundation, and is actively involved in the Mercy Street Mission. Mercy Street is a Christian-based organization serving West Dallas children by placing mentors with the children. Mr. Huffines is the President and Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital, a position he has held since November 2010. He has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from May 2011 to November 2012. Prior to that, Mr. Huffines served as the Chairman of the Central and South Texas region and a director of PlainsCapital Bank, a position he held since joining PlainsCapital in 2001. Mr. Huffines holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance from the University of Texas. He served on the board of Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU Corp.), from 2007 until 2012. In addition, Mr. Huffines previously served as Chairman of the University of Texas System Board of Regents for over four and a half years. Mr. Huffines also participates in many community and business organizations, including serving as a board member of the Dallas Citizens Council, Board of Advisors of Dallas Chamber, the Board of Trustees of the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum Foundation, Vice Chair of the Texas Business Leadership Council, the Executive Committee of the Chancellor’s Council at the University of Texas System; and a member of the Texas Philosophical Society. Mr. Lewis has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from 1989 to November 2012. He founded in 1976, and currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of, Lee Lewis Construction, Inc., a construction firm based in Lubbock, Texas. Mr. Lewis is a member of the American General Contractors Association, West Texas Chapter, Chancellors Council for the Texas Tech University System, and Red Raider Club. Mr. Littlefair has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from September 2009 to November 2012. He is a co-founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a provider of compressed and liquefied natural gas in the United States and Canada that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, and has served as that company’s President, Chief Executive Officer and a director since 2001. From 1996 to 2001, Mr. Littlefair served as President of Pickens Fuel Corp., and from 1987 to 1996, he served in various management positions at Mesa, Inc., an energy company. From 1983 to 1987, Mr. Littlefair served in the Reagan Administration as a Staff Assistant to the President. He served as the Chairman of NGV America, the leading U.S. advocacy group for natural gas vehicles, from March 1993 to March 2011. Mr. Littlefair served on the board of directors of Westport Innovations Inc., a Canadian company publicly traded on the NASDAQ Global Market from 2007 to June 2010. 9 W. Robert Nichols, III Age 71 C. Clifton Robinson Age 78 Kenneth D. Russell Age 67 Mr. Nichols has served as a director of Hilltop since April 2008. Mr. Nichols has been a leader in the construction machinery business since 1966. He was the president of Conley Lott Nichols, a dealer for several manufacturers of construction machinery, until its sale in 2012. In 2013, he purchased an oilfield services company in Midland, Texas, for which he serves as Chairman and President. He has served on numerous bank and bank holding company boards, including United New Mexico Bancorp and Ford Bank Group. Mr. Nichols is active in civic and charitable activities, serving as an active director at M.D. Anderson Hospital, The Nature Conservancy of Texas and Mercy Street. Mr. Robinson has served as a director of Hilltop since March 2007. From 2000 until its acquisition by a subsidiary of Hilltop in January 2007, Mr. Robinson was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of NLASCO, Inc., an insurance holding company domiciled in Texas. Until December 2012, Mr. Robinson served as Chairman of the Board of NLASCO, Inc. In 2000, Mr. Robinson formed NLASCO, Inc. in conjunction with the acquisition of American Summit Insurance Company and the reacquisition of National Lloyds Insurance Company, which he had initially acquired in 1964 and later sold. In 1979, he organized National Group Corporation for the purpose of purchasing insurance companies and related businesses. In 1964, he became the President and Chief Executive Officer of National Lloyds Insurance Company in Waco, Texas, one of the two current insurance subsidiaries of NLC (formerly known as NLASCO, Inc.). From 1964 to the present, Mr. Robinson has participated in the formation, acquisition and management of numerous insurance business enterprises. Mr. Robinson established the Robinson- Lanham Insurance Agency in 1961. He previously has held positions with various insurance industry associations, including Vice-Chairman of the Board of Texas Life and Health Guaranty Association, President of the Independent Insurance Agents of Waco- McLennan County and member of the board of directors of the Texas Life Insurance Association and the Texas Medical Liability Insurance Underwriting Association. Mr. Robinson currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Scottish Rite Hospital for Children in Dallas, Texas and the Baylor University Board of Regents. Mr. Russell has served as a director of Hilltop since August 2010. Mr. Russell is a former member of the managing board of directors for KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft (KPMG DTG). While a member of KPMG DTG, Mr. Russell served in leadership of Audit—Financial Services. Subsequent to his service as a member of the German firm leadership, he functioned as a freelance strategic advisory to KPMG DTG’s managing board of directors, working directly with members of its executive committee. Prior to joining KPMG DTG, Mr. Russell was the lead financial services partner in the US KPMG LLP’s Department of Professional Practice in New York. His responsibilities in the Department of Profession Practice included leading the financial instruments, structured financing and securitization topic teams, and he was one of KPMG’s leading consultants on financial instruments, hedging and securitization accounting issues. Prior to joining the Department of Professional Practice at KPMG in 1993, Mr. Russell spent 20 years in KPMG’s Dallas office and had engagement responsibilities for several significant regional banking, thrift and other financial services clients. He currently serves as Chief Executive Officer of Mechanics Bank and a Financial Advisor with Diamond A Administration Company, LLC, an affiliate of Gerald J. Ford. He also serves as a director of First Acceptance Corporation and Mechanics Bank. 10 A. Haag Sherman Age 50 Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Age 68 Carl B. Webb Age 66 Mr. Sherman has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from September 2009 to November 2012. Mr. Sherman is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Tectonic Advisors LLC a registered investment advisor, and is a private investor and co-owner of an energy services company. Prior thereto, Mr. Sherman co-founded and served in various executive positions (including Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer) of Salient Partners, LP, a Houston-based investment firm. In addition, he previously served as an executive officer and partner of The Redstone Companies where he, among other things, managed a private equity portfolio. He previously served as a director of Miller Energy Resources and ZaZa Energy Corp. Mr. Sherman has served as an adjunct professor of law at The University of Texas School of Law. Mr. Sherman previously practiced corporate law at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP and was an auditor at Price Waterhouse, a public accounting firm. Mr. Sherman is an attorney and certified public accountant. Mr. Taylor has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from 1997 to November 2012. He has been engaged in the wholesale distribution business in Lubbock, Texas since 1971. In February 2009, Mr. Taylor was appointed to serve as Chief Executive Officer for United Supermarkets, LLC, a retail grocery business in Texas since 1915 and has served as its President since its acquisition by Albertsons LLC. He also serves on the board of directors of United Supermarkets, LLC. Prior to that appointment, Mr. Taylor served as the Vice President of Manufacturing and Supply Chain for United Supermarkets since 2007. From 2002 to 2007, Mr. Taylor was the President of R.C. Taylor Distributing, Inc., a business engaged in the distribution of general merchandise, candy and tobacco to retail outlets in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico. He is chairman of the Lubbock Downtown Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Committee and serves on the Texas Tech Chancellors Advisory Board. Mr. Webb has served as a director of Hilltop since June 2005. From August 2010 until December 2012, Mr. Webb served as the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Capital Bancorp and as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, N.A. He was a Senior Principal of Ford Financial Fund, L.P., a private equity fund that was the parent company of SB Acquisition Company LLC, the majority stockholder of Pacific Capital Bancorp prior to its sale to UnionBanCal Corporation. Mr. Webb also is the Co-Managing Partner of Ford Financial Fund II, L.P., a private equity fund. In addition, Mr. Webb has served as a consultant to Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd., a private investment partnership, since November 2002. He served as the Co-Chairman of Triad Financial Corporation, a privately held financial services company, from July 2007 to October 2009, as was the interim President and Chief Executive Officer from August 2005 to June 2007. Previously, Mr. Webb was the President and Chief Operating Officer and a Director of Golden State Bancorp Inc. and its subsidiary, California Federal Bank, FSB, from September 1994 to November 2002. Prior to his affiliation with California Federal Bank, FSB, Mr. Webb was the President and Chief Executive Officer of First Madison Bank, FSB (1993 to 1994) and First Gibraltar Bank, FSB (1988 to 1993), as well as President and a Director of First National Bank at Lubbock (1983 to 1988). Mr. Webb also is the Chairman of Mechanics Bank and a director of Prologis, Inc. He is a former director of Pacific Capital Bancorp, M&F Worldwide Corp. and Plum Creek Timber Company. 11 Alan B. White Age 67 Mr. White is one of PlainsCapital’s founders. He has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital since 1987. He has served as a director of Hilltop since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012 and is the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Chairman of Hilltop’s Executive Committee. Mr. White’s current charitable and civic service includes serving as a member of the Cotton Bowl Athletic Association Board of Directors, the MD Anderson Cancer Center Living Legend Committee and the Dallas Citizens Council. He was also the founding chairman of the Texas Tech School of Business Chief Executive’s Roundtable; the former Chairman of the Texas Tech Board of Regents, the Covenant Health System Board of Trustees, and the Methodist Hospital System Board of Trustees; and a member of the Texas Tech University President’s Council and the Texas Hospital Association Board. Director Independence Our Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that 12 of the 21 nominees for election as directors at the Annual Meeting have no material relationship with us (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with us) and are independent within the meaning of the director independence requirements of the listing standards of the NYSE. The independent directors are Charlotte Jones Anderson, Rhodes Bobbitt, Tracy A. Bolt, W. Joris Brinkerhoff, J. Taylor Crandall, Charles R. Cummings, J. Markham Green, William T. Hill, Jr., Andrew J. Littlefair, W. Robert Nichols, III, A. Haag Sherman and Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Jess T. Hay, who served on our Board of Directors until his death in April 2015, was affirmatively determined to be independent. The determinations regarding the independence of these individuals were based upon information known by the members of the Board of Directors concerning each other and supplied by each of the directors for the purpose of this determination. In conducting its annual review of director independence, the Board of Directors considered transactions and relationships between each director or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company. The Board of Directors considered that two directors it determined to be independent —Messrs. Bolt and Taylor — have, or a member of their respective immediate families or an affiliated company in which they are employed or in which they are a principal equity holder has, received loans from the Bank in the ordinary course of business, in each case which our Board of Directors did not view as compensation. In our management’s opinion, these loans were made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions by the Bank with other unaffiliated persons and do not involve more than normal risk of collectability. In addition, the Board of Directors considered transactions between the Bank and Clean Energy Finance, Inc., a subsidiary of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a company for which Andrew J. Littlefair serves as a director and president and chief executive officer. Mr. Littlefair also beneficially owned 1.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. at April 4, 2016. From late 2011 through March 31, 2016, the Bank purchased, in a series of transactions, an aggregate of approximately $16.4 million in original principal amount of promissory notes issued by unaffiliated third parties from Clean Energy Finance, Inc. Although purchased at a premium to the outstanding principal balance on the notes, at the time of purchase, the interest rates on the notes exceeded the market rates charged by the Bank on similar-type loans that it originated. Clean Energy Finance, Inc. performs the servicing on the notes at no cost to the Bank, and the Bank purchased these notes with recourse to Clean Energy Finance, Inc. in the event of default. The aggregate yearly payments of the purchase prices in these transactions constituted less than 2% of the consolidated gross revenues of each of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. and the Company in the applicable year purchased and were made in the ordinary course of business in arms-length transactions. Mr. Littlefair did not have a direct financial interest in any of the transactions with Clean Energy Finance, Inc. Meeting Attendance Our Board of Directors met four times during 2015. No director attended fewer than 75% of the meetings of the Board of Directors and of the board committees on which he or she served during 2015. Our Board of Directors has not adopted a formal policy with regard to director attendance at the annual meetings of stockholders. We, however, encourage members of the Board of Directors to attend annual meetings. Messrs. Gerald J. Ford, Jeremy B. Ford, Alan B. White, James R. Huffines, Hill A. Feinberg and Robert Nichols attended the 2015 annual meeting of stockholders. 12 Vote Necessary to Elect Directors Election of the director nominees requires the affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes cast on the matter. The director candidates receiving the highest number of affirmative votes will be elected as directors. For purposes of the election of directors, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. Under applicable NYSE rules, a broker or other nominee does not possess the authority to vote for the director nominees in the absence of instructions from the beneficial owner of the relevant shares. Stockholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE NOMINEES IDENTIFIED ABOVE. Director Compensation General Members of our Board of Directors who also are full-time employees do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board of Directors or any committee of the Board of Directors. The Chairman of the Board of Directors receives an annual retainer of $200,000, plus a participation fee for attendance at each meeting as described below. All other directors receive the following compensation for their service on the Board of Directors: (cid:120) (cid:120) $40,000 annual retainer; and $2,000 fee for participation in each meeting of the Board of Directors at which attendance in person is requested (one-half of that fee is paid for participation in any meeting at which attendance is requested by telephone). In addition, members of board committees receive the following additional compensation: (cid:120) Audit Committee — $65,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; (cid:120) Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee — $10,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; (cid:120) Compensation Committee — $10,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; (cid:120) Investment Committee — $25,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; (cid:120) Risk Committee — $10,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; (cid:120) Merger and Acquisition Committee — $10,000 annual fee for the chairperson of the committee; and (cid:120) $1,000 fee for participation in each meeting of a board committee. Members of our Board of Directors may elect to receive their aggregate Board of Directors and board committee compensation: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) entirely in the form of cash; entirely in the form of common stock; or one-half in cash and one-half in common stock. Any elections, or changes in elections, by directors regarding the form of compensation to be received may only occur during a “trading window” and only become effective at the “trading window” immediately following such election or change in election. Cash and shares of common stock are paid and issued, respectively, in arrears on a calendar quarterly basis, with no vesting requirements. Customarily, these payments and issuances occur by the 15th day of the month following the applicable calendar quarter-end. The value of the common stock awarded is based upon the 13 average closing price per share of our common stock for the last ten consecutive trading days of the applicable calendar quarter. In lieu of fractional shares of common stock that would otherwise be issuable to directors, we pay cash to the director based upon the value of those fractional shares at the value the shares are awarded to the director. If a director does not serve for the entire calendar quarter, that director is compensated based upon the time of service during the applicable calendar quarter. Each member of our Board of Directors is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses associated with his service on, and attendance at, Board of Directors or board committee meetings. Other than as described above, members of our Board of Directors receive no additional compensation for their service on the Board of Directors or board committees. Political Action Committee Matching Program The NLASCO Political Action Committee, or the PAC, is a separate segregated fund that was formed to make political contributions. To encourage participation in the PAC by eligible participants, for each contribution made to the PAC by an eligible individual contributor, NLC makes a matching contribution to any Section 501(c)(3) organization of the contributor’s choice, dollar for dollar, up to the maximum amount an eligible individual can contribute to the PAC in a given calendar year. Under this program, no contributor to the PAC receives any financial, tax or other tangible benefit or premium from either the recipient charities or us. This program is completely voluntary. 2015 Director Compensation Director Compensation Table for 2015(a) Name Charlotte Jones Anderson Rhodes R. Bobbitt Tracy A. Bolt W. Joris Brinkerhoff J. Taylor Crandall Charles R. Cummings Hill A. Feinberg Gerald J. Ford Jeremy B. Ford J. Markham Green Jess T. Hay (b) William T. Hill, Jr. James R. Huffines Lee Lewis Andrew J. Littlefair W. Robert Nichols, III C. Clifton Robinson Kenneth D. Russell A. Haag Sherman Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Carl B. Webb Alan B. White Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) 26,533 84,000 48 53,000 27,500 122,000 — 57 — 66,000 25,000 58,000 — 53,000 26,533 63,000 48,000 60,000 68,000 26,533 59 — Stock Awards ($) 26,467 — 63,952 — — — — 147,943 — — — — — — 26,467 — — — — 26,467 47,941 — Total ($) 53,000 84,000 64,000 53,000 27,500 122,000 — 148,000 — 66,000 25,000 58,000 — 53,000 53,000 63,000 48,000 60,000 68,000 53,000 48,000 — (a) Fees earned for services performed in 2015 include annual retainers, meeting fees and chairperson remuneration. Aggregate fees paid to non-employee directors for annual retainers and committee chairmanships were paid quarterly in arrears. Cash was paid in lieu of the issuance of fractional shares. Service for any partial quarter is calculated and paid on the basis of time served during the applicable calendar quarter. Non-employee directors are solely responsible for the payment of taxes payable on remuneration paid by the Company. The number of shares awarded was determined based upon the average closing price per share of our common stock for the last ten consecutive trading days of the calendar quarter during which the stock was earned; however, the dollar value reported in the table for each stock award was determined in accordance with the provisions of the Stock Compensation Topic of the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”). (b) Mr. Hay passed away on April 13, 2015. 14 As described above, the 2015 stock awards were issued to each non-employee director who elected to receive all or part of his or her director compensation in the form of our common stock, generally within 15 days following each applicable calendar quarter-end. All of our personnel, as well as non-employee directors, are subject to trading restrictions with regard to our common stock, and trading may only occur during a “trading window.” Provided that any such party does not possess material, non-public information about us, this trading period commences on the next trading day following two trading days after the public release of quarterly or annual financial information and continues until the close of business on last day of the month preceding the last month of the next fiscal quarter. The following numbers of shares of our common stock were issued to our directors for services performed during 2015: Name Charlotte Jones Anderson Tracy A. Bolt Gerald J. Ford Andrew J. Littlefair Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Carl B. Webb Number of Shares 1,281 3,084 7,357 1,281 1,281 2,318 Each of the following directors had outstanding the following aggregate numbers of shares of our common stock awarded for services performed on behalf of us from election or appointment through the end of fiscal 2015: Name Charlotte Jones Anderson Rhodes R. Bobbitt Tracy A. Bolt W. Joris Brinkerhoff Charles R. Cummings Gerald J. Ford J. Markham Green Andrew J. Littlefair Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Carl B. Webb Number of Shares 4,311 1,562 10,163 9,943 5,379 10,250 3,872 4,264 4,290 39,796 For further information about the stockholdings of these directors and our management, see “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” commencing on page 23 of this Proxy Statement. Board Committees General The Board of Directors appoints committees to assist it in carrying out its duties. In particular, committees work on key issues in greater detail than would be practical at a meeting of all the members of the Board of Directors. Each committee reviews the results of its deliberations with the full Board of Directors. The standing committees of the Board of Directors currently consist of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Risk Committee, the Investment Committee, the Merger and Acquisition Committee, and the Executive Committee. A more detailed description of these committees is set forth below. Our Board of Directors may, from time to time, establish certain other committees to facilitate our management. Current copies of the charters for each of the foregoing committees, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, or the General Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, and Code of Ethics for Chief Executive and Senior Financial Officers, or the Senior Officer Code of Ethics, may be found on our website at ir.hilltop-holdings.com, under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Information — Governance 15 Documents.” Printed versions also are available to any stockholder who requests them by writing to our corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” on page 58. Committee Membership The following table shows the current membership of, and the 2015 fiscal year meeting information for, each of the committees of the Board of Directors. Audit Compensation Nominating and Corporate Risk Committee Committee Governance Committee (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 8 (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 5 (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 4 Name Charlotte Jones Anderson* Rhodes Bobbit* Tracy A. Bolt* W. Joris Brinkerhoff* J. Taylor Crandall* Charles R. Cummings* Hill A. Feinberg Gerald J. Ford Jeremy B. Ford J. Markham Green* William T. Hill, Jr.* James Huffines Lee Lewis Andrew J. Littlefair* W. Robert Nichols, III* C. Clifton Robinson Kenneth D. Russell A. Haag Sherman* Robert C. Taylor, Jr.* Carl B. Webb Alan B. White Meetings in Fiscal 2015 * Denotes independent director. Audit Committee Merger and Investment Executive Committee Committee Acquisition Committee Committee (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 5 7 (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman 9 (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) Chairman (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:98)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 0 We have a standing Audit Committee established within the meaning of Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee helps our Board of Directors ensure the integrity of our financial statements, the qualifications and independence of our independent registered public accounting firm and the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm. In furtherance of those matters, the Audit Committee assists in the establishment and maintenance of our internal audit controls, selects, meets with and assists the independent registered public accounting firm, oversees each annual audit and quarterly review and prepares the report that federal securities laws require be included in our annual proxy statement, which appears on page 56. Mr. Cummings has been designated as Chairman, and Messrs. Green and Bolt are members, of the Audit Committee. Our Board of Directors has reviewed the education, experience and other qualifications of each member of the Audit Committee. Based upon that review, our Board of Directors has determined that each of Mr. Cummings and Mr. Bolt qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined by the rules of the SEC, and each member of the Audit Committee is independent in accordance with the listing standards of the NYSE. Currently, none of our Audit Committee members serve on the audit committees of three or more public companies. Compensation Committee The Compensation Committee reviews and approves the compensation and benefits of our executive officers, administers the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Annual Incentive Plan, or the Annual Incentive Plan, the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, and the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, and produces the annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in our annual proxy statement, which appears on page 40. Each member is independent in accordance with the listing standards of the NYSE. 16 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s purpose is as follows: (cid:120) Identify, screen and recommend to our Board of Directors individuals qualified to serve as members, and on committees, of the Board of Directors; (cid:120) Advise our Board of Directors with respect to the composition, procedures and committees of the Board of Directors; (cid:120) Advise our Board of Directors with respect to the corporate governance principles applicable to the Company; and (cid:120) Oversee the evaluation of the Board of Directors and our management. Each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is independent in accordance with the listing standards of the NYSE. Risk Committee The purpose of the Risk Committee is to provide assistance to the Board of Directors in its oversight of: (cid:120) The Company’s risk governance structure; (cid:120) The Company’s risk tolerance; (cid:120) The Company’s risk management and risk assessment guidelines and policies regarding market, credit, operation, liquidity, funding, reputational, regulatory, and such other risks as necessary; (cid:120) The Company’s capital and liquidity and funding; and (cid:120) The performance of the Company’s Chief Risk Officer. The duties assigned to the Risk Committee are meant to ensure that there is an effective system reasonably designed to evaluate and control risk throughout the Company. Investment Committee The Investment Committee is responsible for, among other things, reviewing investment policies, strategies and programs; reviewing the procedures that we utilize in determining that funds are invested in accordance with policies and limits approved by the Investment Committee; and reviewing the quality and performance of our investment portfolios and the alignment of asset duration to liabilities. Merger and Acquisition Committee The purpose of the Merger and Acquisition Committee is to review potential mergers, acquisitions or dispositions of material assets or a material portion of any business proposed by management and to report its findings and conclusions to the Board of Directors. Each member of the Merger and Acquisition Committee is independent in accordance with the listing standards of the NYSE. Executive Committee The Executive Committee, with certain exceptions, has the power and authority of the Board of Directors to manage the affairs of the Company between meetings of the Board of Directors. 17 Corporate Governance General We are committed to good corporate governance practices and, as such, we have adopted formal corporate governance guidelines to maintain our effectiveness. The guidelines govern, among other things, board member qualifications, responsibilities, education, management succession and executive sessions. A copy of the corporate governance guidelines may be found at our corporate website at ir.hilltop-holdings.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Information — Governance Documents.” A copy also may be obtained upon request from our corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” on page 58. Board Leadership Structure We have separated the offices of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board as a means of separating management of the Company from our Board of Director’s oversight of management. Separating these roles also enables an orderly leadership transition when necessary. We believe, at this time, that this structure provides desirable oversight of our management and affairs. We have in the past appointed, and will continue to appoint, lead independent directors as circumstances require. Risk Oversight Our Board of Directors and the Risk Committee of the Board of Directors oversee an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, intended to support the achievement of organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, to improve long-term organizational performance and enhance stockholder value. Our Board of Directors and the Risk Committee are actively involved in establishing and refining our business strategy, including assessing management’s appetite for risk and determining the appropriate level of overall risk for the Company. The Company conducts continual assessments through the Chief Risk Officer who is overseen by the Risk Committee. While the Board of Directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, various committees of the Board of Directors outside of the Risk Committee also have responsibility for risk management. In particular, the Audit Committee focuses on financial risk, including internal controls, and, from time to time, discusses and evaluates matters of risk, risk assessment and risk management with our management team. The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing the management of risk associated with our compensation policies and arrangements. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ensures that the internal rule processes by which we are governed are consistent with prevailing governance practices and applicable laws and regulations. Finally, the Investment Committee ensures that our funds are invested in accordance with policies and limits approved by it. Our Senior Officer Code of Ethics, General Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, committee charters and other governance documents are reviewed by the appropriate committees annually to confirm continued compliance, ensure that the totality of our risk management processes and procedures is appropriately comprehensive and effective and that those processes and procedures reflect established best practices. Board Performance Our Board of Directors conducts a survey of its members regarding its performance and reviews the results of the survey with a view to improving efficacy and effectiveness of the Board of Directors. In addition, the full Board of Directors reviews annually the qualifications and effectiveness of the Audit Committee and its members. Director Qualifications for Service As described below, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers a variety of factors when evaluating a potential candidate to fill a vacancy on the Board of Directors or when nomination of an incumbent director for re-election is under consideration. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board of Directors strive to balance a diverse mix of experience, perspective, skill and background with the practical requirement that the Board of Directors will operate collegially, with the common purpose of overseeing our business on behalf of our stockholders. All of our directors possess relevant experience, and each of them approaches the business of the Board of 18 Directors and their responsibilities with great seriousness of purpose. The following describes, with respect to each director, his or her particular experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that qualify him or her to serve as a director: Charlotte Jones Anderson Ms. Anderson has significant managerial and executive officer experience with large entrepreneurial businesses and provides the Board of Directors the perspective of one of PlainsCapital’s significant customers. Rhodes Bobbitt Tracy A. Bolt W. Joris Brinkerhoff J. Taylor Crandall Mr. Bobbitt has an extensive investment background. This is particularly important given our available cash on hand and the investment portfolios at our subsidiaries. Mr. Bolt has significant experience concerning accounting matters that is essential to our Audit Committee’s and Board of Directors’ oversight responsibilities. Mr. Brinkerhoff has participated, and continues to participate, in a number of business interests. Accordingly, he brings knowledge and additional perspectives to our Board of Directors from experiences with those interests. Mr. Crandall has significant experience in finance and management and board governance, including his experience serving on the Boards of Directors of several public and private companies. Charles R. Cummings Mr. Cummings has an extensive operational and accounting background. His expertise in these matters brings considerable strength to our Audit Committee and Board of Directors in these areas. Hill A. Feinberg Gerald J. Ford Jeremy B. Ford J. Markham Green William T. Hill, Jr. Mr. Feinberg has extensive knowledge and experience concerning the broker-dealer segment and the industry in which it operates through his extended period of service to First Southwest and Hilltop Securities. Mr. Gerald J. Ford has been a financial institutions entrepreneur and private investor involved in numerous mergers and acquisitions of private and public sector financial institutions over the past 40 years. His extensive banking industry experience and educational background provide him with significant knowledge in dealing with financial and regulatory matters, making him a valuable member of our Board of Directors. In addition, his service on the boards of directors and audit and corporate governance committees of a variety of public companies gives him a deep understanding of the role of the Board of Directors. Mr. Jeremy B. Ford’s career has focused on mergers and acquisitions in the financial services industry. Accordingly, he has been actively involved in numerous acquisitions, including our acquisitions of NLC, PlainsCapital, substantially all of the assets of FNB, and SWS. His extensive knowledge of our operations makes him a valuable member of our Board of Directors. Mr. Green has an extensive background in financial services, as well as board service. His investment banking background also provides our Board of Directors with expertise surrounding acquisitions and investments. Mr. Hill’s experience with legal and compliance matters, along with his management of a large group of highly skilled professionals, have given him considerable knowledge concerning many matters that come before our Board of Directors. Mr. Hill has also served on several civic and charitable boards, which has given him invaluable experience in corporate governance matters. James R. Huffines Mr. Huffines’ significant banking and managerial experience provide unique insights and experience to our Board of Directors. 19 Lee Lewis Through his service on our Board of Directors and PlainsCapital’s Board of Directors, Mr. Lewis has many years of knowledge of PlainsCapital and the challenges and opportunities that it is presented. The background of Mr. Lewis as an owner and chief executive officer of a Texas-based company also provides unique insight to the Board of Directors. Andrew J. Littlefair Mr. Littlefair has significant experience serving as a chief executive officer and as a director of publicly traded companies and provides the Board of Directors with the perspective of one of PlainsCapital’s significant customers. W. Robert Nichols III Mr. Nichols has broad experience in managing and leading enterprises. This significant experience provides our Board of Directors with additional perspectives on our operations. C. Clifton Robinson Mr. Robinson possesses particular knowledge and experience in the insurance industry, as we purchased NLC from him in 2007. Mr. Robinson provides our Board of Directors with expertise in regards to our insurance operations. Kenneth D. Russell Mr. Russell’s extensive background in accounting and operating entities provides valuable insight to our Board of Directors, including merger and acquisition activities. A. Haag Sherman Mr. Sherman has significant experience concerning investing, legal and accounting matters that is essential to our Board of Director’s oversight responsibilities. Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Through his service on our Board of Directors and PlainsCapital’s Board of Directors, Mr. Taylor has many years of knowledge of PlainsCapital and the challenges and opportunities that it is presented. The background of Mr. Taylor as a manager of a Texas- based company also provides unique insight to the Board of Directors. Carl B. Webb Alan B. White Mr. Webb possesses particular knowledge and experience in strategic planning and the financial industry, as well as expertise in finance, that strengthen the Board of Directors’ collective qualifications, skills and experience. Mr. White possesses knowledge of our business and industry through his lengthy tenure as PlainsCapital’s Chief Executive Officer that aids him in efficiently and effectively identifying and executing our strategic priorities. Executive Board Sessions The current practice of our Board of Directors is to hold an executive session of its non-management directors at least once per quarter. The individual who serves as the chair at these executive sessions is the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Executive sessions of the independent directors of the Board of Directors also are held at least once per fiscal year, and the independent directors select the independent director to preside over each executive session. Communications with Directors Our Board of Directors has established a process to receive communications from stockholders and other interested parties. Stockholders and other interested parties may contact any member or all members of the Board of Directors by mail. To communicate with our Board of Directors, any individual director or any group or committee of directors, correspondence should be addressed to the Board of Directors or any such individual director or group or committee of directors by either name or title. The correspondence should be sent to Hilltop Holdings Inc., c/o Secretary, 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330, Dallas, Texas 75201. All communications received as set forth in the preceding paragraph will be opened by the office of our General Counsel for the sole purpose of determining whether the contents represent a message to our directors. Any contents that are not in the nature of advertising, promotions of a product or service or patently offensive material will be forwarded 20 promptly to the addressee(s). In the case of communications to the Board of Directors or any group or committee of directors, the General Counsel’s office will make sufficient copies of the contents to send to each director who is a member of the group or committee to whom the communication is addressed. If the amount of correspondence received through the foregoing process becomes excessive, our Board of Directors may consider approving a process for review, organization and screening of the correspondence by the corporate Secretary or other appropriate person. Code of Business Conduct and Ethics We have adopted a Senior Officer Code of Ethics applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer. We also have adopted a General Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable to all officers, directors and employees. Both codes are available on our website at ir.hilltop-holdings.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Information — Governance Documents.” Copies also may be obtained upon request by writing our corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” on page 58. We intend to disclose any amendments to, or waivers from, our Senior Officer Code of Ethics and our General Code of Ethics and Business Conduct at the same website address provided above. Director Nomination Procedures The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee believes that, at a minimum, candidates for membership on the Board of Directors should have a demonstrated ability to make a meaningful contribution to the Board of Directors’ oversight of our business and affairs and have a record and reputation for honest and ethical conduct. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends director nominees to the Board of Directors based on, among other things, its evaluation of a candidate’s experience, knowledge, skills, expertise, integrity, ability to make independent analytical inquiries, understanding of our business environment and a willingness to devote adequate time and effort to board responsibilities. In making its recommendations to the Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also seeks to have the Board of Directors nominate candidates who have diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise so that each member can offer a unique and valuable perspective. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee expects, in the future, to identify potential nominees by asking current directors and executive officers to notify the committee if they become aware of persons who meet the criteria described above. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also, from time to time, may engage firms, at our expense, that specialize in identifying director candidates. As described below, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also will consider candidates recommended by stockholders. Once a person has been identified by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as a potential candidate, the committee expects to collect and review publicly available information regarding the person to assess whether the person should be considered further. If the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee determines that the candidate warrants further consideration, and if the person expresses a willingness to be considered and to serve on the Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee expects to request information from the candidate, review the person’s accomplishments and qualifications, including in light of any other candidates that the committee might be considering, and conduct one or more interviews with the candidate. In certain instances, members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may contact one or more references provided by the candidate or may contact other members of the business community or other persons that may have greater first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s accomplishments. In addition to formally nominating individuals for election as directors in accordance with our Second Amended and Restated Bylaws, as summarized below on page 58 under “Stockholder Proposals for 2017,” stockholders may send written recommendations of potential director candidates to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for its consideration. Such recommendations should be submitted to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee “c/o Secretary” at Hilltop Holdings Inc., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330, Dallas, Texas 75201. Director recommendations submitted by stockholders should include the following information regarding the stockholder making the recommendation and the individual(s) recommended for nomination: (cid:120) name, age, business address and residence address; 21 (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) the class, series and number of any shares of Hilltop stock or other securities of Hilltop or any affiliate of Hilltop owned, beneficially or of record (including the name of the nominee holder if beneficially owned); the date(s) that shares of Hilltop stock or other securities of Hilltop or any affiliate of Hilltop were acquired and the investment intent of such acquisition; any short interest (including any opportunity to profit or share in any benefit from any decrease in the price of such stock or other security) in any securities of Hilltop or any affiliate of Hilltop; (cid:120) whether and the extent to which such person, directly or indirectly (through brokers, nominees or otherwise), is subject to or during the prior six months has engaged in, any hedging, derivative or other transaction or series of transactions or entered into any other agreement, arrangement or understanding (including any short interest, any borrowing or lending of securities or any proxy or voting agreement), the effect or intent of which is to (a) manage risk or benefit of changes in the price of Hilltop securities or any security of any entity listed in the peer group in the stock performance graph included in the materials distributed with this Proxy Statement or (b) increase or decrease the voting power of such person in Hilltop disproportionately to such person’s economic interest in Hilltop securities (or, as applicable, any security of any entity listed in the peer group in the stock performance graph included in the materials distributed with this Proxy Statement); (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) any substantial interest, direct or indirect (including, without limitation, any existing or prospective commercial, business or contractual relationship with us), by security holdings or otherwise of such person in us or in any of our affiliates, other than an interest arising from the ownership of securities where such person receives no extra or special benefit not shared on a pro rata basis by all other holders of the same class or series; the investment strategy or objective, if any, of the stockholder making the recommendation and a copy of the prospectus, offering memorandum or similar document, if any, provided to investors, or potential investors, in such stockholder (if not an individual); to the extent known by the stockholder making the recommendation, the name and address of any other stockholder supporting the nominee for election or reelection as a director; a certificate executed by the proposed nominee that certifies that the proposed nominee is not, and will not, become a party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding with any person or entity other than us in connection with service or action as a director that has not been disclosed to us and that the proposed nominee consents to being named in a proxy statement and will serve as a director if elected; completed proposed nominee questionnaire (which will be provided upon request by writing or telephoning our corporate Secretary at the address or phone number listed under “Questions” on page 58); and all other information that would be required to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of directors in an election contest, or is otherwise required, in each case pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. The stockholder recommendation and information described above must be delivered to the corporate Secretary not earlier than the 120th day and not later than 5:00 p.m., Dallas, Texas local time, on the 90th day prior to the first anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting of stockholders; provided, however, that if the date of the annual meeting is advanced more than 30 days prior to, or delayed by more than 30 days after, the first anniversary of the date of the preceding year’s annual meeting, the stockholder recommendation and information must be delivered not earlier than the 120th day prior to the date of such annual meeting and not later than 5:00 p.m., Dallas, Texas local time, on the later of the 90th day prior to the date of such annual meeting of stockholders and the 10th day following the date on which public announcement of the date of such annual meeting is first made. In the event, however, the number of directors to be elected to the Board of Directors is increased and there is no public announcement of such action at least 100 days prior to the first anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting, a stockholder recommendation also will be considered timely, but only with respect to nominees for any new positions created by the increase, if it is delivered to the corporate Secretary not later than 5:00 p.m., Dallas, Texas local time, on the 10th day following the day on which the public announcement is first made. 22 The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee expects to use a similar process to evaluate candidates to the Board of Directors recommended by stockholders as the one it uses to evaluate candidates otherwise identified by the committee. No fee was paid to any third party or parties to identify or evaluate, or assist in identifying or evaluating, potential nominees. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee did not receive the name of any stockholder recommendations for director nominees with respect to the Annual Meeting. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT Principal Stockholders The following table sets forth information regarding our common stock beneficially owned on April 21, 2016 by any person or “group,” as that term is used in Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, known to us to beneficially own more than five percent of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Name and Address of Beneficial Owner Gerald J. Ford (b) 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1350 Dallas, Texas 75201 Wellington Management Group LLP (c) c/o Wellington Management Company LLP 280 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02210 The Vanguard Group Inc. (d) 100 Vanguard Boulevard Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 Amount and Nature of Percent of Class (a) Beneficial Ownership 15,560,490 15.8 % 5,509,936 5.6 % 5,411,570 5.5 % (a) Based on 98,498,077 shares of common stock outstanding on April 21, 2016. Shares issuable under instruments to purchase our common stock that are exercisable within 60 days of April 21, 2016 are treated as if outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of the person holding these instruments, but are not treated as outstanding for purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. (b) The shares of common stock beneficially owned by Mr. Gerald J. Ford include 7,950 shares that are owned by Turtle Creek Revocable Trust, a revocable trust for the benefit of the members of Mr. Gerald J. Ford’s family, and indirectly by Mr. Gerald J. Ford as settlor of the trust. Mr. Gerald J. Ford disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by the trust except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 15,544,674 shares owned by Diamond A Financial, LP. Mr. Gerald J. Ford is the sole general partner of Diamond A Financial, LP. Mr. Gerald J. Ford has sole voting and dispositive power of these shares. Excludes 60,000 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. (c) Based on the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC by Wellington Management Group LLP on February 11, 2016. According to the Schedule 13G, Wellington Management Group LLP has shared voting power over 4,888,214 shares of our common stock and shared dispositive power over 5,509,936 shares of our common stock. The shares of our common stock that are beneficially owned by Wellington Management Group LLP are owned of record by clients of one or more investment advisers directly or indirectly controlled by Wellington Management Group LLP. These clients have the right to receive, or the power to direct the receipt of, dividends from, or the proceeds from the sale of, such shares. No such client is known to have such right or power with respect to more than five percent of the shares of our common stock. (d) Based on the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC by Vanguard Group Inc. on February 11, 2016. According to the Schedule 13G, Vanguard Group Inc. has sole voting power over 122,966 shares of our common stock, shared voting power over 4,600 shares of our common stock, sole dispositive power over 5,288,274 shares of our common stock and shared dispositive power over 123,296 shares of our common stock. The Schedule 13G reports that Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard Group Inc., is the beneficial owner of 118,696 shares of our common stock as a result of its serving as investment manager of collective trust accounts and that Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard Group Inc., is the beneficial owner of 8,900 shares of our common stock as a result of its serving as investment manager of Australian investment offerings. 23 Security Ownership of Management The following table sets forth information regarding the number of shares of our common stock beneficially owned on April 21, 2016, by: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) each of our directors; each of our named executive officers; and all of our directors and executive officers presently serving, as a group. Except as otherwise set forth below, the address of each of the persons listed below is c/o Hilltop Holdings Inc., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330, Dallas, Texas 75201. Except as otherwise indicated in the footnotes to this table, the persons named in the table have specified that they have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of stock shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to any applicable community property law. Name of Beneficial Owner Charlotte Jones Anderson Rhodes Bobbitt Tracy A. Bolt W. Joris Brinkerhoff J. Taylor Crandall Charles R. Cummings Hill A. Feinberg Gerald J. Ford 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1350 Dallas, Texas 75201 Jeremy B. Ford J. Markham Green William T. Hill, Jr. James R. Huffines Lee Lewis Andrew J. Littlefair W. Robert Nichols, III Darren Parmenter C. Clifton Robinson Kenneth D. Russell Todd L. Salmans A. Haag Sherman Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Carl B. Webb Alan B. White All Directors and Executive Officers, as a group (26 persons) * Represents less than 1% of the outstanding shares of such class. Common Stock Amount and Nature of Percent of Beneficial Ownership 7,093 Class (a) * * * * * * 126,059 (b) 12,945 25,228 — (c) 37,476 1,236,752 (d) 1.3% 15,560,490 (e) 15.8% 617,438 (f) 119,152 54,350 (g) 369,730 (h) 656,199 (i) 10,546 41,000 (j) 5,361 (k) 1,235,024 — 14,662 (l) 14,422 32,585 108,490 * * * * * * * * 1.3% * * * * * 1,686,947 (m) 1.7% 22,276,414 (n) 22.6% (a) Based on 98,498,077 shares of common stock outstanding on April 21, 2016. Shares issuable under instruments to purchase our common stock that are exercisable within 60 days of April 21, 2016 are treated as if outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of the person holding these instruments, but are not treated as outstanding for purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. Includes 62,100 shares of common stock held in an IRA account for the benefit of Mr. Bobbitt. (b) (c) Excludes 1,488 shares held by Oak Hill Capital Management LLC, 69,014 shares held by Oak Hill Capital Management Partners III, L.P. and (d) 2,101,418 shares held by Oak Hill Capital Partners III, L.P. Includes 25,776 shares of common stock held directly by Mr. Feinberg’s wife. Also includes 776 shares of common stock held by the Max McDermott Trust for the benefit of Mr. Feinberg’s stepson. Mr. Feinberg’s wife is the trustee of the trust. Excludes 40,579 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. 24 (e) The shares of common stock beneficially owned by Mr. Gerald J. Ford include 7,950 shares that are owned by Turtle Creek Revocable Trust, a (f) (g) (h) (i) revocable trust for the benefit of the members of Mr. Gerald J. Ford’s family, and indirectly by Mr. Gerald J. Ford as settlor of the trust. Mr. Gerald J. Ford disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by the trust except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 15,544,674 shares owned by Diamond A Financial, LP. Mr. Gerald J. Ford is the sole general partner of Diamond A Financial, LP. Mr. Gerald J. Ford has sole voting and dispositive power of these shares. Excludes 60,000 RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. Jeremy B. Ford is a beneficiary of a trust that owns a 49% limited partnership interest in Diamond A Financial, LP (see footnote (e)). Excludes 105,341 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016 and 15,544,674 shares of common stock held by Diamond A Financial, LP. Includes 7,300 shares of common stock held in a SEP IRA account for the benefit of Mr. Hill and 15,750 shares of common stock held by the William T. Hill P.C. retirement account for the benefit of Mr. Hill. Includes 47,000 shares of common stock held by the James Huffines 1994 Trust for the benefit of Mr. Huffines and 12,028 shares of common stock held in a self-directed individual retirement account. Excludes 65,744 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. Includes 603,417 shares of common stock held by Lee Lewis Construction. Mr. Lewis is the sole owner of Lee Lewis Construction and may be deemed to have voting and/or investment power with respect to the shares owned by Lee Lewis Construction. Includes 11,000 shares of common stock held in an IRA account for the benefit of Mr. Nichols. (j) (k) Excludes 27,394 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. (l) Excludes 54,787 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. (m) Includes (a) 9,785 shares of common stock held directly by Mr. White’s wife, (b) 453 shares of common stock held in a self-directed individual retirement account of Mr. White’s wife, (c) 23,806 shares of common stock held by Double E Investments (“Double E”), (d) 12,883 shares of common stock held by EAW White Family Partnership, Ltd. (“EAW”), (e) 8,045 shares of common stock held by Maedgen, White and Maedgen (“MW&M”), (f) 1,366,458 shares of common stock held by Maedgen & White, Ltd., and (g) 95,844 shares of common stock held in a self- directed individual retirement account of Mr. White. As the manager of Double E, the managing partner of MW&M and the sole member of the general partner of EAW, Mr. White has exclusive authority to vote and/or dispose of the securities held by Double E, MW&M and EAW, respectively, and may, therefore, be deemed to have sole voting and dispositive power over the shares of common stock held by Double E, MW&M and EAW. Mr. White is the sole general partner of Maedgen & White, Ltd. and may be deemed to beneficially own the shares held by Maedgen & White, Ltd. As the sole general partner of Maedgen & White, Ltd., Mr. White has the power to vote the shares held by Maedgen & White, Ltd. The Agreement of Limited Partnership of Maedgen & White, Ltd. requires the approval of 80% of the limited partnership interests in Maedgen & White, Ltd. before its general partner may dispose of the shares held by Maedgen & White, Ltd. Mr. White, directly and indirectly, controls approximately 77% of the limited partnership interests of Maedgen & White, Ltd. and therefore may be deemed to share dispositive power over the shares held by Maedgen & White, Ltd. Excludes 109,573 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. (n) Represents 26 persons and includes 100,000 shares of common stock exercisable pursuant to stock options that are vested. Excludes 597,254 shares of common stock deliverable upon the vesting of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days of April 21, 2016. 25 MANAGEMENT Executive Officers General We have identified the following officers as “executive officers,” consistent with the definition of that term as used by the SEC: Name Hill A. Feinberg Jeremy B. Ford James R. Huffines John A. Martin Darren E. Parmenter Corey G. Prestidge Todd L. Salmans Jerry L. Schaffner Alan B. White Age 69 41 65 68 53 42 67 58 67 Position Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Securities President, Chief Executive Officer and Director President and Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of PlainsCapital Executive Vice President, Principal Financial Officer Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending President and Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital Bank Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital Officer Since 2012 2010 2012 2012 2007 2008 2012 2012 2012 Business Experience of Executive Officers Information concerning the business experience of Messrs. Hill A. Feinberg, Jeremy B. Ford, James R. Huffines and Alan B. White is set forth above under “Proposal One — Election of Directors — Nominees for Election as Directors” beginning on page 6. John A. Martin. Mr. Martin has served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PlainsCapital since November 2010 and has continued in that position since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. Mr. Martin also serves on the board of directors of the Bank and various other subsidiaries of PlainsCapital. Prior to joining PlainsCapital, Mr. Martin most recently served as executive vice president and chief financial officer of Family Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary, San Antonio National Bank, from April 2010 until October 2010. Before joining Family Bancorp, from 2009 to 2010, Mr. Martin served as a consultant to community banks, providing strategic planning services. Beginning in 2005, Mr. Martin served as chief financial officer of Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc. and later served as director of financial planning and analysis for BBVA Compass after its acquisition of Texas Regional Bancshares in 2006. Darren E. Parmenter. Mr. Parmenter has served as Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of Hilltop since February 2014 and previously served as Senior Vice President of Finance of Hilltop from June 2007 to February 2014. From January 2000 to June 2007, Mr. Parmenter was with Hilltop’s predecessor, Affordable Residential Communities Inc., and served as the Controller of Operations from April 2002 to June 2007. Prior to 2000, Mr. Parmenter was employed by Albertsons Inc. as an Assistant Controller. Corey G. Prestidge. Mr. Prestidge has served as an Executive Vice President of Hilltop since February 2014 and General Counsel and Secretary of Hilltop since January 2008. From November 2005 to January 2008, Mr. Prestidge was the Assistant General Counsel of Mark Cuban Companies. Prior to that, Mr. Prestidge was an associate in the corporate and securities practice group at Jenkens & Gilchrist, a Professional Corporation, which is a former national law firm. Mr. Prestidge is the son-in-law of our Chairman of the Board, Gerald J. Ford, and the brother-in-law of our President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy B. Ford. Todd L. Salmans. Mr. Salmans has served as Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending since January 2011 and has continued in that position since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He also previously held the office of President of PrimeLending until August 2013. As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Salmans is responsible for the strategic direction and day-to-day management of PrimeLending, including financial performance, compliance, business development, board and strategic partner communications and team development. He also serves as a member of PrimeLending’s Board of Directors. Mr. Salmans joined PrimeLending in 2006 as Executive Vice President and Chief 26 Operating Officer, with responsibility over daily operations, loan processing and sales. He was promoted to President in April 2007. Mr. Salmans has over 30 year of experience in the mortgage banking industry. Prior to joining PrimeLending, he served as regional executive vice president of CTX/Centex, regional senior vice president of Chase Manhattan/Chase Home Mortgage Corp., and regional senior vice president of First Union National Bank/First Union Mortgage Corp. Mr. Salmans is currently a board member of the Texas Mortgage Bankers Association. Jerry L. Schaffner. Mr. Schaffner has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank since November 2010 and has continued in that position since our acquisition of PlainsCapital in November 2012. He currently serves as a director of the Bank and various other subsidiaries, and previously served as a director of PlainsCapital from 1993 until March 2009. Mr. Schaffner joined PlainsCapital in 1988 as part of its original management group. Terms of Office and Relationships Our executive officers are elected annually or, as necessary, to fill vacancies or newly created offices by our Board of Directors. Each executive officer holds office until his successor is duly elected and qualified or, if earlier, until his death, resignation or removal. Any officer or agent elected or appointed by our Board of Directors may be removed by our Board of Directors whenever, in its judgment, our best interests will be served, but any removal will be without prejudice to the contractual rights, if any, of the person so removed. Except as disclosed under “Proposal One — Election of Directors — Nominees for Election as Directors” commencing on page 6 and under “Management — Executive Officers — Business Experience of Executive Officers” on page 26, (a) there are no familial relationships among any of our current directors or executive officers and (b) none of our director nominees hold directorships in any company with a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act or any company registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Except as set forth in this Proxy Statement, there are no arrangements or understandings between any nominee for election as a director or officer and any other person pursuant to which that director was nominated or that officer was selected. Compensation Discussion and Analysis This Compensation Discussion & Analysis section reviews the compensation program for our five current named executive officers (“NEOs”), which include our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and our three other most highly-compensated executive officers for the year ended December 31, 2015. Our 2015 NEOs were: Named Executive Officer Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Title/Role President and Chief Executive Officer Executive Vice President, Principal Financial Officer Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital President and Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending 2015 Business and Financial Highlights 2015 represented another strong year for the Company. In 2015, we continued to grow and expand into a diversified financial holding company through the completion of our acquisition of SWS in January 2015. In addition, we had the following accomplishments during 2015: (cid:120) We generated $209 million in income applicable to common stockholders, or $2.09 per diluted share, during 2015. Return on average equity was 12.32% and return on average assets was 1.70% for 2015. 27 (cid:120) Asset quality improved and remained strong compared to peers with non-performing assets as a percentage of total assets of 0.21% as of December 31, 2015, excluding covered loans and covered other real estate owned. (cid:120) Hilltop capital ratios remained strong with a Tier 1 Leverage Ratio at 12.65% and a Total Risk Based Capital Ratio of 18.89% at December 31, 2015. (cid:120) Integrated Southwest Securities, FSB into PlainsCapital Bank by May 2015 and made significant progress on the integration of our broker-dealer subsidiaries allowing us to complete the reorganization of the broker-dealers into one unit in January 2016. (cid:120) Completed a senior notes offering on favorable terms that provided us with the proceeds to redeem all of our Small Business Lending Fund, or SBLF, preferred stock. The SBLF preferred stock dividend rate would have increased in 2016. All of this contributed to an increase in our book value per share from $14.93 at December 31, 2014 to $17.56 at December 31, 2015. Additional detail regarding our results and achievements can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. Our 2015 Executive Compensation Program Overview The Compensation Committee, or, in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Committee, has the responsibility to establish, implement and monitor adherence with our compensation philosophy. The Committee ensures that the total compensation paid to executive officers is fair, reasonable, competitive, performance-based and aligned with stockholder interests. The Committee administers the Company’s executive compensation program in light of our unique structure and acquisition history. As a holding company that conducts its operations through its subsidiaries, we are focused on providing entrepreneurial-based compensation to the chief executives of each of our business units. Philosophy and Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Program Our compensation program continues to focus on performance-based pay that reflects our achievements on an annual basis and our ability to deliver long-term value to our stockholders. The Compensation Committee regularly reviews the Company’s compensation programs to ensure they are consistent with safe and sound business practices, regulatory requirements, emerging industry trends and stockholder interests. With this in mind, the following principles help guide our decisions regarding compensation of our NEOs: (cid:120) Compensation opportunities should be competitive with market practices. We are committed to providing competitive total annual compensation opportunities in order to attract and retain executives with the experience and skills necessary to lead our Company and motivate them to deliver strong performance to our stockholders. (cid:120) A significant portion of compensation should be performance-based. Our executive compensation program emphasizes pay-for-performance. Both our annual and long-term incentives are earned based on a combination of corporate, business unit and individual performance. Our annual incentive compensation also can be reduced based upon improper risk taking and non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. (cid:120) Management’s interests should be aligned with those of our stockholders. Our long-term incentive compensation is delivered in the form of RSUs to support our goals for alignment, ownership and retention. Half of the RSUs awarded vest upon achievement of predefined performance goals. The value of previous awards ultimately depends upon our relative total stockholder return and our cumulative earnings per share, or EPS, over a three-year period. Commencing in 2016, the percentage of these awards that vest is based first on cumulative earnings per share over a three-year period and then multiplied by a modifier based on our relative total stockholder return during the same period. (cid:120) Compensation should be perceived as fair. We strive to create a compensation program that will be perceived as fair and equitable, both internally and externally. 28 (cid:120) Our compensation program should be balanced and mitigate risk taking. We have a balanced approach to total compensation that includes a mix of base/fixed pay, a proportion of cash and equity and a proportion of short- and long-term incentive compensation that we believe effectively aligns our pay with performance while discouraging inappropriate risk taking. For the fiscal year 2015, our target pay mix for the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, of Hilltop and our remaining NEOs was the following: Governance highlights The Compensation Committee continued to maintain the following compensation best practices: (cid:120) Robust stock ownership guidelines for executive officers and directors (cid:120) Clawback policy for incentive compensation (cid:120) Anti-hedging and pledging policy (cid:120) Limited perquisites (cid:120) No excise tax gross-ups in new employment agreements (cid:120) One year holding requirement on all vested equity awards (cid:120) Annual compensation risk assessment How We Determine and Assess Executive Compensation Generally Background We completed the acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation on November 30, 2012, and the compensation of our NEOs who were employed by PlainsCapital Corporation is, therefore, in part based upon the compensation they were paid by PlainsCapital Corporation prior to the acquisition. Three of our NEOs, Messrs. White, Huffines and Salmans, were employed by PlainsCapital Corporation or its subsidiaries prior to the acquisition. In connection with the acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. White to ensure continuity following the closing that was negotiated based upon the pre-existing rights in his employment agreement with PlainsCapital Corporation. All other existing employment arrangements at PlainsCapital Corporation were amended to terminate on November 30, 2014. Following the expiration of the employment agreements with Messrs. Huffines and Salmans, we entered into new employment agreements with them that are consistent with our current compensation philosophy. For a more detailed discussion of these employment agreements and Mr. White’s retention agreement, see “Executive Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Employment Contracts and Incentive Plans — Employment Contracts.” 29 Role of the Compensation Committee The Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all aspects of the compensation programs for our NEOs and making all decisions regarding specific compensation to be paid or awarded to them. The Committee is responsible for, among its other duties, the following: (cid:120) Review and approval of corporate incentive goals and objectives relevant to compensation; (cid:120) Evaluation of individual performance results in light of these goals and objectives; (cid:120) Evaluation of the competitiveness of the total compensation package; and (cid:120) Approval of any changes to the total compensation package, including, but not limited to, base salary, annual and long-term incentive award opportunities and payouts and retention programs. The Committee is responsible for determining all aspects of compensation of the Chief Executive Officers of Hilltop and PlainsCapital, as well as assessing their individual performance. In setting the compensation of our NEOs, the Committee, in its discretion, considers (i) the transferability of managerial skills, (ii) the relevance of each NEO’s experience to other potential employees, and (iii) the readiness of the NEO to assume a different or more significant role, either within our organization or with another organization. When the Committee makes pay-related decisions, the Committee considers our acquisition and growth strategy, our desire to attract, retain and motivate talent, and the importance of compensation in supporting the achievement of our strategic objectives. Information about the Committee and its composition, responsibilities and operations can be found under the “Board Committees” section. Role of the Chief Executive Officers in Compensation Decisions The Chief Executive Officers of Hilltop and PlainsCapital recommend to the Committee any compensation changes affecting the other NEOs. The Chief Executive Officers provide input and recommendations to the Committee with regards to compensation decisions for their direct reports. These recommendations are made within the framework of the compensation programs approved by the Committee and based on market data provided by the Committee’s independent consultant. The input includes base salary changes, annual incentive and long-term incentive opportunities and payouts, specific individual performance objectives, and individual performance assessments. The Chief Executive Officers make their recommendations based on their assessment of the individual officer’s performance, performance of the officer’s respective business or function and employee retention considerations. The Committee reviews and considers the Chief Executive Officers’ recommendations when determining any compensation changes affecting our officers or executives. Each Chief Executive Officer does not play any role with respect to any matter impacting his own compensation. Role of Stockholder Say-on-Pay Votes The Company provides its stockholders with the opportunity to cast an annual advisory vote on executive compensation. At the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders held in June 2015, over 98% of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) on the say-on-pay proposal at that meeting were voted in favor of the proposal. Given this significant level of support from the Company’s stockholders, the Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the Company is taking a measured, informed and responsible approach to executive compensation that incorporates all of the Company’s objectives and policies set forth above, including, but not limited to, a pay for performance culture that retains executives who perform strongly. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Company’s say-on-pay votes when making future compensation decisions for the NEOs. 30 Role of Compensation Consultant Pursuant to its charter, the Committee is authorized to retain and terminate any consultant, as well as to approve the consultant’s fees and other terms of the engagement. The Committee also has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from internal or external legal, accounting or other advisors. In 2015, the Committee continued its engagement of Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”) as its independent compensation consultant. Meridian provides research, data analyses, survey information and design expertise in developing compensation programs for executives and incentive programs for eligible employees. In addition, Meridian keeps the Committee apprised of regulatory developments and market trends related to executive compensation practices. Meridian does not determine or recommend the exact amount or form of executive compensation for any of the NEOs. A representative of Meridian generally attends meetings of the Committee, is available to participate in executive sessions and communicates directly with the Committee and the chairman of the Committee. Pursuant to the Committee’s charter, if the Committee elects to use a compensation consultant, the Committee must assess the consultant’s independence, taking into account the following factors: (cid:120) The provision of other services to the Company by the consultant; (cid:120) The amount of fees the consultant received from the Company; (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) the policies and procedures the consultant has in place to prevent conflicts of interest; any business or personal relationships between the consulting firm and the members of the Committee; any ownership of Company stock by the individuals at the firm performing consulting services for the Committee; and (cid:120) any business or personal relationship of the firm with an executive officer of the Company. Meridian has provided the Committee with appropriate assurances and confirmation of its independent status pursuant to the charter and other factors. The Committee believes that Meridian has been independent throughout its service for the Committee and there is no conflict of interest between Meridian and the Committee. Other Factors The Committee makes executive compensation decisions following a review and discussion of both the financial and operational performance of our businesses and the annual performance reviews of the NEOs and other members of the management team. Benchmarking Compensation The Committee regularly assesses the components of the executive compensation program with advice from its independent compensation consultant. In November 2014, Meridian provided an analysis of base salary, annual incentive and long-term incentive practices of comparable companies in the financial industry. Meridian considered individual compensation elements as well as the total compensation package. In performing this analysis, Meridian used a peer group of financial institutions. In order to reflect the Company’s continued growth, and in anticipation of the merger with SWS, the Committee approved a new peer group in July 2014. The peer group included institutions of generally similar asset size and, to the extent possible, organizations with significant other operating segments. The peer group is comprised of 22 banks with assets between $6.3 billion and $26.5 billion as of June 30, 2014. Hilltop’s post-merger asset size of $12.6 billion was positioned slightly below the median of the new peer group. 31 The peer group used in the report presented for consideration in the determination of 2015 pay consisted of the following financial institutions: Associated Banc-Corp First Horizon National Corporation Hancock Holding Company MB Financial, Inc. South State Corporation Trustmark Corporation Union Bankshares Corporation Wintrust Financial Corporation Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. IBERIABANK Corporation Old National Bancorp TCF Financial Corporation UMB Financial Corporation United Bankshares, Inc. First Citizens BancShares, Inc. FirstMerit Corporation International Bancshares Corporation Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. Umpqua Holdings Corporation WesBanco, Inc. In addition to the peer group, Meridian included data from industry-specific compensation surveys. The information from these competitive data sources and the peer group were used to make 2015 compensation decisions. Elements of our Executive Compensation Program The basic elements of our executive compensation program are summarized below. Our compensation policies and programs are considered by the Committee in a total rewards framework, which considers both “pay” — base salary, annual incentive awards and long-term incentive awards — and “benefits” — perquisites and other benefits and other compensation. Our executive compensation program consists primarily of the following components: Compensation Component Base Salary Fixed component of pay intended to compensate the individual fairly for the responsibility level of the position held. Purpose Annual Incentive Awards Variable component of pay intended to motivate and reward the individual’s contribution to achieving our short-term/annual objectives. Long-term Incentive Awards Variable component of pay intended to retain, motivate and reward the individual’s contribution to achieving our long-term objectives and creating stockholder value. Perquisites and Other Benefits Fixed component of pay intended to provide an economic benefit to us in attracting and retaining executive talent. Base Salary We provide base salaries for each NEO commensurate with the services each provides to us. We believe a portion of total direct compensation should be provided in a form that is fixed and liquid. In reviewing base salaries, the Committee evaluated the salaries of other executive officers of the Company and its peers and any increased level of responsibility, among other items. As a result of that analysis, the Committee determined to increase the annual salaries of Messrs. Ford and Parmenter effective April 1, 2015. With respect to the other NEOs of the Company, the Committee determined to maintain the current salary for 2015, as they were found to be competitive with the Company’s peers. The following are the base salaries for our NEOs in 2014 and 2015: Base Salary Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans 2015 2014 $ Change $ 150,000 $ 550,000 $ 700,000 5,000 $ $ 330,000 $ 335,000 — $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 (a) $ — $ $ 690,000 $ 690,000 — $ $ 750,000 $ 750,000 (a) Mr. White’s base salary is set forth in his retention agreement, which became effective upon the closing of the acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation. 32 In February 2016, the Committee assessed base salaries of the NEOs and decided to maintain the current salary of the Company’s NEOs. Annual Incentive Awards Our NEOs and other employees are eligible to participate in the Annual Incentive Plan and receive annual cash incentive awards based upon our financial performance and other factors, including individual performance. The Committee believes that this element of compensation is important to focus management efforts on, and provide rewards for, annual financial and strategic results that are aligned with creating value for our stockholders. Target Annual Incentive Opportunities Target incentive awards are defined at the start of the year in consideration of market data provided by the Committee’s consultant, each executive’s total compensation package and the entity’s budgetary considerations. In consideration of these factors, the Committee slightly increased 2015 targets for Messrs. Ford, Huffines and Parmenter but maintained target incentive opportunities for the other NEOs. Annual Incentive Value Target Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White (a) James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Threshold ($) 108,000 28,200 1,350,000 99,900 90,000 ($) 600,000 235,000 1,350,000 555,000 750,000 % of Annual Base Salary 86 % 70 % 100 % 80 % 100 % Maximum ($) 750,000 293,750 1,350,000 693,750 937,500 (a) Mr. White’s annual incentive compensation is determined pursuant to his retention agreement for the achievement of specified performance criteria. Performance Measures Each NEO had pre-defined performance objectives based upon measurable performance of both the individual and our Company, other than Mr. White, whose pre-defined performance objectives are based solely upon PlainsCapital’s performance. Our 2015 goals were intended to be realistic and reasonable but challenging in order to drive performance. The Committee and management believe that by using these metrics we are encouraging profitable top line growth and value for stockholders without creating excessive risk. For 2015, the applicable performance goals included: (cid:120) Consolidated net income for Hilltop for NEOs employed by Hilltop; (cid:120) Consolidated net income of PlainsCapital for employees of PlainsCapital and its subsidiaries; (cid:120) Net income results of lines of business for business heads; and (cid:120) Pre-determined strategic initiatives and individual objectives. The weights of these factors are summarized in the following table: Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White (a) James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Hilltop PlainsCapital Business Unit Performance Performance Performance Strategic Initiatives 70 % 50 % — — — — — 100 % 70 % 20 % — 20 % — — 50 % 30 % 30 % — 30 % 30 % (a) Determined pursuant to Mr. White’s retention agreement for the achievement of earnings threshold. 33 The individual strategic objectives for the NEOs are developed through an iterative process between the Committee and management. Management develops an initial set of recommendations based upon the business needs. The Committee reviews the proposed goals and revises/amends them at their discretion, ensuring that goals are aligned with the Board of Director’s strategic focus. The following goals, among others, were established for the NEOs in 2015: (cid:120) Mr. Jeremy B. Ford’s strategic initiatives included: execute the Company’s 2015 strategic plan, continue to identify strategic acquisition opportunities that complement the Company’s business mix, continue to integrate recent acquisitions and increase net earnings. (cid:120) Mr. Parmenter’s strategic initiatives included: facilitate acquisition activity including effective integration of accounting departments and consolidation of Hilltop’s financials, and provide effective leadership of his responsible business units. (cid:120) Mr. Huffines strategic initiatives included: grow core business and achieve quantitative cost savings through integration of mergers and acquisitions. (cid:120) Mr. Salmans’s strategic initiatives included: execute three-year business strategy for PrimeLending, continue succession planning and talent development for key positions and achieve cost savings from implementation of strategic plan. Performance Results and Payouts The Committee, in its sole discretion, determines the final amount of each participant’s award based on attainment of the applicable performance goals and assessments of individual and strategic performance. Additionally, a forfeiture of up to 15% of any available Annual Incentive Plan award can occur in the event that any improper risk management or non-compliance with applicable laws or regulations is identified. Each element of the annual cash incentive award is independent of the other. Accordingly, the executive officer may achieve certain performance goals, while at the same time failing to achieve others. In that case, the executive officer will be entitled to receive the award for the performance goal achieved, but not an award for a performance goal for which threshold performance is not achieved. Potential awards ranged from 50% for threshold performance to a maximum of 150% for stretch performance. At the end of the fiscal year, the Committee determined a payout based on net income performance. 2015 performance goals and actual net income performance were as follows (dollars in millions): 2015 Performance Goal Hilltop Adjusted Net Income (a) PlainsCapital Net Income PrimeLending Net Income Threshold ($) Target ($) Stretch ($) Actual ($) Achievement 65.1 57.9 11.5 108.4 96.5 19.2 162.6 144.7 28.8 145.2 140.5 32.4 134 % 146 % 169 % (a) Hilltop net income was adjusted to exclude bargain purchase gain and acquisition and integration costs, which were not included in the 2015 strategic plan. 34 Based upon evaluation of their respective individual performance in 2015, the Committee awarded each of the NEOs a score of 100% for strategic initiatives. Based on the above financial and individual performance measures and the Committee’s discretion, the 2015 annual cash incentive payments were awarded as follows relative to the 2015 target value: Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White (a) James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans % of 2015 Target Incentive Payment ($) Annual Incentive 2015 Annual 740,000 290,000 1,350,000 555,000 1,000,000 123 % 123 % 100 % 100 % 133 % (a) Determined pursuant to Mr. White’s retention agreement for the achievement of earnings threshold. See “Executive Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Annual Incentive Plan” for more information on possible future payments to the NEOs. Long-Term Incentive Awards As described above, we believe that a portion of each NEO’s compensation should be tied to the performance of our stock price, aligning the officer’s interest with that of our stockholders. In this regard, the Committee determined that the award vehicle mix should be: Award Vehicle Mix Time-Based Restricted Stock Units Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units % of Award 50% 50% Time-based RSUs cliff vest on the third anniversary of grant date. Performance-based RSUs are earned and cliff vest after the three-year performance period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. Performance awards are earned based on Hilltop’s three-year cumulative EPS and based on relative total stockholder return, or TSR, relative to the KBW Regional Banking Index. Commencing in 2016, a revision was made to the method of calculating performance for awarding performance- based RSUs. Under the revised form of award, the percentage of performance-based RSUs that vest following a performance period is based on Hilltop’s three-year cumulative EPS multiplied by a modifier that is determined based on Hilltop’s TSR relative to the KBW Regional Banking Index. The new method of measuring performance puts more weight on EPS and uses TSR as a modifier, instead of weighting each measure equally. The EPS component of performance calculation ranges from 50% at threshold to 150% at the max, and the TSR modifier ranges from 80% at threshold to 120% at max. The total number of shares earned from the performance awards can range from 40% to 180% of the target number of RSUs granted. All shares of common stock delivered pursuant to the RSUs are subject to a one-year holding period requirement after vest. Further discussion of the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan pursuant to which such RSUs were awarded is found under “Executive Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” below. 35 In 2015, long-term incentive awards were made in consideration of each executive’s role, competitive market practice, and performance. Grants were made in the form of RSUs on February 24, 2015, to the following NEOs as set forth below: Performance-Based Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Time-Based RSUs RSUs Awarded Awarded (at Target) 18,004 4,501 18,004 10,803 9,002 Total RSUs Awarded 36,008 9,002 36,008 21,605 18,004 18,004 4,501 18,004 10,802 9,002 On February 23, 2016, the Committee continued the same mix of long-term incentive awards and approved a grant of RSUs to the NEOs as set forth below: Performance-Based Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Target) Awarded Time-Based RSUs RSUs Awarded (at Total RSUs Awarded 43,942 10,986 43,942 26,365 21,971 21,971 5,493 21,971 13,183 10,986 21,971 5,493 21,971 13,182 10,985 Mr. Jeremy B. Ford recently exercised an award outstanding under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. However, with the adoption of the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, all equity-based awards, including those made to the NEOs, have since been made pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. All equity-based awards made to the NEOs are approved by the Committee and not pursuant to delegated authority. Perquisites and Other Benefits We provide a limited number of perquisites and other benefits to our NEOs at Hilltop. The only perquisite currently offered to Messrs. Jeremy B. Ford and Parmenter, the NEOs employed directly by Hilltop is $150 per month to be applied to a gym membership to promote wellness. In addition, Mr. Jeremy B. Ford is provided access to company aircraft. With respect to NEOs employed by PlainsCapital and its subsidiaries, those entities provide them with a monthly car allowance and reimbursement for country club membership dues. In addition, Mr. White is provided access to company aircraft and bank-owned life insurance. Otherwise, generally, our NEOs receive only medical benefits, life insurance and long-term disability coverage, as well as supplemental contributions to the Company’s 401(k) program, on the same terms and conditions as available to all employees of that entity. Severance and Other Post-Termination Compensation On December 4, 2014, we entered into new employment agreements with Messrs. Huffines and Salmans. A description of these new employment agreements and the post-contractual benefits provided thereunder is discussed in further detail under “Executive Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Employment Contracts and Incentive Plans — Employment Contracts” and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” below. For NEOs employed directly by Hilltop, other than change in control provisions in our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, we do not currently maintain any severance or change in control programs. However, we have historically paid severance, the amount of which is generally determined both by length of tenure and level of compensation, when termination occurs other than for cause and pursuant to which certain benefits may be provided to the NEOs. Absent the negotiation of specific agreements with the NEOs, severance benefits would be provided on the same basis as provided to other employees of the Company. 36 In connection with our acquisition of PlainsCapital in 2012, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. White which was approved by shareholders of PlainsCapital Corporation in connection with our acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation. The summary of the severance terms for this retention agreement is set forth below: Legacy Retention Agreement Pursuant to Mr. White’s retention agreement: (1) we agreed to contribute an amount of cash equal to $6,430,890 as deferred compensation to Mr. White in satisfaction of Mr. White’s rights under Section 6 (Termination Upon Change in Control) of his previous employment agreement with PlainsCapital, which such amount accrues interst at the prevailing money market rate and is payable to Mr. White on the 55th day following termination of his employment; and (2) upon a termination of his employment by us other than for cause or death or disability, or after non- renewal, cash severance of (i) the sum of Mr. White’s annual base salary and the average of the annual bonus amounts paid to him for the three most recently completed fiscal years ending immediately prior to the date of termination, multiplied by (ii) the greater of (A) two, and (B) the number of full and partial years from the date of termination through the end of the applicable employment period under the retention agreement. Such severance is payable over the “severance period,” which is the greater of two years from the date of termination and the number of full and partial years from the date of termination through the end of the applicable employment period under the retention agreement. The foregoing cash amounts in subparagraph (1) represent “modified single trigger” benefits, payable assuming the termination of employment for any reason, and the foregoing cash amounts in subparagraph (2) represent “double trigger” benefits, payable assuming a qualifying termination of employment. With respect to the amounts described in subparagraph (1) that are paid in full satisfaction of Section 6 of Mr. White’s previous employment agreement with PlainsCapital, such amounts are payable upon any termination of employment at any time, subject to any delay required by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and the execution of a release of claims. The cash severance amounts described in subparagraph (2) are payable upon a termination of employment other than for cause, death or disability or upon a termination due to non-renewal by Hilltop, subject to any delay required by Section 409A of the Code and the execution of a release of claims. Huffines and Salmans Employment Agreements Pursuant to our employment agreements with Messrs. Huffines and Salmans, upon termination of employment by us other than for cause, the applicable executive is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to the sum of (i) his annual base salary rate immediately prior to the effective date of such termination, and (ii) an amount equal to the annual incentive cash bonus paid to him in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the termination. If his employment is terminated without “cause” within the twelve months immediately following, or the six months immediately preceding, a “change in control,” he will be entitled to receive a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of (A) his annual base salary rate immediately prior to the effective date of such termination and (B) an amount equal to the annual incentive cash bonus paid to him in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the termination. The immediately foregoing cash amount represents a “double trigger” benefit. Finally, if any payment made as a result of a change in control would constitute a “parachute payment” as defined under Section 280G of the Code, then the benefits payable will be reduced to $1 below the parachute limit. Further discussion of the agreements with Messrs. White, Huffines and Salmans, including the definitions of “cause” and “disability” under such arrangements, as well as potential payments made pursuant thereto may be found under the headings “Executive Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” and “Executive Compensation — Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in- Control” below. 37 Incentive Plans The 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, under which we have granted awards to the NEOs, contains specific termination and change in control provisions. We determined to include a change in control provision in the plan to be competitive with what we believe to be the standards for the treatment of equity upon a change in control for similar companies and so that employees who remain after a change in control would be treated the same with regard to equity as the general stockholders who could sell or otherwise transfer their equity upon a change in control. Under the terms of the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, if a change in control (as defined below in the discussion of the plan under “Executive Compensation — Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control”) were to occur, all awards then outstanding would become vested and/or exercisable and any applicable performance goals with respect thereto would be deemed to be fully achieved. Further discussion of the change in control payments made pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan may be found in the “Executive Compensation — Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in- Control” section below. The Annual Incentive Plan, pursuant to which annual incentive bonuses are awarded, does not contain specific change in control provisions. Accordingly, the Committee, in its discretion, may determine what constitutes a change in control and what effects such an event may have any awards made pursuant to such plan. Risk Considerations in Our Compensation Program We do not believe that our compensation policies and practices for 2015 give rise to risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our Company. In reaching this conclusion for 2015, we considered the following factors: (cid:120) Base salary is fixed and the only compensation components that are variable are the annual incentives and performance-based RSUs awarded to NEOs, which were awarded based upon attainment of pre-determined levels of earnings. (cid:120) Annual Incentive Plan payments to the NEOs were determined or approved following the substantial completion of the audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Thus, the Committee had ample knowledge of the financial condition and results of the Company, as well as reports of other committees of the Board of Directors, upon which to base any decisions. (cid:120) We have a balanced program that includes multiple performance goals, rewards short and multi-year performance, pays in cash and equity and provides a meaningful portion of pay in stock, which is tied to our long-term performance. (cid:120) The Annual Incentive Plan awards are subject to claw-back and adjustments for improper risk and significant compliance issues. (cid:120) Each year the Committee reviews all compensation programs to ensure existing programs are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Other Programs and Policies Stock Ownership Requirements In February 2014, the Committee recommended, and the Board of Directors adopted, a stock ownership policy applicable to our executive officers and directors. Within five years of the later of appointment or the date the policy was adopted, executive officers are required to achieve ownership of a defined market value of Company common stock equal to a minimum number of equity or equity-based securities as follows: (cid:120) Six times annual base salary for the Chief Executive Officer; and (cid:120) Three times annual base salary for the other executive officers. 38 Under this policy, directors are expected to own shares with a value greater than five times their annual retainer for serving on the Board of Directors of the Company. Our director compensation program permits directors to elect to receive their director compensation in cash, Company common stock or a combination of cash and Company common stock. In calculating equity ownership for purposes of this requirement, we will include all shares beneficially owned by an individual, such as shares owned by an individual in the Company’s benefit plans (e.g., 401(k)), shares of restricted stock and shares with respect to which an individual has voting or investment power. Shares underlying unexercised stock options and unearned performance shares are excluded when determining ownership for these purposes. Executive officers are expected to hold 50% of any net shares received through compensatory equity-based grants until the ownership guidelines are achieved. Once such officer achieves the ownership requirement, he or she is no longer restricted by this holding requirement; provided his or her total stock ownership level does not fall below the ownership guidelines. In addition, all awards of RSUs granted since February 2014 to NEOs are, subject to certain exceptions, required to be held for one year after vesting. As of April 1, 2016, all NEOs and a substantial number of directors are on track to meet the ownership guidelines. Directors who are restricted from receiving stock pursuant to their current employment arrangement have been exempted from this requirement. Clawback Policy Our compensation program also includes a claw-back from any annual cash or long-term incentive award for improper risk and significant compliance issues. Annual Incentive Plan awards are subject to any clawback, recoupment or forfeiture provisions (i) required by law or regulation and applicable to Hilltop or its subsidiaries or (ii) set forth in any policies adopted or maintained by Hilltop or any of its subsidiaries. Tax Considerations Section 162(m) of the Code imposes a $1.0 million limit on the tax-deductibility of compensation paid to our five most highly paid executives, which includes the NEOs. Exceptions are provided for compensation that is “performance- based” and paid pursuant to a plan meeting certain requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code. The Committee has carefully considered the implications of Section 162(m) of the Code and believes that tax deductibility of compensation is an important consideration. Accordingly, where possible and considered appropriate, the Committee strives to preserve corporate tax deductions. The Committee, however, reserves the flexibility, where appropriate, to approve compensation arrangements that may not be tax deductible to the Company, such as base salary and awards of time- based RSUs. The Committee will continue to review the Company’s executive compensation practices to determine if other elements of executive compensation constitute “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code. Trading Controls and Hedging, Short Sale and Pledging Policies Executive officers, including the NEOs, are required to receive the permission of the General Counsel prior to entering into any transactions in our securities, including gifts, grants and those involving derivatives. Generally, trading is permitted only during announced trading periods. Employees who are subject to trading restrictions, including the NEOs, may enter into a trading plan under Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act. These trading plans may be entered into only during an open trading period and must be approved by the General Counsel. We require trading plans to include a waiting period and the trading plans may not be amended during their term. The NEO bears full responsibility if he or she violates our policy by permitting shares to be bought or sold without pre-approval or when trading is restricted. Executive officers are prohibited from entering into hedging and short sale transactions and are subject to restrictions on pledging our securities. 39 Compensation Committee Report The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Hilltop Holdings Inc. has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis contained in this Proxy Statement. Based on its review, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Proxy Statement. The foregoing report has been submitted by the following members of the Compensation Committee: Haag Sherman (Chairman) Rhodes Bobbitt W. Joris Brinkerhoff William T. Hill, Jr. Andrew Littlefair Executive Compensation The following tables set forth information concerning the compensation earned for services performed during 2015, 2014 and 2013 by the NEOs, who were either serving in such capacities on December 31, 2015, during 2015, or are reportable pursuant to applicable SEC regulations. Summary Compensation Table Fiscal Years 2015, 2014 and 2013 Stock Option Non-Equity Incentive Plan Salary ($) Bonus (a) Awards (b) Awards Compensation (c) Compensation (d) ($) ($) ($) ($) Earnings ($) Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred All Other Compensation (e) ($) Name and principal position Jeremy B. Ford President and Chief Executive Officer Darren E. Parmenter Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer Alan B. White Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital Corporation Year 2015 2014 2013 662,500 (f) 537,500 (g) 466,667 (h) — — — 679,741 600,013 397,500 2015 2014 2013 333,750 (f) 322,500 (g) 296,667 (h) — 25,000 (i) — 169,935 175,004 66,250 2015 1,350,000 2014 1,350,000 2013 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 679,741 699,991 662,500 James R. Huffines President and Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital Corporation 2015 2014 2013 690,000 690,000 690,000 — — — 407,849 420,000 397,500 Todd L. Salmans Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending 2015 2014 2013 750,000 750,000 750,000 — 500,000 — 339,871 350,008 331,250 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 740,000 600,000 500,000 290,000 300,000 200,000 — — — 555,000 555,000 555,000 1,000,000 500,000 — — — — — — — Total ($) 2,153,102 1,760,541 1,365,967 70,861 23,028 1,800 3,106 3,318 1,800 796,791 825,822 564,717 29,261 29,129 28,950 110,142 106,142 132,877 3,519,144 3,535,263 3,524,327 — — — — — — 41,824 41,433 41,564 1,694,673 1,706,433 1,684,064 53,292 34,967 31,906 2,143,163 2,134,974 1,113,156 (a) Represents bonuses paid for services during 2015, 2014 and 2013, as applicable. (b) Reflects the grant date fair value calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Stock Compensation Topic of the ASC. The value of performance-based stock awards is based on the probable outcome of such performance conditions. The following table presents the value of performance-based awards based on the achievement of both probable and maximum outcomes: Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Year 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 Performance-Based Stock Awards (Probable Achievement) ($) 332,624 234,559 83,156 68,413 332,624 273,633 199,567 164,187 166,312 136,826 (Maximum Achievement) ($) 498,936 351,838 124,734 102,619 498,936 410,450 299,350 246,281 249,468 205,239 (c) For 2015, represents cash awards earned under the Annual Incentive Plan for services during 2015, but paid in March 2016. For 2014, represents cash awards earned under the Annual Incentive Plan for services during 2014, but paid in March 2015. For 2013, represents cash awards earned under the Annual Incentive Plan for services during 2013, but paid in March 2014. (d) Represents interest earned on non-qualified deferred compensation contributions to Mr. White during 2015, 2014 and 2013, as applicable. For additional information, see “— Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation.” 40 (e) Includes amounts paid during 2015, 2014 and 2013, as applicable, for group life insurance premiums, auto allowance, gym and club expenses, use of a company car and aircraft, and cash incentive payments. The table following these footnotes is a breakdown of all other compensation included in the “Summary Compensation Table” for the NEOs. (f) Reflects increase in annual salary effective on April 1, 2015. (g) Reflects increase in annual salary effective on April 1, 2014. (h) Reflects increase in annual salary effective on April 1, 2013. (i) Reflects the portion of his bonus pursuant to the Annual Incentive Plan in excess of the maximum stretch bonus permitted thereunder. All Other Compensation Gross-Ups or Other Amounts Reimbursed for the Perquisites and Personal Payment of Benefits (a) ($) Taxes ($) Company Contributions to Defined Contribution Plans ($) Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Year 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013 70,081 22,248 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 100,236 96,236 127,729 36,676 36,285 36,416 43,386 25,061 22,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Insurance Policies (b) ($) Fees ($) — 780 — 780 — — Director Total All Other Compensation ($) 70,861 23,028 1,800 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,306 1,518 — 9,906 9,906 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 9,906 9,906 9,906 — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,106 3,318 1,800 110,142 106,142 132,877 41,824 41,433 41,564 53,292 34,967 31,906 (a) Year 2015: For Mr. Jeremy B. Ford, reflects $1,800 gym membership allowance and personal use of company airplane of $68,281. For Mr. Parmenter, reflects $1,800 gym membership allowance. For Mr. White, reflects car allowance of $36,000, club expenses of $33,921, personal use of company airplane of $28,363, and personal use of company automobile of $1,952. For Mr. Huffines, includes a car allowance of $24,000 and club expenses of $12,676. For Mr. Salmans, includes a car allowance of $12,000, club expenses of $10,000, and cash incentives of $21,386. Year 2014: For Mr. Jeremy B. Ford, reflects $1,800 gym membership allowance and personal use of company airplane of $20,448. For Mr. Parmenter, reflects $1,800 gym membership allowance. For Mr. White, reflects car allowance of $36,000, club expenses of $33,768, personal use of company airplane of $24,617, and personal use of company automobile of $1,852. For Mr. Huffines, includes a car allowance of $24,000 and club expenses of $12,285. For Mr. Salmans, includes a car allowance of $12,000, club expenses of $10,000, and cash incentives of $3,061. Personal use of company aircraft is calculated on a per mile basis utitlizing SIFL rates published by the IRS. (b) Reflects group term life insurance premiums paid during 2015, 2014 and 2013, as applicable. 41 Grants of Plan-Based Awards Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Fiscal Year 2015 All Other Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Grant Date Threshold Maximum Threshold Incentive Plan Awards (b) Target ($) ($) ($) Incentive Plan Awards (c) Target (#) (#) Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Maximum Stock or Units Option Awards (d) (#) Grant Date Fair Value of Share and (e) ($) (#) (a) 2/24/2015 2/24/2015 3/10/2015 2/24/2015 2/24/2015 3/10/2015 2/24/2015 2/24/2015 Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans 108,000 600,000 750,000 9,002 18,004 27,006 28,200 235,000 293,750 2,251 4,501 6,752 18,004 18,004 18,004 3/10/2015 (f) 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 2/24/2015 2/24/2015 3/10/2015 2/24/2015 2/24/2015 3/10/2015 99,900 555,000 693,750 5,401 10,802 16,203 90,000 750,000 937,500 4,501 9,002 13,503 18,004 4,501 18,004 10,803 9,002 347,117 332,624 86,779 83,156 347,117 332,624 208,282 199,567 173,559 166,312 (a) Represents the effective date of grant of RSUs under the 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan and payment of annual cash incentive awards under the Annual Incentive Plan. (b) Represent the value of potential payments under the Annual Incentive Plan to the NEOs based on 2015 performance. Management incentive award amounts shown above represent potential awards that may have been earned based on performance during 2015. The actual Annual Incentive Plan awards earned for 2015 are reported in the “Summary Compensation Table” above. For more information regarding the Annual Incentive Plan, see below and also refer to “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” in this Proxy Statement. (c) Represents performance-based RSUs that vest based upon the achievement of certain performance goals during the three-year period beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2017. These RSUs were issued pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and a form of award agreement and are subject to forfeiture, accelerated vesting and other restrictions as more fully set forth in the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and the form of award agreement. For additional information, see “— Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of our Executive Compensation Program — Long-Term Incentive Awards.” (d) Represents time-based RSUs that cliff vest upon the earlier of the third anniversary of the date of grant and a change of control. These RSUs were issued pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and a form of award agreement and are subject to forfeiture, accelerated vesting and other restrictions as more fully set forth in the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and the form of award agreement. For additional information, see “— Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of our Executive Compensation Program — Long-Term Incentive Awards.” (e) Reflects the grant date fair value calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Stock Compensation Topic of the ASC. For more information regarding outstanding awards held by the NEO, refer to section “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End” below. (f) Represents the amount Mr. White would be entitled to under his retention agreement. Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Employment Contracts and Incentive Plans Set forth below is a summary of our retention agreement with Mr. White and our employment agreements with Messrs. Huffines and Salmans. We do not have employment agreements with Messrs. Jeremy B. Ford or Parmenter. Also set forth below is a description of our incentive plans, pursuant to which the awards included in the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Table” below were made to our NEOs. The Compensation Committee believes that the arrangements described below serve our interests and the interests of our stockholders because they help secure the continued employment and dedication of our NEOs prior to or following a change in control, without concern for their own continued employment. 42 Employment Contracts Mr. White On November 30, 2012, in connection with our acquisition of PlainsCapital, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. White. The term of the retention agreement is three years, with automatic one-year renewals at the end of the second year of the agreement and each anniversary thereof unless notice has been given otherwise. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. White’s annual base salary is $1,350,000. He is also entitled to an annual bonus that varies based upon the performance of PlainsCapital. If PlainsCapital’s annual net income is less than or equal to $70,000,000 but greater than $15,000,000, Mr. White is entitled to a bonus equal to the average of his annual bonus in the prior three calendar years. If PlainsCapital’s annual net income exceeds $70,000,000, he is entitled to a bonus equal to 100% of his annual base salary. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, Mr. White is entitled to participate in all of the Company’s employee benefit plans and programs. Further, the agreement provides that the Company will provide Mr. White with the use of a corporate aircraft and an automobile allowance, each at the same level that such benefits were available to Mr. White immediately prior to our acquisition of PlainsCapital. He continues to have bank-owned life insurance and access to the country club that was available to him through PlainsCapital’s membership prior to our acquisition of PlainsCapital. The agreement also includes, among other things, customary non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. Mr. White’s non-competition and non-solicitation obligations terminate thirty-six (36) months after his termination. For a description of compensation and benefits to which Mr. White is entitled in the event of his termination or a change in control, see “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” below. Mr. Huffines On December 4, 2014, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Huffines, pursuant to which Mr. Huffines will continue to serve as President and Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital. Mr. Huffines’s previous employment agreement expired on November 30, 2014 in accordance with its terms. The current employment agreement with Mr. Huffines has a three-year term and provides that Mr. Huffines is entitled to an annual base salary of $690,000 and is eligible to participate in (1) an annual incentive bonus program adopted by the Compensation Committee and (2) any long-term incentive award programs adopted by the Compensation Committee. Mr. Huffines is also entitled to participate in the employee benefit programs generally available to employees of the Company. The agreement also includes, among other things, customary non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. Mr. Huffines’s non-competition and non-solicitation obligations continue for twelve (12) months following the earlier of (i) his termination and (ii) the termination of his employment agreement. For a description of compensation and benefits to which Mr. Huffines is entitled in the event of his termination or a change in control, see “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” below. Mr. Salmans On December 4, 2014, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Salmans, pursuant to which Mr. Salmans will continue to serve as Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending. Mr. Salmans’s previous employment agreement expired on November 30, 2014 in accordance with its terms. The current employment agreement with Mr. Salmans has a three-year term and provides that Mr. Salmans is entitled to an annual base salary of $750,000 and is eligible to participate in (1) an annual incentive bonus program adopted by the Compensation Committee and (2) any long-term incentive award programs adopted by the Compensation Committee. Mr. Salmans is also entitled to participate in the employee benefit programs generally available to employees of the Company. Additionally, the agreement provides for a one-time cash bonus of $260,000, which was paid to Mr. Salmans upon execution of the agreement. The agreement also includes, among other things, customary non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. Mr. Salmans’s non-competition and non-solicitation obligations continue for twelve (12) months following the earlier of (i) his termination and (ii) the termination of his employment agreement. For a description of compensation and benefits to which Mr. Salmans is entitled in the event of his termination or a change in control, see “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” below. 43 Equity Incentive Plans On December 23, 2003, we adopted the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, which provides for the grant of equity-based awards, including restricted shares of our common stock, stock options, grants of shares and other equity-based incentives, to our directors, officers and other employees and certain of our subsidiaries selected by our Compensation Committee. At inception, 1,992,387 shares were authorized for issuance pursuant to the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. All shares granted and outstanding pursuant to the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, whether vested or unvested, are entitled to receive dividends and to vote, unless forfeited. No participant in our 2003 Equity Incentive Plan may be granted awards in any fiscal year representing more than 500,000 shares of our common stock. On September 20, 2012, our stockholders approved the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, and as a result, our ability to grant new awards pursuant to the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan was terminated. However, all awards that were previously granted and outstanding under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan will remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms and dividend equivalents may continue to be issued in respect of awards that were outstanding thereunder as of September 20, 2012. The 2012 Equity Incentive Plan provides for the grant of equity-based awards, including restricted shares of our common stock, RSUs, stock options, grants of shares, stock appreciation rights (SARs) and other equity-based incentives, to our directors, officers and other employees and those of our subsidiaries selected by our Compensation Committee. At inception, 4,000,000 shares were authorized for issuance pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. All shares granted and outstanding pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, whether vested or unvested, are entitled to receive dividends and to vote, unless forfeited. No participant in our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan may be granted performance-based equity awards in any fiscal year representing more than 500,000 shares of our common stock or stock options or SARs representing in excess of 750,000 shares of our common stock. The maximum number of shares underlying incentive stock options granted under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan may not exceed 2,000,000. The 2003 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan are administered by our Compensation Committee, which has the discretion to, among other things, determine the persons to whom awards will be granted, the number of shares of our common stock to be subject to awards and the other terms and conditions of the awards. The Compensation Committee also has authority to establish performance goals for purposes of determining cash bonuses to be paid under the incentive plans. Such performance goals may be applied to our Company as a whole, any of our subsidiaries or affiliates, and/or any of our divisions or strategic business units, and may be used to evaluate performance relative to a market index or a group of other companies. Further, the Compensation Committee has the authority to adjust the performance goals in recognition of unusual or non-recurring events. The 2003 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan each provide that in no event will the Compensation Committee be authorized to re-price stock options, or to lower the base or exercise price of any other award granted under such plan, without obtaining the approval of our stockholders. Stock options granted under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan may be either “incentive stock options” within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code, or nonqualified stock options. Generally, holders of restricted stock will be entitled to vote and receive dividends on their restricted shares, but our Compensation Committee may determine, in its discretion, whether dividends paid while the shares are subject to restrictions may be reinvested in additional shares of restricted stock. Except as otherwise permitted by our Compensation Committee, awards granted under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan will be transferable only by will or through the laws of descent and distribution, and each stock option will be exercisable during the participant’s lifetime only by the participant or, upon the participant’s death, by his or her estate. Director compensation paid in the form of our common stock, whether at our or the director’s election, is issued through the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. Annual Incentive Plan On September 20, 2012, our stockholders approved the Annual Incentive Plan, which provides for a cash bonus to key employees of Hilltop and our subsidiaries who are selected by the Compensation Committee for participation in the plan. The Annual Incentive Plan is intended to permit the payment of amounts that constitute “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and is designed to reward executives whose performance during the fiscal year enabled Hilltop to achieve favorable business results and to assist Hilltop in attracting 44 and retaining executives. A participant may receive a cash bonus under the Annual Incentive Plan based on the attainment, during each performance period, of performance objectives in support of our business strategy that are established by our Compensation Committee. These performance objectives may be based on one or more of the following criteria: (cid:120) stock price (cid:120) earnings (including earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) (cid:120) expense or expense levels (cid:120) economic value added (cid:120) earnings per share (whether on pre-tax, after-tax, operations or other basis) (cid:120) cash flow per share (before or after dividends) (cid:120) operating earnings (cid:120) total return to shareholders (cid:120) ratio of debt to debt plus equity (cid:120) net borrowing (cid:120) credit quality or debt ratings (cid:120) return on assets or operating assets (cid:120) asset quality (cid:120) net interest margin (cid:120) loan portfolio growth (cid:120) efficiency ratio (cid:120) deposit portfolio growth (cid:120) liquidity (cid:120) market share (cid:120) objective customer service measures or indices (cid:120) shareholder value added (cid:120) embedded value added (cid:120) loss ratio (cid:120) expense ratio (cid:120) combined ratio (cid:120) premiums (cid:120) premium growth (cid:120) investment income (cid:120) pre- or after-tax income (cid:120) net income (cid:120) cash flow (before or after dividends) (cid:120) free cash flow (cid:120) gross margin (cid:120) risk-based capital (cid:120) revenues (cid:120) revenue growth (cid:120) sales growth (cid:120) return on capital (including return on total capital or return on invested capital) (cid:120) capital expenditures (cid:120) cash flow return on investment (cid:120) cost (cid:120) cost control (cid:120) gross profit (cid:120) operating profit (cid:120) economic profit (cid:120) profit before tax (cid:120) net profit (cid:120) cash generation (cid:120) unit volume (cid:120) sales (cid:120) net asset value per share (cid:120) asset quality (cid:120) cost saving levels (cid:120) market-spending efficiency (cid:120) core non-interest income (cid:120) change in working capital The performance objectives may be applied with respect to Hilltop or any one or more of our subsidiaries, divisions, business units or business segments and may be applied to performance relative to a market index or a group of other companies. The Compensation Committee may adjust the performance goals applicable to any awards to reflect any unusual or non-recurring events. Participation in the Annual Incentive Plan does not guarantee the payment of an award. All awards payable pursuant to the Annual Incentive Plan are discretionary and subject to approval by our Compensation Committee. After the performance period ends, the Compensation Committee will determine the payment amount of individual awards based on the achievement of the performance objectives. No participant in the Annual Incentive Plan may receive an award that exceeds $10,000,000 per year. Except as otherwise provided in a participant’s employment or other individual agreement, the payment of a cash bonus to a participant for a performance period will be conditioned upon the participant’s active employment on the date that the final awards are approved by the Compensation Committee. We may amend or terminate the Annual Incentive Plan at any time. 45 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End The following table presents information pertaining to all outstanding equity awards held by the NEOs as of December 31, 2015. Number of Securities Underlying Option Unexercised Options Exercise Option Unexercisable Price Expiration Vested Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Exercisable (#) 500,000 (b) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — (#) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Date ($) 7.70 (c) 11/2/2016 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Market Equity Incentive Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Plan Awards: Market or Number of Payout Value of Number of Value of Unearned Unearned Shares or Shares, Units Units of or Other Rights Stock That Stock That Rights That That Have Not Have Not Vested (a) ($) Have Not Have Not Vested (a) ($) Shares or Shares, Units Units of Vested (#) or Other (#) — 30,000 (d) 12,696 (e) 18,004 (g) — 576,600 244,017 346,037 5,000 (d) 3,703 (e) 4,501 (g) 96,100 71,172 86,509 50,000 (d) 14,812 (e) 18,004 (g) 961,000 284,687 346,037 30,000 (d) 8,887 (e) 10,803 (g) 576,600 170,808 207,634 25,000 (d) 7,406 (e) 9,002 (g) 480,500 142,343 173,018 — — 12,696 (f) 18,004 (h) — 3,703 (f) 4,501 (h) — 14,811 (f) 18,004 (h) — 8,887 (f) 10,802 (h) — 7,406 (f) 9,002 (h) — — 244,017 346,037 — 71,172 86,509 — 284,667 346,037 — 170,808 207,614 — 142,343 173,018 (a) Based upon the closing price of $19.22 for our common stock on December 31, 2015. With respect to performance-based RSUs, the number of shares underlying each award was calculated based on the achievement of target level performance. (b) This stock option vested in five equal installments on each of November 2, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. (c) Represents the exercise price of stock options held by Mr. Jeremy B. Ford, which is the average of the high and low sales prices of Hilltop common stock on the date of grant of the stock option. (d) Represents shares of restricted common stock that cliff vested on April 1, 2016. (e) Represents time-based RSUs that cliff vest upon the earlier of February 24, 2017 and a change of control. (f) Represents performance-based RSUs that vest upon the achievement of certain performance goals during the three-year period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2016. (g) Represents time-based RSUs that cliff vest upon the earlier of February 24, 2018 and a change of control. (h) Represents performance-based RSUs that vest upon the achievement of certain performance goals during the three-year period beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2017. Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2015 During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, none of our NEOs exercised any options to purchase shares of common stock or held any outstanding awards of restricted stock, RSUs or similar instruments that vested. 46 Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation The following table shows the non-qualified deferred compensation activity for our NEOs during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Name Jeremy B. Ford Darren E. Parmenter Alan B. White James R. Huffines Todd L. Salmans Registrant Executive Contributions Contributions Earnings in in Last Fiscal in Last Fiscal Last Fiscal Year (a) ($) Year ($) Year ($) Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Withdrawals/ Balance at Distributions Last Fiscal Year End ($) — — ($) — — — — — — — — — — — — 29,261 — 6,520,666 — — — — — — — — (a) Represents interest earned on 2012 deferred compensation contributions of $6,430,890 for Mr. White. All amounts reported as aggregate earnings in the last fiscal year are reported as compensation in the last completed fiscal year in the Summary Compensation Table. In connection with our acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation, we entered into a retention agreement with Mr. White. Pursuant to this agreement, we agreed to contribute an amount in cash equal to $6,430,890 as deferred compensation to Mr. White in satisfaction of his rights under Section 6 (Termination Upon Change of Control) of his previous employment agreement with PlainsCapital. Such amount accrues interest at the prevailing money market rate and is payable to Mr. White on the 55th day following termination of his employment. Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control The 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, under which we have granted awards to the NEOs, contains specific termination and change in control provisions. We determined to include a change in control provision in the plan to be competitive with what we believe to be the standards for the treatment of equity upon a change in control for similar companies and so that employees who remain after a change in control would be treated the same with regard to equity as the general stockholders who could sell or otherwise transfer their equity upon a change in control. Under the terms of the plan, if a change in control (as defined below in the discussion of the plan) were to occur, all awards then outstanding would become vested and/or exercisable and any applicable performance goals with respect thereto would be deemed to be fully achieved. Employment Contracts Mr. White If Mr. White’s retention contract is terminated by us for cause, by him or due to his death or disability (as such terms are defined below), he or his estate, as applicable, is entitled to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) his annual base salary through the date of termination, to the extent not already paid and not deferred; any annual bonus earned by him for a prior award period, to the extent not already paid and not deferred; any business expenses he incurred that are not yet reimbursed as of the date of termination; and any other amounts or benefits, including all unpaid and/or vested, nonforfeitable amounts owing or accrued to him, required to be paid or provided or which he is eligible to receive under any plan, program, policy or practice or contract or agreement, to the extent not already paid and not deferred, through the date of termination. In addition, Mr. White or his estate, as applicable, is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to $6,430,890, which represents the amount Mr. White would have been entitled to receive under his prior employment agreement with 47 PlainsCapital if his employment was terminated. Such amounts described in the preceding paragraph are referred to as the “White Accrued Amounts.” If Mr. White’s employment is terminated by us other than for cause (as such term is defined below) or his death or disability, or if his employment terminates due to non-renewal by us, he is entitled to the White Accrued Amounts, including the lump-sum cash payment equal to $6,430,890 and interest thereon from November 30, 2012, as well as payments generally equal to the sum of the average of Mr. White’s prior annual bonuses over the preceding three years plus his annual base salary, multiplied by the greater of (i) the number of full and partial years remaining until the end of the term of his retention agreement and (ii) two. Mr. White will retain the right to be grossed-up for any excise tax relating to “excess parachute payments” (as defined in Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code), which is set forth in his prior employment agreement, provided that the gross-up will only relate to any excise taxes arising in connection with our acquisition of PlainsCapital. These severance amounts are payable subject to Mr. White’s execution of a release of claims. Messrs. Huffines and Salmans With respect to Messrs. Huffines and Salmans, if the employment agreement is terminated (1) by the executive officer, (2) by the Company for “cause” (as such term is defined below), or (3) in the event of the executive officer’s death or disability, the executive officer (or his estate, as applicable) will be entitled to receive his base salary through the effective date of such termination, all earned and unpaid and/or vested, nonforfeitable amounts owed to executive officer at such time under the employment agreement or under any compensation or benefit plans and reimbursement for any unreimbursed business expenses incurred prior to the effective date of such termination (collectively, the “Officer Accrued Amounts”). If the executive officer’s employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” (other than pursuant to a “change in control” (as such term is defined in the applicable employment agreement of such executive officer)), the executive officer will be entitled to receive the Officer Accrued Amounts and, subject to the executive officer’s execution and delivery to the Company of a release of claims, (1) a lump-sum cash payment equal to the sum of (A) the executive officer’s annual base salary rate immediately prior to the effective date of such termination and (B) an amount equal to the annual incentive cash bonus paid to the executive officer in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the termination, and (2) if the executive officer elects continuation of coverage under the Company’s group health plan pursuant to COBRA, reimbursement for the executive officer’s COBRA premiums for a period of twelve months following the date of such termination, or until the executive officer is otherwise eligible for health coverage under another employer group health plan. Further, if the executive officer’s employment is terminated without “cause” within the twelve months immediately following, or the six months immediately preceding, a “change in control,” the executive officer, upon execution of a release, will be entitled to receive (1) a lump-sum cash payment equal to two times the sum of (A) the executive officer’s annual base salary rate immediately prior to the effective date of such termination and (B) an amount equal to the annual incentive cash bonus paid to the executive officer in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the termination, and (2) if the executive officer elects continuation of coverage under the Company’s group health plan pursuant to COBRA, reimbursement for the executive officer’s COBRA premiums for a period of twelve months following the date of such termination, or until the executive officer is otherwise eligible for health coverage under another employer group health plan. Notwithstanding the above, any amounts payable to the executive officer upon a change of control shall not constitute a “parachute payment” and shall be reduced accordingly. For the purposes of Mr. White’s retention agreement and the employment agreements of Messrs. Huffines and Salmans, “cause” means: (i) an intentional act of fraud, embezzlement or theft in connection with the executive’s duties or in the course of his employment with the Company or its affiliates; (ii) intentional wrongful damage to property of the Company or its affiliates; (iii) intentional wrongful disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information of the Company or its affiliates; (iv) intentional violation of any law, rule or regulation (other than traffic violations or similar offenses) or a final “Cease and Desist Order;” (v) intentional breach of fiduciary duty involving personal profit; or (vi) intentional action or inaction that causes material economic harm to the Company or its affiliates. In addition to items above, the definition of “cause” in Messrs. Huffines and Salmans employment agreements includes (a) a material violation of the Company’s written policies, standards or guidelines applicable to the executive officer or (b) the failure 48 or refusal of the executive officer to follow the reasonable lawful directives of the Board of Directors or the executive officer’s supervisors. For the purposes of Mr. White’s retention agreement, “disability” means he shall have been absent from full-time performance of his duties for 180 consecutive days as a result of incapacity due to physical or mental illness that is determined to be total and permanent by a physician. For the purposes of the employment agreements with Messrs. Huffines and Salmans, “disability” is defined in accordance with our disability policy in effect at the time of the disability. Set forth below are the amounts that Messrs. Jeremy B. Ford, Parmenter, White, Huffines and Salmans would have received if the specified events had occurred on December 31, 2015: Jeremy B. Ford Accrued amounts Cash payment Cash severance Stock options Restricted stock (a) Restricted stock units (b) Welfare benefits Total Termination for Cause Termination due to Death or Disability Termination Without Cause Change of Control $ $ — $ — — — — — — — $ — $ — — — 527,177 207,760 — 734,937 $ — $ — — — 527,177 207,760 — — — — — 576,600 1,180,108 — 734,937 $ 1,756,708 (a) The restricted stock vests ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested restricted stock vests upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. (b) The RSUs vest ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested RSUs vest upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. In each case, it is assumed the target award is achieved or utilized to calculate vesting of performance awards. The form of award governing a portion of the RSUs includes a non-solicitation provision that is triggered upon the participant’s termination. For additional information, see “—Incentive Plans.” Darren E. Parmenter Accrued amounts Cash payment Cash severance Stock options Restricted stock (a) Restricted stock units (b) Welfare benefits Total Termination due to Death or Disability Termination for Cause $ $ — $ — — — — — — — $ Change of Termination Without Cause Control — $ — — — 87,863 52,587 — — — — — 96,100 315,362 — 140,449 $ 411,462 — $ — — — 87,863 52,587 — 140,449 $ (a) The restricted stock vests ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested restricted stock vests upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. (b) The RSUs vest ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested RSUs vest upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. In each case, it is assumed the target award is achieved or utilized to calculate vesting of performance awards. The form of award governing a portion of the RSUs includes a non-solicitation provision that is triggered upon the participant’s termination. For additional information, see “—Incentive Plans.” 49  Termination due Termination to Death or Disability or by Without Cause or Non-Renewal of Retention Agreement Termination for Executive for any Change of Alan B. White Accrued amounts (a) Cash payment (b) Cash severance (c) Stock options Restricted stock (d) Restricted stock units (e) Welfare benefits Total Cause $ 1,350,000 $ 6,520,666 — — — — — $ 7,870,666 $ Control Reason 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 6,520,666 — — 878,629 210,346 — — — — — 961,000 1,261,428 — 8,959,640 $ 14,359,640 $ 2,222,428 6,520,666 5,400,000 — 878,629 210,346 — (a) Accrued amounts calculation based upon the sum of: (i) Mr. White’s annual base salary through December 31, 2015, to the extent not already paid and not deferred; (ii) any annual bonus earned, to the extent not already paid and not deferred; (iii) any business expenses incurred that have not yet been reimbursed as of the date of termination; and (iv) any other amounts or benefits, including all unpaid and/or vested, nonforfeitable amounts owing or accrued to Mr. White. (b) Cash payments refers to a lump-sum cash payment that represents the amount, including interest thereon, Mr. White would have been entitled to receive under his prior employment agreement with PlainsCapital if his employment had been terminated. (c) Cash severance calculation based upon the sum of the average of Mr. White’s prior annual bonuses for each of the preceding three years plus his annual base salary, multiplied by the greater of: (i) the number of full and partial years remaining until the end of the term of his employment agreement and (ii) two. (d) The restricted stock vests ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested restricted stock vests upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. (e) The RSUs vest ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested RSUs vest upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. In each case, it is assumed the target award is achieved or utilized to calculate vesting of performance awards. The form of award governing a portion of the RSUs includes a non-solicitation provision that is triggered upon the participant’s termination. For additional information, see “—Incentive Plans.” James R. Huffines Accrued amounts Cash payment Cash severance (a) Stock options Restricted stock (b) Restricted stock units (c) Welfare benefits Total Termination for Cause Termination due to Death or Disability Termination Without Cause Change of Control $ $ — $ — — — — — — — $ — $ — — — 527,177 126,209 — — — 2,490,000 — 576,600 756,864 — 653,386 $ 1,898,386 $ 3,823,464 — $ — 1,245,000 — 527,177 126,209 — (a) Cash severance calculation if Mr. Huffines is terminated without cause is based upon the sum of: (i) Mr. Huffines’s annual base salary rate and (ii) an amount equal to annual incentive cash bonus paid to Mr. Huffines in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the date of termination. If his employment is terminated upon a change in control, the cash severance calculation is based upon two times the sum of: (i) Mr. Huffines’ annual base salary rate and (ii) an amount equal to annual incentive cash bonus paid to Mr. Huffines in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the date of termination. (b) The restricted stock vests ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested restricted stock vests upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. (c) The RSUs vest ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested RSUs vest upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. In each case, it is assumed the target award is achieved or utilized to calculate vesting of performance awards. The form of award governing a portion of the RSUs includes a non-solicitation provision that is triggered upon the participant’s termination. For additional information, see “—Incentive Plans.” 50 Todd L. Salmans Accrued amounts Cash payment Cash severance (a) Stock options Restricted stock (b) Restricted stock units (c) Welfare benefits Total Termination due to Death or Disability or by Termination for Executive for any Termination without cause Reason Cause Change of Control $ $ — $ — — — — — — — $ — $ — — — 439,314 105,173 — — — 2,500,000 — 480,500 630,724 — 544,487 $ 1,794,487 $ 3,611,224 — $ — 1,250,000 — 439,314 105,173 — (a) Cash severance calculation if Mr. Salmans is terminated without cause is based upon the sum of: (i) Mr. Salmans’s annual base salary rate and (ii) an amount equal to annual incentive cash bonus paid to Mr. Salmans in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the date of termination. If his employment is terminated upon a change in control, the cash severance calculation is based upon two times the sum of: (i) Mr. Salmans’s annual base salary rate and (ii) an amount equal to annual incentive cash bonus paid to Mr. Salmans in respect of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the date of termination. (b) The restricted stock vests ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested restricted stock vests upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. (c) The RSUs vest ratably upon the death or disability of the participant or termination of the participant without cause. The foregoing assumes the death or disability or termination of the participant without cause on December 31, 2015. If a change of control under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan occurs, all unvested RSUs vest upon such event, which for purposes of the foregoing assumes December 31, 2015. In each case, it is assumed the target award is achieved or utilized to calculate vesting of performance awards. The form of award governing a portion of the RSUs includes a non-solicitation provision that is triggered upon the participant’s termination. For additional information, see “—Incentive Plans.” Incentive Plans Each of the incentive plans has a complex definition of “change in control”. Generally speaking, under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, a change in control occurs if: (i) with certain exceptions, any person becomes the owner of 50% or more of the combined voting power of our outstanding stock and other voting securities; (ii) a majority of the directors serving on our Board of Directors are replaced other than by new directors approved by at least two-thirds of the members of our Board of Directors; (iii) we are not the surviving company after a merger or consolidation; or (iv) with certain exceptions, our stockholders approve a plan of complete liquidation or dissolution or an agreement for the sale or disposition of all or substantially all of our assets is consummated. Under the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, a change in control occurs if: (i) with certain exceptions, any person becomes the owner of 33% or more of the outstanding shares of our common stock or the combined voting power of our outstanding stock and other voting securities; (ii) a majority of the directors serving on our Board of Directors are replaced other than by new directors approved by at least two-thirds of the members of our Board of Directors; (iii) we are not the surviving company after a merger or consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets; or (iv) with certain exceptions, our stockholders approve a plan of complete liquidation or dissolution. Both our 2003 Equity Incentive Plan and our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan are “single trigger” plans, meaning that accelerated vesting occurs upon a change in control even if the award holder remains with us after the change in control, regardless of whether awards are assumed or substituted by the surviving company. We believe a “single trigger” change in control provision was appropriate because it allows management to pursue all alternatives for us without undue concern for their own financial security. In the event of a change in control, all awards then outstanding under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan will become vested and, if applicable, exercisable, and any performance goals imposed with respect to then-outstanding awards will be deemed to be fully achieved. With respect to awards granted pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, in the event of a change in control: (i) all outstanding stock options and SARs will become fully vested and exercisable; (ii) all restrictions on any restricted stock, RSUs or other stock-based awards that are not subject to performance goals will become fully vested; and (iii) all restrictions on any restricted stock, RSUs, performance units or other stock-based awards that are subject to performance goals will be deemed to be fully achieved. 51 In addition to acceleration of benefits upon a change in control event, the non-qualified stock option agreements pursuant to which all option awards are granted provide for acceleration of vesting upon the death of the option holder. No other rights of acceleration are provided for under the terms of the Company’s benefit plans. However, in 2015, we revised our form of award for time-based and performance-based RSUs to include a non-solicitation provision that lasts for twelve months following a participant’s termination for any reason. In the event of a breach of the non-solicitation provision, the participant’s RSUs granted under the form of award will immediately cease vesting and any unvested RSUs or vested RSUs that have not been converted into shares of common stock will be forfeited. Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation During fiscal year 2015, directors Rhodes R. Bobbitt, W. Joris Brinkerhoff, William T. Hill, Jr., Andrew J. Littlefair and A. Haag Sherman served on the Compensation Committee. During fiscal year 2015: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) none of the members of our Compensation Committee is, or has ever been, one of our officers or employees; none of the members of our Compensation Committee had any relationships with the Company requiring disclosure under “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions”; none of our executive officers served as a member of the compensation committee of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our Compensation Committee; none of our executive officers served as a director of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our Compensation Committee; and none of our executive officers served as a member of the compensation committee of another entity, one of whose executive officers served as one of our directors. Each of Mr. White, PlainsCapital’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Huffines, PlainsCapital’s President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Feinberg, Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Securities, serves as a director of Hilltop. Hilltop’s Compensation Committee is comprised of independent directors, reviews and sets the compensation of each of Messrs. White, Huffines and Feinberg and does not believe that these interlocks pose any risks that are likely to have a material adverse effect on us. Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than ten percent of our stock to file initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership with the SEC. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. Based solely on a review of the copies furnished to us and representations from our officers and directors, we believe that all Section 16(a) filing requirements for the year ended December 31, 2015, applicable to our officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were timely satisfied, except that (i) one Form 4 relating to a transaction that occurred on March 5, 2015 was filed late by Mr. Huffines and (ii) one Form 4 relating to a transaction that occurred on June 1, 2015 was filed late by Mr. Schaffner. Based on written representations from our officers and directors, we believe that all Forms 5 for directors, officers and greater than ten percent beneficial owners that have been filed with the SEC are the only Forms 5 required to be filed for the period ended December 31, 2015. 52 CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS General Transactions with related persons are governed by our General Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, which applies to all officers, directors and employees. This code covers a wide range of potential activities, including, among others, conflicts of interest, self-dealing and related party transactions. Waiver of the policies set forth in this code will only be permitted when circumstances warrant. Such waivers for directors and executive officers, or that provide a benefit to a director or executive officer, may be made only by the Board of Directors, as a whole, or the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and must be promptly disclosed as required by applicable law or regulation. Absent such a review and approval process in conformity with the applicable guidelines relating to the particular transaction under consideration, such arrangements are not permitted. Hilltop Sublease On December 1, 2012, Hilltop entered into a sublease with Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd., an affiliate of Mr. Gerald J. Ford and the tenant of the office space. Pursuant to the Sublease, until February 27, 2014, Hilltop leased 5,491 square feet for $219,640 annually, plus additional rent due under the base lease. On February 28, 2014, the parties amended the Sublease to increase the square footage subleased to 6,902 square feet, increase the rent based on such additional square footage, and extend the term to July 31, 2018. Hilltop pays the same rate per square foot as Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd. is required to pay under the base lease, as amended. Jeremy B. Ford, a director and the Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop, is the beneficiary of a trust that owns a 49% limited partnership interest in Diamond A Financial, L.P. Diamond A Financial, L.P. owns 15.8% of the outstanding Hilltop common stock at April 21, 2016. He also is a director and the Secretary of Diamond A Administration Company, LLC, or Diamond A, an affiliate of Gerald J. Ford, the current Chairman of the Board of Hilltop and the beneficial owner of 15.8% of Hilltop common stock as of April 21, 2016. Diamond A is owned by Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd., a limited partnership in which a trust for the benefit of Jeremy B. Ford is a 46% limited partner. The spouse of Corey G. Prestidge, Hilltop’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, is the beneficiary of a trust that also owns a 46% limited partnership interest in Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd. and a trust that owns a 49% limited partnership interest in Diamond A Financial, L.P. Jeremy B. Ford is the son of Gerald J. Ford. Mr. Prestidge is the son-in-law of Gerald J. Ford. Accordingly, Messrs. Jeremy B. Ford and Prestidge are brothers-in-law. Employment of Certain Family Members We currently employ certain family members of our officers and/or directors in the following capacities: Corey G. Prestidge, the brother-in-law of Jeremy B. Ford, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and the son-in-law of Gerald J. Ford, the Chairman of our Board, serves as Hilltop’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; Lee Ann White, the wife of Alan B. White, PlainsCapital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, serves as the Senior Vice President, Director of Public Relations of PlainsCapital; Logan Passmore, the son-in-law of Mr. White, serves as Assistant Vice President, Commercial Loan Officer I of PlainsCapital Bank; Kale Salmans, the son of Todd Salmans, Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending, serves as Senior Vice President, Strategic Resources and Process Improvement of PrimeLending; and Ty Tucker, the son-in-law of Mr. Salmans, serves as Vice President, Risk Analyst of PrimeLending. Pursuant to our employment arrangements with these individuals, during 2015, we paid Corey G. Prestidge $687,301, Lee Ann White $147,768, Logan Passmore $82,268, Kale Salmans $708,855 and Ty Tucker $139,878 cash compensation for their services as employees during 2015. Cowboys Stadium Suite In 2007, the Bank contracted with Cowboys Stadium, L.P., a company affiliated with the employer of Ms. Anderson and that is beneficially owned by Ms. Anderson and certain of her immediate family members, for the 20-year lease of a suite at Cowboys Stadium beginning in 2009. Pursuant to the lease agreement, PlainsCapital Bank has agreed to pay Cowboys Stadium, L.P. annual payments of $500,000, subject to possible annual escalations, not to exceed 3% per year, beginning with the tenth year of the lease. 53 Indebtedness The Bank has had, and may be expected to have in the future, lending relationships in the ordinary course of business with our directors and executive officers, members of their immediate families and affiliated companies in which they are employed or in which they are principal equity holders. In our management’s opinion, our prior or current lending relationships with these persons were made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms, including interest rates, collateral and repayment terms, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not related to us and do not involve more than normal collection risk or present other unfavorable features. 54 PROPOSAL TWO — ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Pursuant to Section 14A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, we are asking stockholders to cast an advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers disclosed in the Management section of this Proxy Statement. At our 2011 annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders voted in favor of a proposal to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation each year. While this vote is a non-binding advisory vote, we value the opinions of stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions. We anticipate that the next advisory vote to determine the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation will be presented at our annual meeting held in 2017. We believe that our executive compensation programs effectively aligned the interests of our named executive officers with those of our stockholders by tying compensation to performance. This annual vote on this matter is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the policies and practices described in this Proxy Statement. The vote is advisory and, therefore, not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. We are asking our stockholders to indicate their support for this Proposal Two and the compensation paid to our named executive officers as disclosed commencing on page 27 of this Proxy Statement by voting FOR, on an advisory basis, the following resolution: “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to the named executive officers of the Company, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion & Analysis, the compensation tables and the narrative discussion related thereto.” Vote Necessary to Approve, on an Advisory Basis, Executive Compensation The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the matter is required to approve, on an advisory basis, our executive compensation. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will review the results of this matter and will take the results into account in making future determinations concerning executive compensation. For purposes of the advisory vote on executive compensation, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. 55 PROPOSAL THREE — RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP served as our independent registered public accounting firm during 2015 and has been selected to serve in that capacity for 2016, unless the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors subsequently determines that a change is desirable. While stockholder ratification is not required for the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm, the selection is being submitted for ratification at the Annual Meeting, solely with a view toward soliciting our stockholders’ opinion. This opinion will be taken into consideration by the Audit Committee in its future deliberations. A representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is expected to be at our Annual Meeting to respond to appropriate questions and, if PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP desires, to make a statement. Vote Necessary to Ratify the Appointment The appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016 will be ratified if this proposal receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the matter. With respect to this proposal, abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote, although they will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum. Under applicable rules, a broker will have the authority to vote for this proposal in the absence of instructions from the beneficial owner of the relevant shares. Report of the Audit Committee The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Hilltop Holdings Inc. currently consists of three directors and operates under a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors. Hilltop considers all members to be independent as defined by the applicable NYSE listing standards and SEC regulations. Management is responsible for Hilltop’s internal controls and the financial reporting process. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Hilltop’s independent registered public accounting firm, is responsible for performing an independent audit of Hilltop’s consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The Audit Committee’s responsibility is to monitor and oversee the financial reporting process. In this context, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s evaluation of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee has discussed with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the matters that are required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees, issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The Audit Committee received from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the written disclosures and the letter required by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3526, and has discussed with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the issue of its independence from the Company. The Audit Committee also concluded that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s provision of audit and non-audit services to the Company and its affiliates is compatible with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s independence. Based upon the Audit Committee’s review of the audited consolidated financial statements and its discussion with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP noted above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. This report has been furnished by the members of the Audit Committee. Charles R. Cummings (Chairman) Tracy A. Bolt J. Markham Green 56 Independent Auditor’s Fees For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the total fees paid to our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, were as follows: Audit Fees Audit-Related Fees Tax Fees All Other Fees Total Audit Fees Fiscal Year Ended 2015 5,744,025 1,042,806 — 1,800 6,788,631 $ $ 2014 4,356,725 397,700 — 1,800 4,756,225 $ $ Represents fees billed for the audits of our consolidated financial statements and effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, reviews of our interim financial statements included in the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, statutory and regulatory audits and related services required for certain of our subsidiaries, and consultations related to miscellaneous SEC and financial reporting matters. Audit-Related Fees Represents fees billed for services related to the SWS merger and other SEC filings, including a debt offering pursuant to Rule 144A whereby we issued notes that were subsequently exchanged for identical notes registered under the Securities Act, for the Company in 2015 and 2014. Tax Fees No tax fees were incurred during 2015 and 2014. All Other Fees In 2015 and 2014, these fees related to an annual renewal of software licenses for accounting research software. Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the Audit Committee reviews and pre-approves any non-audit services to be performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to ensure that the work does not compromise its independence in performing its audit services. The Audit Committee also reviews and pre-approves all audit services. In some cases, pre-approval is provided by the full committee for up to a year, and relates to a particular category or group of services and is subject to a specific budget. In other cases, the Chairman of the Audit Committee has the delegated authority from the committee to pre-approve additional services, and such pre-approvals are then communicated to the full Audit Committee. The Audit Committee pre-approved all fees noted above for 2015 and 2014. The policy contains a de minimis provision that operates to provide retroactive approval for permissible non-audit services under certain circumstances. No services were provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP during either 2015 or 2014 that fell under this provision. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2016. 57 STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2017 Stockholder proposals intended to be presented at our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders pursuant to Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act must be received by us at our principal executive offices no later than 5:00 p.m., Dallas, Texas local time, on January 5, 2017 and must otherwise comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-8 in order to be considered for inclusion in the 2017 proxy statement and proxy. In order for director nominations and proposals of stockholders made outside the processes of Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act to be considered “timely” for purposes of Rule 14a-4(c) under the Exchange Act and pursuant to our current bylaws, the nomination or proposal must be received by us at our principal executive offices not before January 4, 2017, and not later than 5:00 p.m. Dallas, Texas local time, on February 3, 2017; provided, however, that in the event that the date of the 2017 annual meeting is not within 30 days before or after June 13, 2017, notice by the stockholder in order to be timely must be received no earlier than the 120th day prior to the date of the 2017 annual meeting and not later than 5:00 p.m. Dallas, Texas local time, on the 90th day prior to the date of the 2017 annual meeting or the 10th day following the day on which public announcement of the date of the 2017 annual meeting is first made, whichever is later. Stockholders are advised to review our charter and bylaws, which contain additional requirements with respect to advance notice of stockholder proposals and director nominations, copies of which are available without charge upon request to our corporate Secretary at the address listed under “Questions” below. OTHER MATTERS Our Board of Directors knows of no other matters that have been submitted for consideration at this Annual Meeting. If any other matters properly come before our stockholders at this Annual Meeting, the persons named on the enclosed proxy card intend to vote the shares they represent in their discretion. MULTIPLE STOCKHOLDERS SHARING ONE ADDRESS In accordance with Rule 14a-3(e)(1) under the Exchange Act, one set of proxy materials will be delivered to two or more stockholders who share an address, unless the Company has received contrary instructions from one or more of the stockholders. The Company will deliver promptly upon written or oral request a separate copy of the proxy materials to a stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of the proxy materials was delivered. Requests for additional copies of the proxy materials, and requests that in the future separate proxy materials be sent to stockholders who share an address, should be directed by writing to Investor Relations, Hilltop Holdings Inc., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330, Dallas, Texas 75201, or by calling (214) 855-2177. In addition, stockholders who share a single address but receive multiple copies of the proxy materials may request that in the future they receive a single copy by contacting the Company at the address and phone number set forth in the prior sentence. ANNUAL REPORT A COPY OF OUR ANNUAL REPORT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS PROXY STATEMENT BUT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SOLICITATION MATERIAL. A COPY OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT AND OUR ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 ALSO IS AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE FROM OUR COMPANY WEBSITE AT WWW.HILLTOP-HOLDINGS.COM OR UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO: INVESTOR RELATIONS, HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC., 200 CRESCENT COURT, SUITE 1330, DALLAS, TEXAS 75201. If you have questions or need more information about the Annual Meeting, you may write to the corporate Secretary at the following address of our principal executive office: QUESTIONS Corporate Secretary Hilltop Holdings Inc. 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 You may also call us at (214) 855-2177. We also invite you to visit our website at www.hilltop-holdings.com. 58 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-2177 Facsimile: (214) 855-2173 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (cid:95)(cid:95) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2015 (cid:134)(cid:134) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number: 1-31987 Hilltop Holdings Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Maryland (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, TX (Address of principal executive offices) 84-1477939 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 75201 (Zip Code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: (214) 855-2177 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Title of each class Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share Name of each exchange on which registered New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. (cid:59) Yes (cid:134) 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. (cid:134) Yes (cid:59) 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. (cid:59) Yes (cid:134) No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§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). (cid:59) Yes (cid:134) 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. (cid:134) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer Non-accelerated filer (cid:59) (cid:133) (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Accelerated filer Smaller reporting company (cid:134) (cid:134) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). (cid:134) Yes (cid:59) No Aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates, computed by reference to the price at which the common stock was last sold on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2015, was approximately $1.86 billion. For the purposes of this computation, all officers, directors and 10% stockholders are considered affiliates. The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding at February 24, 2016 was 98,085,931. The Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement pertaining to the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, filed or to be filed not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year pursuant to Regulation 14A, is incorporated herein by reference into Part III. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA AND FORECASTS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS PART I Item 1. Business Item 1A. Risk Factors Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments Item 2. Item 3. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures Properties Legal Proceedings PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities Selected Financial Data Item 6. Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Item 8. Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure Item 9A. Controls and Procedures Item 9B. Other Information Financial Statements and Supplementary Data PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance Item 11. Executive Compensation Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 5 33 54 54 54 54 55 57 59 103 106 106 107 107 108 108 108 108 108 109 MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA AND FORECASTS Market and industry data and other statistical information and forecasts used throughout this Annual Report on Form 10- K (this “Annual Report”) are based on independent industry publications, government publications and reports by market research firms or other published independent sources. We have not sought or obtained the approval or endorsement of the use of this third party information. Some data also is based on our good faith estimates, which are derived from our review of internal surveys, as well as independent sources. Forecasts are particularly likely to be inaccurate, especially over long periods of time. 2 Unless the context otherwise indicates, all references in this Annual Report to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” or “ours” or similar words are to Hilltop Holdings Inc. and its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, references to “Hilltop” refer solely to Hilltop Holdings Inc., references to “PlainsCapital” refer to PlainsCapital Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Securities Holdings” refer to Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Hilltop Securities” refer to Hilltop Securities Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as Southwest Securities, Inc.), references to “HTS Independent Network” refer to Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as SWS Financial Services, Inc.), references to the “Bank” refer to PlainsCapital Bank (a wholly owned subsidiary of PlainsCapital), references to “FNB” refer to First National Bank, references to “SWS” refer to the former SWS Group, Inc., references to “First Southwest” refer to First Southwest Holdings, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “FSC” refer to First Southwest Company, LLC (a former wholly owned subsidiary of First Southwest), references to “PrimeLending” refer to PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLC” refer to National Lloyds Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLIC” refer to National Lloyds Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC) and references to “ASIC” refer to American Summit Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC). FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report and the documents incorporated by reference into this report include “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included in this Annual Report that address results or developments that we expect or anticipate will or may occur in the future, and statements that are preceded by, followed by or include, words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “forecasts,” “goal,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “probable,” “projects,” “seeks,” “should,” “target,” “view” or “would” or the negative of these words and phrases or similar words or phrases, including such things as our business strategy, our financial condition, our efforts to make strategic acquisitions, the integration of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger (as defined below), our revenue, our liquidity and sources of funding, market trends, operations and business, expectations concerning mortgage loan origination volume, expected losses on covered loans and related reimbursements from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), expected levels of refinancing as a percentage of total loan origination volume, projected losses on mortgage loans originated, anticipated changes in our revenues or earnings, the effects of government regulation applicable to our operations, the appropriateness of our allowance for loan losses and provision for loan losses, and the collectability of loans and litigation are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future performance taking into account all information currently available to us. These beliefs, assumptions and expectations are subject to risks and uncertainties and can change as a result of many possible events or factors, not all of which are known to us. If an event occurs, our business, business plan, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. Certain factors that could cause actual results to differ include, among others: (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) risks associated with merger and acquisition integration, including our ability to promptly and effectively integrate our businesses with those acquired in the SWS Merger and achieve the anticipated synergies and cost savings in connection therewith, as well as the diversion of management time on acquisition- and integration- related issues; our ability to estimate loan losses; changes in the default rate of our loans; changes in general economic, market and business conditions in areas or markets where we compete, including changes in the price of crude oil; risks associated with concentration in real estate related loans; severe catastrophic events in Texas and other areas of the southern United States; changes in the interest rate environment; 3 (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) cost and availability of capital; effectiveness of our data security controls in the face of cyber attacks; changes in state and federal laws, regulations or policies affecting one or more of our business segments, including changes in regulatory fees, deposit insurance premiums, capital requirements and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”); approval of new, or changes in, accounting policies and practices; changes in key management; competition in our banking, broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance segments from other banks and financial institutions as well as investment banking and financial advisory firms, mortgage bankers, asset-based non-bank lenders, government agencies and insurance companies; our ability to obtain reimbursements for losses on acquired loans under loss-share agreements with the FDIC to the extent the FDIC determines that we did not adequately manage the debt loan portfolio; failure of our insurance segment reinsurers to pay obligations under reinsurance contracts; and our ability to use excess cash in an effective manner, including the execution of successful acquisitions. For a more detailed discussion of these and other factors that may affect our business and that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, see Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” herein. We caution that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive, and new factors may emerge, or changes to the foregoing factors may occur, that could impact our business. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements concerning our business attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements above. We do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, relating to the matters discussed in this Annual Report except to the extent required by federal securities laws. 4 PART I Item 1. Business. General Hilltop Holdings Inc. is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Bank Holding Company Act”), headquartered in Dallas, Texas that endeavors to build and maintain a strong, diversified Texas-based financial services holding company through both acquisitions and organic growth. Following our acquisition of PlainsCapital Corporation in November 2012 (the “PlainsCapital Merger”), our primary line of business has been to provide business and consumer banking services from offices located throughout Texas through the Bank. We also provide an array of financial products and services through our broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance segments. We intend to make acquisitions with available cash, excess liquidity and, if necessary or appropriate, from additional equity or debt financing sources. We further expanded our operations through our assumption of substantially all of the liabilities and acquisition of substantially all of the assets of FNB, including former FNB branches, in an FDIC-assisted transaction on September 13, 2013 (the “FNB Transaction”) and our acquisition by merger of SWS for stock and cash consideration on January 1, 2015 (the “SWS Merger”). Through the SWS Merger, SWS’s broker-dealer subsidiaries, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc., became subsidiaries of Securities Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop, and SWS’s banking subsidiary, Southwest Securities, FSB (“SWS FSB”), was merged into the Bank. On October 5, 2015, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc. were renamed “Hilltop Securities Inc.” and “Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc.”, respectively. Effective January 1, 2015, in connection with the SWS Merger, we modified our organizational structure into three primary operating business units, PlainsCapital (banking and mortgage origination), Securities Holdings (broker-dealer) and NLC (insurance). The PlainsCapital unit continues to include the Bank and PrimeLending, while the new Securities Holdings unit includes our broker-dealer operations transferred from the PlainsCapital unit effective January 1, 2015, and two entities acquired in the SWS Merger, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. On October 22, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) granted approval to combine FSC and Hilltop Securities, subject to customary conditions. Following this approval, we integrated the back-office systems of FSC and Hilltop Securities and, on January 22, 2016, merged FSC and Hilltop Securities into a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name. We use the term “Hilltop Broker-Dealers” to refer to FSC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network prior to such date and Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network after such date. The following includes additional details regarding the financial products and services provided by each of our primary operating business units. PlainsCapital. PlainsCapital is a financial holding company headquartered in Dallas, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, traditional banking services, wealth and investment management and treasury management primarily in Texas as well as residential mortgage lending throughout the United States. Securities Holdings. Securities Holdings is a holding company headquartered in Dallas, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, investment banking and other related financial services, including municipal advisory, sales, trading and underwriting of taxable and tax-exempt fixed income securities, equity trading, clearing, securities lending, structured finance and retail brokerage services throughout the United States. NLC. NLC is a property and casualty insurance holding company headquartered in Waco, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, fire and homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States. At December 31, 2015, on a consolidated basis, we had total assets of $11.9 billion, total deposits of $7.0 billion, total loans, including loans held for sale, of $7.1 billion and stockholders’ equity of $1.7 billion. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “HTH.” 5 Our principal office is located at 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330, Dallas, Texas 75201, and our telephone number at that location is (214) 855-2177. Our internet address is www.hilltop-holdings.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available on our website at http://ir.hilltop-holdings.com/ under the tab “SEC Filings” as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The references to our website in this Annual Report are inactive textual references only. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report. Organizational Structure Our organizational structure is comprised of three primary operating business units: PlainsCapital (banking and mortgage origination); Securities Holdings (broker-dealer); and NLC (insurance). Within the PlainsCapital unit are two primary wholly owned operating subsidiaries: the Bank and PrimeLending. Effective as of the close of business on January 22, 2016, the Securities Holdings unit includes two primary wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. The following provides additional details regarding our current organizational structure. Geographic Dispersion of our Businesses The Bank provides traditional banking and wealth, investment and treasury management services The Bank has a presence in every major market in Texas and conducts substantially all of its banking operations in Texas. Our broker-dealer services are provided through Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network, which conduct business nationwide. Public finance financial advisory revenues represented 27% of total segment revenues during 2015, and 74% of such public finance financial advisory revenues were from entities located in Texas. Additionally, the retail brokerage service operations acquired in the SWS Merger represented 28% of total broker-dealer services revenues during 2015, and 91% of such retail brokerage revenues were generated through its locations in Texas, California and Oklahoma. PrimeLending provides residential mortgage origination products and services from over 280 locations in 41 states. During 2015, an aggregate of 62.8% of PrimeLending’s origination volume was concentrated in nine states. None of the other states in which PrimeLending operated during 2015 had origination volume of 3% or more. 6 The following table is a summary of the mortgage loan origination volume by state for the periods shown (dollars in thousands). Texas California Florida Ohio North Carolina Maryland Washington Virginia Arizona All other states 2015 $ 2,967,740 1,965,039 644,090 555,106 492,879 452,280 451,277 442,924 415,215 4,965,569 $ 13,352,119 % of Total Year Ended December 31, 2014 % of Total 2013 % of Total 22.2 % $ 2,453,705 1,552,372 14.7 % 505,507 4.8 % 401,379 4.2 % 423,164 3.7 % 298,577 3.4 % 298,845 3.4 % 322,134 3.3 % 339,830 3.1 % 37.2 % 3,768,335 100.0 % $ 10,363,848 23.7 % $ 2,660,810 2,082,184 15.0 % 456,643 4.9 % 383,518 3.9 % 618,802 4.1 % 385,215 2.9 % 360,100 2.9 % 466,531 3.1 % 392,006 3.3 % 36.2 % 3,986,753 100.0 % $ 11,792,562 22.6 % 17.7 % 3.9 % 3.3 % 5.3 % 3.3 % 3.1 % 4.0 % 3.3 % 33.8 % 100.0 % Our insurance products are distributed through a broad network of independent agents and a select number of managing general agents, referred to as MGAs. During 2015, total gross written premiums were concentrated in five states, with Texas insureds representing 70.5% of the aggregate. None of the other states in which we operated during 2015 had gross written premiums of 3% or more. The following table sets forth our total gross written premiums by state for the periods shown (dollars in thousands). 2015 $ 125,264 17,117 11,660 10,575 6,050 7,072 $ 177,738 % of Total Year Ended December 31, 2014 % of Total 2013 % of Total 70.5 % $ 126,273 16,775 14,122 10,903 7,031 7,105 100.0 % $ 182,209 9.6 % 6.6 % 5.9 % 3.4 % 4.0 % 69.3 % $ 125,696 15,904 16,494 10,589 6,393 6,892 100.0 % $ 181,968 9.2 % 7.7 % 6.0 % 3.9 % 3.9 % 69.1 % 8.7 % 9.1 % 5.8 % 3.5 % 3.8 % 100.0 % Texas Arizona Oklahoma Tennessee Georgia All other states Total Business Segments Under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), our three business units are comprised of four reportable business segments organized primarily by the core products offered to the segments’ respective customers: banking, broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance. These segments reflect the manner in which operations are managed and the criteria used by our chief operating decision maker function to evaluate segment performance, develop strategy and allocate resources. Our chief operating decision maker function consists of the President and Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop and the Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital. For more financial information about each of our business segments, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” herein. See also Note 30 in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” Banking The banking segment includes the operations of the Bank and, since September 14, 2013 and January 1, 2015, the banking operations acquired in the FNB Transaction and SWS Merger, respectively. At December 31, 2015, our banking segment had $8.7 billion in assets and total deposits of $6.5 billion. The primary sources of our deposits are residents and businesses located in Texas. Business Banking. Our business banking customers primarily consist of agribusiness, energy, health care, institutions of higher education, real estate (including construction and land development) and wholesale/retail trade companies. We provide these customers with extensive banking services, such as Internet banking, business check cards and other add- 7 on services as determined on a customer-by-customer basis. Our treasury management services, which are designed to reduce the time, burden and expense of collecting, transferring, disbursing and reporting cash, are also available to our business customers. We offer these business customers lines of credit, equipment loans and leases, letters of credit, agricultural loans, commercial real estate loans and other loan products. The banking segment’s loan portfolio includes “covered loans” acquired in the FNB Transaction that are subject to loss- share agreements with the FDIC, while all other loans held by the Bank are referred to as “non-covered loans.” The tables below set forth a distribution of the banking segment’s non-covered and covered loans, classified by portfolio segment and segregated between those considered to be purchased credit impaired (“PCI”) loans and all other originated or acquired loans at December 31, 2015 (dollars in thousands). PCI loans showed evidence of credit deterioration that makes it probable that all contractually required principal and interest payments will not be collected. The commercial and industrial non-covered loans category includes a $1.5 billion warehouse line of credit extended to PrimeLending, of which $1.4 billion was drawn at December 31, 2015. Amounts advanced against the warehouse line of credit are included in the table below, but are eliminated from net loans on our consolidated balance sheets. Non-covered loans Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Total non-covered loans Covered loans Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Total covered loans Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans % of Total Non-Covered Loans $ 2,804,596 $ 105,675 13,350 $ 2,817,946 105,675 — 1,532,385 730,115 41,128 11,647 1,573,513 741,762 47.0 % 1.8 % 26.3 % 12.4 % 104,162 221 104,383 1.7 % 596,044 44,893 5,917,870 $ 4,929 779 600,973 45,672 72,054 $ 5,989,924 $ 10.0 % 0.8 % 100.0 % Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans % of Total Covered Loans $ 1,294 $ — 5,727 $ 1,780 7,021 1,780 1.8 % 0.5 % 29,057 118,445 96,928 96,618 125,985 215,063 33.1 % 56.6 % 804 121 925 0.2 % 8,720 — 29,520 — 158,320 $ 221,974 $ 380,294 20,800 — 7.8 % — % 100.0 % $ Our lending policies seek to establish an asset portfolio that will provide a return on stockholders’ equity sufficient to maintain capital to assets ratios that meet or exceed established regulations. In support of that goal, we have designed our underwriting standards to determine: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) that our borrowers possess sound ethics and competently manage their affairs; that we know the source of the funds the borrower will use to repay the loan; that the purpose of the loan makes economic sense; and that we identify relevant risks of the loan and determine that the risks are acceptable. 8 We implement our underwriting standards according to the facts and circumstances of each particular loan request, as discussed below. Commercial and industrial loans are primarily made within Texas and are underwritten on the basis of the borrower’s ability to service the debt from cash flow from an operating business. In general, commercial and industrial loans involve more credit risk than residential and commercial mortgage loans and, therefore, usually yield a higher return. The increased risk in commercial and industrial loans results primarily from the type of collateral securing these loans, which typically includes commercial real estate, accounts receivable, equipment and inventory. Additionally, increased risk arises from the expectation that commercial and industrial loans generally will be serviced principally from operating cash flow of the business, and such cash flows are dependent upon successful business operations. Historical trends have shown these types of loans to have higher delinquencies than mortgage loans. As a result of the additional risk and complexity associated with commercial and industrial loans, such loans require more thorough underwriting and servicing than loans to individuals. To manage these risks, our policy is to attempt to secure commercial and industrial loans with both the assets of the borrowing business and other additional collateral and guarantees that may be available. In addition, depending on the size of the credit, we actively monitor the financial condition of the borrower by analyzing the borrower’s financial statements and assessing certain financial measures, including cash flow, collateral value and other appropriate credit factors. We also have processes in place to analyze and evaluate on a regular basis our exposure to industries, products, market changes and economic trends. The Bank offers term financing on commercial real estate properties that include retail, office, multi-family, industrial, warehouse and non-owner occupied single family residences. Commercial mortgage lending can involve high principal loan amounts, and the repayment of these loans is dependent, in large part, on a borrower’s on-going business operations or on income generated from the properties that are leased to third parties. Accordingly, we apply the measures described above for commercial and industrial loans to our commercial real estate lending, with increased emphasis on analysis of collateral values. As a general practice, the Bank requires its commercial mortgage loans to (i) be secured with first lien positions on the underlying property, (ii) maintain adequate equity margins, (iii) be serviced by businesses operated by an established management team and (iv) be guaranteed by the principals of the borrower. The Bank seeks lending opportunities where cash flow from the collateral provides adequate debt service coverage and/or the guarantor’s net worth is comprised of assets other than the project being financed. The Bank also offers construction financing for (i) commercial, retail, office, industrial, warehouse and multi-family developments, (ii) residential developments and (iii) single family residential properties. Construction loans involve additional risks because loan funds are advanced upon the security of a project under construction, and the project is of uncertain value prior to its completion. If the Bank is forced to foreclose on a project prior to completion, it may not be able to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan. Additionally, the Bank may be required to fund additional amounts to complete a project and may have to hold the property for an indeterminate period of time. Because of uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs, the market value of the completed project and the effects of governmental regulation on real property, it can be difficult to accurately evaluate the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan-to-value ratio. As a result of these uncertainties, construction lending often involves the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan. The Bank generally requires that the subject property of a construction loan for commercial real estate be pre-leased, because cash flows from the completed project provide the most reliable source of repayment for the loan. Loans to finance these transactions are generally secured by first liens on the underlying real property. The Bank conducts periodic completion inspections, either directly or through an agent, prior to approval of periodic draws on these loans. In addition to the real estate lending activities described above, a portion of the Bank’s real estate portfolio consists of single family residential mortgage loans typically collateralized by owner occupied properties located in its market areas. These residential mortgage loans are generally secured by a first lien on the underlying property and have maturities up to thirty years. At December 31, 2015, the Bank had $655.9 million in one-to-four family residential loans, which represented 13.1% of its total loans held for investment. Personal Banking. The Bank offers a broad range of personal banking products and services for individuals. Similar to its business banking operations, the Bank also provides its personal banking customers with a variety of add-on features such as check cards, safe deposit boxes, Internet banking, bill pay, overdraft privilege services, gift cards and access to automated teller machine (ATM) facilities throughout the United States. The Bank offers a variety of deposit accounts to 9 its personal banking customers including savings, checking, interest-bearing checking, money market and certificates of deposit. The Bank loans to individuals for personal, family and household purposes, including lines of credit, home improvement loans, home equity loans, and loans for purchasing and carrying securities. At December 31, 2015, the Bank had $45.7 million of loans for these purposes, which are shown in the non-covered loans table above as “Consumer.” Wealth and Investment Management. The Bank’s private banking team personally assists high net worth individuals and their families with their banking needs, including depository, credit, asset management, and trust and estate services. The Bank offers trust and asset management services in order to assist these customers in managing, and ultimately transferring, their wealth. The Bank’s wealth management services provide personal trust, investment management and employee benefit plan administration services, including estate planning, management and administration, investment portfolio management, employee benefit accounts and individual retirement accounts. Broker-Dealer Our broker-dealer segment’s operations are conducted through Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. From the date of the SWS Merger until January 22, 2016, when we merged FSC into Hilltop Securities to form a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name, our broker-dealer segment was operated through FSC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network as separate broker-dealers under coordinated leadership. At December 31, 2015, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers employed approximately 980 people and maintained over 50 locations in 18 states. Through December 31, 2014, the operations of First Southwest comprised our broker-dealer segment. FSC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Southwest, was a diversified investment banking firm and a registered broker-dealer with the SEC and FINRA with a primary focus on providing public finance services. Since the SWS Merger, our broker-dealer segment operations have also included Hilltop Securities, a clearing broker-dealer subsidiary registered with the SEC and FINRA and a member of the NYSE, and HTS Independent Network, an introducing broker-dealer subsidiary that is also registered with the SEC and FINRA. Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network are both registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as non-guaranteed introducing brokers and as members of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). At December 31, 2015, First Southwest had consolidated assets of $602.2 million and net capital of $68.6 million, which was $65.2 million in excess of its minimum net capital requirement of $3.4 million. At December 31, 2015, Hilltop Securities had consolidated assets of $2.1 billion and net capital of $154.8 million, which was $147.0 million in excess of its minimum net capital requirement of $7.8 million. Our broker-dealer segment has six primary lines of business: (i) public finance, (ii) capital markets, (iii) retail, (iv) structured finance, (v) clearing services, and (vi) securities lending. Public Finance. The public finance group assists public bodies nationwide, including cities, counties, school districts, utility districts, tax increment zones, special districts, state agencies and other governmental entities, in originating, syndicating and distributing securities of municipalities and political subdivisions. In addition, the group provides specialized advisory and investment banking services for airports, convention centers, healthcare institutions, institutions of higher education, housing, industrial development agencies, toll road authorities, and public power and utility providers. Additionally, First Southwest Asset Management, LLC and Hilltop Securities are investment advisors registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and provide state and local governments with advice and assistance with respect to arbitrage rebate compliance, portfolio management and local government investment pool administration. Capital Markets. The capital markets group specializes in trading and underwriting U.S. government and government agency bonds, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, mortgage-backed, asset-backed and commercial mortgage-backed securities and structured products to support sales and other customer activities, and trades equities and option orders on an agency basis on behalf of its retail and institutional clients, including corporations, insurance companies, banks, mutual funds, money managers and other clients. In addition, the capital markets group provides asset and liability management advisory services to community banks. 10 Additionally, the equity trading department focuses on executing equity and option orders on an agency basis for clients, while the syndicate department, housed within its fixed income sales group, coordinates the distribution of managed and co-managed corporate equity underwritings, accepts invitations to participate in competitive or negotiated underwritings managed by other investment banking firms and allocates and markets the sales of allotments to institutional clients and to other broker-dealers. Retail. The retail group acts as a securities broker for retail investors in the purchase and sale of securities, options, commodities and futures contracts that are traded on various exchanges or in the over-the-counter market through our employee-registered representatives or independent contractor arrangements. Through our retail group, we extend margin credit on a secured basis to our retail customers in order to facilitate securities transactions. Through our insurance subsidiaries, we hold insurance licenses to facilitate the sale of insurance and annuity products by HTS Independent Network advisors to retail clients. We retain no underwriting risk related to these insurance and annuity products. In addition, through our investment management group, the retail group provides a number of advisory programs that offer advisors a wide array of products and services for their advisory businesses. In most cases, we charge commissions to our clients in accordance with an established commission schedule, subject to certain discounts based upon the client’s level of business, the trade size and other relevant factors. Some registered representatives also sell certain third party insurance products. Hilltop Securities is also a fully disclosed client of two of the largest futures commission merchants in the United States. At December 31, 2015, we employed 115 registered representatives in 16 retail brokerage offices and had contracts with 234 independent retail representatives for the administration of their securities business. Structured Finance. The structured finance group provides structured asset and liability services and commodity hedging advisory services to facilitate balance sheet management primarily to public finance clients. In addition, the structured finance group participates in programs in which it issues forward purchase commitments of mortgage-backed securities to certain non-profit housing clients and sells U.S. Agency to-be-announced (“TBA”) mortgage-backed securities. Clearing Services. The clearing services group offers fully disclosed clearing services to FINRA- and SEC-registered member firms for trade execution and clearance as well as back office services such as record keeping, trade reporting, accounting, general back-office support, securities and margin lending, reorganization assistance and custody of securities. At December 31, 2015, we provided services to over 200 financial organizations, including correspondent firms, correspondent broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, discount and full-service brokerage firms, and institutional firms. Securities Lending. The securities lending group performs activities that include borrowing and lending securities for other broker-dealers, lending institutions, and internal clearing and retail operations. These activities involve borrowing securities to cover short sales and to complete transactions in which clients have failed to deliver securities by the required settlement date, and lending securities to other broker-dealers for similar purposes. Mortgage Origination Our mortgage origination segment operates through a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank, PrimeLending. Founded in 1986, PrimeLending is a residential mortgage banker licensed to originate and close loans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. At December 31, 2015, our mortgage origination segment operated from over 280 locations in 41 states, originating 22.2% of its mortgages from its Texas locations and 14.7% of its mortgages from locations in California. The mortgage lending business is subject to variables that can impact loan origination volume, including seasonal and interest rate fluctuations. Historically, the mortgage origination segment has typically experienced increased loan origination volume from purchases of homes during the spring and summer, when more people tend to move and buy or sell homes. An increase in mortgage interest rates tends to result in decreased loan origination volume from refinancings, while a decrease in mortgage interest rates tends to result in increased refinancings. Changes in interest rates have historically had a lesser impact on home purchases volume than on refinancing volume. PrimeLending handles loan processing, underwriting and closings in-house. Mortgage loans originated by PrimeLending are funded through a warehouse line of credit maintained with the Bank. PrimeLending sells substantially all mortgage loans it originates to various investors in the secondary market, the majority servicing released. PrimeLending’s determination of whether to retain or release servicing on mortgage loans it sells is impacted by changes in mortgage interest rates, and refinancing and market activity. PrimeLending may, from time to time, manage its mortgage servicing 11 rights (“MSR”) asset through different strategies, including varying the percentage of mortgage loans sold servicing released and opportunistically selling MSR assets. As mortgage loans are sold in the secondary market, PrimeLending pays down its warehouse line of credit with the Bank. Loans sold are subject to certain standard indemnification provisions with investors, including the repurchase of loans sold and the repayment of sales proceeds to investors under certain conditions. Our mortgage lending underwriting strategy, driven in large measure by secondary market investor standards, seeks primarily to originate conforming loans. Our underwriting practices include: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) granting loans on a sound and collectible basis; obtaining a balance between maximum yield and minimum risk; ensuring that primary and secondary sources of repayment are adequate in relation to the amount of the loan; and (cid:120) ensuring that each loan is properly documented and, if appropriate, adequately insured. PrimeLending had a staff of approximately 2,800 as of December 31, 2015 that produced $13.4 billion in closed mortgage loan volume in 2015, 74% of which related to home purchases volume. PrimeLending offers a variety of loan products catering to the specific needs of borrowers seeking purchase or refinancing options, including 30-year and 15- year fixed rate conventional mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, jumbo loans, and Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) and Veteran Affairs (“VA”) loans. Mortgage loans originated by PrimeLending are secured by a first lien on the underlying property. PrimeLending does not currently originate subprime loans (which it defines to be loans to borrowers having a Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) score lower than 620 for conventional mortgages and VA loans or lower than 600 for FHA loans or loans that do not comply with applicable agency or investor-specific underwriting guidelines). Insurance The operations of NLC comprise our insurance segment. NLC specializes in providing fire and limited homeowners insurance for low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the south, southeastern and southwestern United States through its subsidiaries, NLIC and ASIC. NLC’s product lines also include enhanced homeowners products offering higher coverage limits with distribution restricted to select agents. NLC targets underserved markets through a broad network of independent agents currently operating in 23 states and a select number of MGAs, which require underwriting expertise that many larger carriers have been unwilling to develop given the relatively small volume of premiums produced by local agents. Ratings. Many insurance buyers, agents and brokers use the ratings assigned by A.M. Best and other rating agencies to assist them in assessing the financial strength and overall quality of the companies from which they purchase insurance. The financial strength ratings for NLIC and ASIC of “A” (Excellent) were affirmed by A.M. Best in March 2015. An “A” rating is the third highest of 16 rating categories used by A.M. Best. This rating assignment is subject to the ability to meet A.M. Best’s expectations as to performance and capitalization on an ongoing basis, and is subject to revocation or revision at any time at the sole discretion of A.M. Best. NLC cannot ensure that NLIC and ASIC will maintain their present ratings. Product Lines. NLC’s business is conducted in two product lines: personal lines and commercial lines. The personal lines include homeowners, dwelling fire, manufactured home, flood and vacant policies. The commercial lines include commercial multi-peril, builders risk, builders risk renovation, sports liability and inland marine policies. The NLC companies specialize in writing fire and homeowners insurance coverage for low value dwellings and manufactured homes. The vast majority of NLC’s property coverage is written on policies that provide actual cash value payments, as opposed to replacement cost. Under actual cash value policies, the insured is entitled to receive only the cost of replacing or repairing damaged or destroyed property with comparable new property, less depreciation. Replacement cost coverage does not include such a deduction for depreciation; however it does include limited water coverage. 12 Underwriting and Pricing. NLC applies its regional expertise, underwriting discipline and a risk-adjusted, return-on- equity-based approach to capital allocation to primarily offer short-tail insurance products in its target markets. NLC’s underwriting process involves securing an adequate level of underwriting information from its independent agents, identifying and evaluating risk exposures and then pricing the risks it chooses to accept. Management reviews pricing on an ongoing basis to monitor any emerging issues on a specific coverage or geographic territory. Catastrophe Exposure. NLC maintains a comprehensive risk management strategy, which includes actively monitoring its catastrophe prone territories by zip code to ensure a diversified book of risks. NLC utilizes software and risk support from its reinsurance brokers to analyze its portfolio and catastrophe exposure. Biannually, NLC has its entire portfolio analyzed by its reinsurance broker who utilizes hurricane and severe storm models to predict risk. Reinsurance. NLC purchases reinsurance to reduce its exposure to liability on individual risks and claims and to protect against catastrophe losses. NLC’s management believes that less volatile, yet reasonable returns are in the long-term interest of NLC. Reinsurance involves an insurance company transferring, or ceding, a portion of its risk to another insurer, the reinsurer. The reinsurer assumes the exposure in return for a portion of the premium. The ceding of risk to a reinsurer does not legally discharge the primary insurer from its liability for the full amount of the policies on which it obtains reinsurance. Accordingly, the primary insurer remains liable for the entire loss if the reinsurer fails to meet its obligations under the reinsurance agreement and, as a result, the primary insurer is exposed to the risk of non-payment by its reinsurers. In formulating its reinsurance programs, NLC believes that it is selective in its choice of reinsurers and considers numerous factors, the most important of which are the financial stability of the reinsurer, its history of responding to claims and its overall reputation. Additionally, NLC further reduces its exposure to liability through an underlying excess of loss contract that provides aggregate coverage in excess of NLC’s per event retention and aggregate retention for sub-catastrophic events. Competition We face significant competition in the business segments in which we operate and the geographic markets we serve. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial resources, lending limits and branch networks than we do, and offer a broader range of products and services. Our banking segment primarily competes with national, regional and community banks within the various markets where the Bank operates. The Bank also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, pension trusts, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms, asset-based non-bank lenders, government agencies and certain other non- financial institutions. The ability to attract and retain skilled lending professionals is critical to our banking business. Competition for deposits and in providing lending products and services to consumers and businesses in our market area is intense and pricing is important. Other factors encountered in competing for deposits are convenient office locations, interest rates and fee structures of products offered. Direct competition for deposits also comes from other commercial bank and thrift institutions, money market mutual funds and corporate and government securities that may offer more attractive rates than insured depository institutions are willing to pay. Competition for loans is based on factors such as interest rates, loan origination fees and the range of services offered by the provider. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our commitment to personalized customer service and responsiveness to customer needs while providing a range of competitive loan and deposit products and other services. Within our broker-dealer segment we face significant competition based on a number of factors, including price, perceived expertise, quality of advice, reputation, range of services and products, technology, innovation and local presence. Competition for successful securities traders, stock loan professionals and investment bankers among securities firms and other competitors is intense. Our broker-dealer business competes directly with numerous other financial advisory and investment banking firms, broker-dealers and banks, including large national and major regional firms and smaller niche companies, some of whom are not broker-dealers and, therefore, are not subject to the broker- dealer regulatory framework. Further, our broker-dealer segment competes with discount brokerage firms that do not offer equivalent services but offer discounted prices. Our competitors in the mortgage origination business include large financial institutions as well as independent mortgage banking companies, commercial banks, savings banks and savings and loan associations. Our mortgage origination 13 segment competes on a number of factors including customer service, quality and range of products and services offered, price, reputation, interest rates and loan origination fees. The ability to attract and retain skilled mortgage origination professionals is critical to our mortgage origination business. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our commitment to personalized customer service and responsiveness to customer needs while providing a range of competitive mortgage loan products and services. Our insurance business competes with a large number of other companies in its selected lines of business, including major U.S. and non-U.S. insurers, regional companies, mutual companies, specialty insurance companies, underwriting agencies and diversified financial services companies. The personal lines market in Texas is dominated by a few large carriers and their subsidiaries and affiliates. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors by targeting underserved market segments that provide us with the best opportunity to obtain favorable policy terms, conditions and pricing. Employees At December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 5,300 people, substantially all of which are full-time. None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit or a party to any collective bargaining agreement. Government Supervision and Regulation General We are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state laws. The regulatory framework is intended primarily for the protection of customers and clients, and not for the protection of our stockholders or creditors. In many cases, the applicable regulatory authorities have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies, banks and their subsidiaries, including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations. The following discussion describes the material elements of the regulatory framework that applies to us and our subsidiaries. References in this Annual Report to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries thereof, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations. Recent Regulatory Developments. New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed and/or adopted that contain wide- ranging proposals for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions operating and doing business in the United States. Certain of these recent proposals and changes are described below. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act aims to restore responsibility and accountability to the financial system by significantly altering the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. Most of the provisions contained in the Dodd-Frank Act have delayed effective dates. Full implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act will require many new rules to be issued by federal regulatory agencies over the next several years, which will profoundly affect how financial institutions will be regulated in the future. The ultimate effect of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations on the financial services industry in general, and on us in particular, is uncertain at this time. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things: (cid:120) Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), an independent organization within the Federal Reserve which has the authority to promulgate consumer protection regulations applicable to all entities offering consumer financial products or services, including banks and mortgage originators. The CFPB has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has exclusive examination authority and primary enforcement authority with respect to financial institutions with total assets of more than $10.0 billion and their affiliates for purposes of federal consumer protection laws. After June 30, 2011, a financial institution becomes subject to the CFPB’s exclusive examination authority and primary enforcement authority after it has reported total assets of greater than $10.0 billion in its quarterly call reports for four consecutive quarters. (cid:120) Established the Financial Stability Oversight Council, tasked with the authority to identify and monitor institutions and systems which pose a systemic risk to the financial system, and to impose standards regarding capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management, and other requirements for financial firms. 14 (cid:120) Changed the base for FDIC insurance assessments. (cid:120) Increased the minimum reserve ratio for the Deposit Insurance Fund from 1.15% to 1.35% (the FDIC subsequently increased it by regulation to 2.00%). (cid:120) Permanently increased the deposit insurance coverage amount from $100,000 to $250,000. (cid:120) Directed the Federal Reserve to establish interchange fees for debit cards pursuant to a restrictive “reasonable and proportional cost” per transaction standard. (cid:120) Limits the ability of banking organizations to sponsor or invest in private equity and hedge funds and to engage in proprietary trading in a provision known as the “Volcker Rule”. (cid:120) Grants the U.S. government authority to liquidate or take emergency measures with respect to troubled nonbank financial companies that fall outside the existing resolution authority of the FDIC, including the establishment of an orderly liquidation fund. (cid:120) (cid:120) Increases regulation of asset-backed securities, including a requirement that issuers of asset-backed securities retain at least 5% of the risk of the asset-backed securities. Increases regulation of consumer protections regarding mortgage originations, including banker compensation, minimum repayment standards, and prepayment consideration. (cid:120) Establishes new disclosure and other requirements relating to executive compensation and corporate governance. On June 21, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC jointly issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) 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 Incentive Compensation Guidance sets expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk-management, control and governance processes. The Incentive Compensation 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 three primary principles: (i) balanced risk-taking incentives, (ii) compatibility with effective controls and risk management, and (iii) strong corporate governance. Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. In addition, under the Incentive Compensation Guidance, a banking organization’s federal supervisor may initiate enforcement action if the organization’s incentive compensation arrangements pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the organization. On April 14, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board and various other federal agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that would require reporting of incentive-based compensation arrangements by a covered financial institution and prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements at a covered financial institution that provide excessive compensation or that could expose the institution to inappropriate risks that could lead to material financial loss. The Dodd-Frank Act defines “covered financial institution” to include, among other entities, a depository institution or depository institution holding company that has $1 billion or more in assets. There are enhanced requirements for institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. The proposed rule states that it is consistent with the Incentive Compensation Guidance. On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule to implement the “qualified mortgage”, or “QM” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring mortgage lenders to consider consumers’ ability to repay home loans before extending them credit. The final rule describes certain minimum requirements for creditors making ability-to-repay determinations, but does not dictate that they follow particular underwriting models. Lenders will be presumed to have complied with the ability-to-repay rule if they issue “qualified mortgages”, which are generally defined as mortgage loans prohibiting or limiting certain risky features. Loans that do not meet the ability-to-repay standard can be challenged in court by borrowers who default and the absence of ability-to-repay status can be used against a creditor in foreclosure proceedings. The CFPB’s QM rule took effect on January 10, 2014. 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. 15 Corporate Hilltop is a legal entity separate and distinct from PlainsCapital and its other subsidiaries. On November 30, 2012, concurrent with the consummation of the PlainsCapital Merger, Hilltop became a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act, as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act”). Accordingly, it is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The Dodd-Frank Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Bank Holding Company Act and other federal laws subject financial and bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations. Changes of Control. Federal and state laws impose additional notice, approval and ongoing regulatory requirements on any investor that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of a regulated holding company, such as Hilltop. These laws include the Bank Holding Company Act, the Change in Bank Control Act and the Texas Insurance Code. Among other things, these laws require regulatory filings by an investor that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of a regulated holding company. The determination whether an investor “controls” a regulated holding company is based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investment. As a general matter, an investor is deemed to control a depository institution or other company if the investor owns or controls 25% or more of any class of voting stock. Subject to rebuttal, an investor may be presumed to control the regulated holding company if the investor owns or controls 10% or more of any class of voting stock. Accordingly, these laws would apply to a person acquiring 10% or more of Hilltop’s common stock. Furthermore, these laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent change of control transactions, including those that some or all of our stockholders might consider to be desirable. Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve Board that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the regulatory agencies to issue regulations requiring that all bank and savings and loan holding companies serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary depository institutions by providing capital, liquidity and other support in times of financial stress; however, no such proposals have yet been published. Under Federal Reserve Board policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries and commit resources to their support. Such support may be required at times when, absent this Federal Reserve Board policy, a holding company may not be inclined to provide it. As discussed herein, a bank holding company, in certain circumstances, could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary. Scope of Permissible Activities. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, Hilltop and PlainsCapital generally may not acquire a direct or indirect interest in, or control of more than 5% of, the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company. Additionally, the Bank Holding Company Act may prohibit Hilltop from engaging in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to, or performing services for, its subsidiaries, except that it may engage in, directly or indirectly, certain activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In approving acquisitions or the addition of activities, the Federal Reserve Board considers, among other things, whether the acquisition or the additional activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh such possible adverse effects as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest or unsound banking practices. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, effective March 11, 2000, eliminated the barriers to affiliations among banks, securities firms, insurance companies and other financial service providers and permits bank holding companies to become financial holding companies and thereby affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act defines “financial in nature” to include: securities underwriting; dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. Prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, regulatory approval was not required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, 16 engaged in activities that were financial in nature or incidental to activities that were financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank holding company may become a financial holding company by filing a declaration with the Federal Reserve Board if each of its subsidiary banks is “well capitalized” under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act prompt corrective action provisions, is “well managed”, and has at least a “satisfactory” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”). The Dodd-Frank Act underscores the criteria for becoming a financial holding company by amending the Bank Holding Company Act to require that bank holding companies be “well capitalized” and “well managed” in order to become financial holding companies. Hilltop became a financial holding company on December 1, 2012. 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 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. In addition, bank holding companies are required to consult with the Federal Reserve Board prior to making any redemption or repurchase, even within the foregoing parameters. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve Board has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries that represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or that 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 $1.425 million for each day the activity continues. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Federal Reserve Board to require reports from and examine bank holding companies and their subsidiaries, and to regulate functionally regulated subsidiaries of bank holding companies. Anti-tying Restrictions. Subject to various exceptions, bank holding companies and their affiliates are generally prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to certain other services offered by a bank holding company or its affiliates. Capital Adequacy Requirements and BASEL III. Hilltop and the Bank are subject to capital adequacy requirements under the recently adopted comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations known as “Basel III”. Basel III, which reformed the existing frameworks under which U.S. banking organizations historically operated, became effective January 1, 2015 but will not be fully phased-in until January 1, 2019. Basel III was developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and adopted by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The federal banking agencies’ risk-based capital and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming that they have the highest regulatory rating. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets. The Dodd-Frank Act directed federal banking agencies to establish minimum leverage capital requirements and minimum risk-based capital requirements for insured depository institutions, depository institution holding companies, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. The Dodd-Frank Act required that these minimum capital requirements be not less than the “generally applicable leverage and risk-based capital requirements” applicable to insured depository institutions, in effect applying the same leverage and risk-based capital requirements that apply to insured depository institutions to most bank holding companies. However, it was left to the discretion of the agencies to set the leverage ratio requirement through the rulemaking process. Final rules published by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency implemented the Basel III regulatory capital 17 reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, Basel III increased minimum capital requirements, introduced a new minimum leverage ratio and implemented a capital conservation buffer. Under Basel III, total capital consists of two tiers of capital, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 capital consists of common equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. Below is a list of certain significant components that comprise the tiers of capital for Hilltop and the Bank under Basel III. Common equity Tier 1 capital: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) includes common stockholders’ equity (such as qualifying common stock and any related surplus, undivided profits, disclosed capital reserves that represent a segregation of undivided profits and foreign currency translation adjustments, excluding changes in other comprehensive income (loss) and treasury stock); includes certain minority interests in the equity capital accounts of consolidated subsidiaries; and excludes goodwill and various intangible assets. Additional Tier 1 capital: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) includes certain qualifying minority interests not included in common equity Tier 1 capital; includes certain preferred stock and related surplus; includes certain subordinated debt; and excludes 50% of the insurance underwriting deduction. Tier 2 capital: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) includes allowance for loan losses, up to a maximum of 1.25% of risk-weighted assets; includes minority interests not included in Tier 1 capital; includes certain unrealized holding gains on equity securities; and excludes 50% of the insurance underwriting deduction. Hilltop and the Bank began transitioning to the Basel III final rules on January 1, 2015 when the minimum capital requirements, as set forth in the table below, became effective. However, the capital conservation buffer and certain deductions from common equity Tier 1 capital will be phased-in through 2019. The following table summarizes the Basel III phase-in schedule beginning January 1, 2015. Year (as of January 1) Minimum common equity Tier 1 capital ratio Common equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer Minimum common equity Tier 1 capital ratio plus capital conservation buffer Phase-in of most deductions from common equity Tier 1 (including 10 percent & 15 percent common equity Tier 1 threshold deduction items that are over the limits) Minimum Tier 1 capital ratio Minimum Tier 1 capital ratio plus capital conservation buffer Minimum total capital ratio Minimum total capital ratio plus conservation buffer * N/A means not applicable. 2015 2016 4.5 % N/A 2018 2017 4.5 % 4.5 % 4.5 % 0.625 % 1.25 % 1.875 % 2019 4.5 % 2.5 % 4.5 % 5.125 % 5.75 % 6.375 % 7.0 % 6.0 % 6.0 % 6.0 % 40.0 % 60.0 % 80.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 6.0 % 8.5 % 8.0 % 8.625 % 9.25 % 9.875 % 10.5 % 6.0 % 6.625 % 7.25 % 7.875 % 8.0 % 8.0 % 8.0 % 8.0 % N/A N/A At December 31, 2015, Hilltop exceeded all applicable regulatory capital requirements in accordance with Basel III with a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.89%, Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 18.48%, common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 17.87% and a Tier 1 capital to average assets, or leverage, ratio of 12.65%. 18 The Bank’s consolidated actual capital amounts and ratios at December 31, 2015 resulted in it being considered “well- capitalized” under applicable regulatory requirements in accordance with Basel III, and included a total capital to risk- weighted assets ratio of 16.99%, Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 16.25%, common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 16.23%, and a Tier 1 capital to average assets, or leverage, ratio of 13.22%. The final Basel III rules take important steps toward improving the quality and increasing the quantity of capital for all banking organizations as well as setting higher standards for large, internationally active banking organizations. The regulatory agencies believe that the new rules will result in capital requirements that better reflect banking organizations’ risk profiles, thereby improving the overall resilience of the banking system. The regulatory agencies carefully considered the potential impacts on all banking organizations, including community and regional banking organizations such as Hilltop and the Bank, and sought to minimize the potential burden of these changes where consistent with applicable law and the agencies’ goals of establishing a robust and comprehensive capital framework. Under the guidelines in effect as of December 31, 2015, a risk weight factor of 0% to 1250% is assigned to each category of assets based generally on the perceived credit risk of the asset class. The risk weights are then multiplied by the corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. In order to avoid limitations on capital distributions, including dividend payments, stock repurchases and certain discretionary bonus payments to executive officers, Basel III also implemented a capital conservation buffer, which requires a banking organization to hold a buffer composed of common equity Tier 1 capital above its minimum risk- based capital requirements. This buffer will help to ensure that banking organizations conserve capital when it is most needed, allowing them to better weather periods of economic stress. The buffer is measured relative to risk-weighted assets. As shown in the table above, phase-in of the capital conservation buffer requirements began on January 1, 2016. The following table summarizes how much a banking organization can pay out in the form of distributions or discretionary bonus payments in a quarter based on its capital conservation buffer. A banking organization with a buffer greater than 2.5 percent would not be subject to limits on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments; however, a banking organization with a buffer of less than 2.5 percent would be subject to increasingly stringent limitations as the buffer approaches zero. Capital Conservation Buffer (as a percentage of risk-weighted assets) Greater than 2.5 percent Less than or equal to 2.5 percent and greater than 1.875 percent Less than or equal to 1.875 percent and greater than 1.25 percent Less than or equal to 1.25 percent and greater than 0.625 percent Less than or equal to 0.625 percent Maximum Payout (as a percentage of eligible retained income) No payout limitation applies 60 percent 40 percent 20 percent 0 percent The new rules also prohibit a banking organization from making distributions or discretionary bonus payments during any quarter if its eligible retained income is negative in that quarter and its capital conservation buffer ratio was less than 2.5 percent at the beginning of the quarter. The eligible retained income of a banking organization is defined as its net income for the four calendar quarters preceding the current calendar quarter, based on the organization’s quarterly regulatory reports, net of any distributions and associated tax effects not already reflected in net income. When the new rules are fully phased-in in 2019, the minimum capital requirements plus the capital conservation buffer will exceed the prompt corrective action well-capitalized thresholds. We anticipate that our eligible retained income will be positive and our capital conservation buffer will be greater than 2.5 percent, and therefore, we will not be subject to limits on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments during 2016. Volcker Rule. Provisions of the Volcker Rule and the final rules implementing the Volcker Rule restrict certain activities provided by the Company, including proprietary trading and sponsoring or investing in “covered funds,” which include many venture capital, private equity and hedge funds. For purposes of the Volcker Rule, purchases or sales of financial instruments such as securities, derivatives, contracts of sale of commodities for future delivery or options on the foregoing for the purpose of short-term gain are deemed to be proprietary trading (with financial instruments held for less than 60 days presumed to be for proprietary trading unless an alternative purpose can be demonstrated), unless certain exemptions apply. Exempted activities include, among others, the following: (i) underwriting; (ii) market making; (iii) risk mitigating hedging; (iv) trading in certain government securities; (v) employee compensation plans and (vi) transactions entered into on behalf of and for the account of clients as agent, broker, custodian, or in a trustee or fiduciary capacity. While management continues to assess compliance with the Volcker Rule, we have reviewed our 19 processes and procedures in regard to proprietary trading and covered funds activities and we believe we are currently complying with the provisions of the Volcker Rule. However, it remains uncertain how the scope of applicable restrictions and exceptions will be interpreted and administered by the relevant regulators. Absent further regulatory guidance, we are required to make certain assumptions as to the degree to which our activities, processes and procedures in these areas comply with the requirements of the Volcker Rule. If these assumptions are not accurate or if our implementation of compliance processes and procedures is not consistent with regulatory expectations, we may be required to make certain changes to our business activities, processes or procedures, which could further increase our compliance and regulatory risks and costs. Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries. Bank regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels. In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy. The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates. Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies. The Bank Holding Company Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank, if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board is required to consider, among other things, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, and various competitive factors. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to consider “the risk to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system” when evaluating acquisitions of banks and nonbanks under the Bank Holding Company Act. With respect to interstate acquisitions, the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Bank Holding Company Act by raising the standard by which interstate bank acquisitions are permitted from a standard that the acquiring bank holding company be “adequately capitalized” and “adequately managed”, to the higher standard of being “well capitalized” and “well managed”. Control Acquisitions. The Change in Bank Control Act prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company unless the Federal Reserve Board has been notified and has not objected to the transaction. Under a rebuttable presumption established by the Federal Reserve Board, the acquisition of 10% or more of a class of voting stock of a bank holding company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, would, under the circumstances set forth in the presumption, constitute acquisition of control of such company. Governmental Monetary Policies. Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and its agencies. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board 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 influence over the issuance of U.S. government securities, its regulation of the discount rate applicable to member banks and its influence over reserve requirements to which member banks are subject. We cannot predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies. 20 Banking The Bank is subject to various requirements and restrictions under the laws of the United States, and to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Texas Department of Banking. The Bank, as a state member bank, is also subject to regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. As a bank with less than $10 billion in assets, the Bank became subject to the regulations issued by the CFPB on July 21, 2011, although the Federal Reserve Board continued to examine the Bank for compliance with federal consumer protection laws. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank’s total assets were $8.7 billion. If the Bank’s total assets were to increase, either organically or through an acquisition, merger or combination, to over $10.0 billion (as measured on four consecutive quarterly call reports of the Bank and any institutions it acquires), the Bank would become subject to the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to federal consumer financial laws beginning in the following quarter. The Bank is also an insured depository institution and, therefore, subject to regulation by the FDIC, although the Federal Reserve Board is the Bank’s primary federal regulator. The Federal Reserve Board, the Texas Department of Banking, the CFPB and the FDIC have the power to enforce compliance with applicable banking statutes and regulations. Such requirements and restrictions include requirements to maintain reserves against deposits, restrictions on the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged thereon and restrictions relating to investments and other activities of the Bank. In July 2010, the FDIC voted to revise its agreement with the primary federal regulators to enhance the FDIC’s existing backup authorities over insured depository institutions that the FDIC does not directly supervise. As a result, the Bank may be subject to increased supervision by the FDIC. Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates. Transactions between the Bank and its nonbanking affiliates, including Hilltop and PlainsCapital, are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions, and also requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties that are collateralized by the securities or obligations of Hilltop or its subsidiaries. Among other changes, the Dodd-Frank Act expands the definition of “covered transactions” and clarifies the amount of time that the collateral requirements must be satisfied for covered transactions, and amends the definition of “affiliate” in Section 23A to include “any investment fund with respect to which a member bank or an affiliate thereof is an investment advisor.” Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons. The Federal Reserve has also issued Regulation W, which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate transactions. Loans to Insiders. The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal stockholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, and the Federal Reserve Board may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate. Insiders are subject to enforcement actions for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions. The Dodd-Frank Act amends the statutes placing limitations on loans to insiders by including credit exposures to the person arising from a derivatives transaction, repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement, securities lending transaction, or securities borrowing transaction between the member bank and the person within the definition of an extension of credit. Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided a substantial part of PlainsCapital’s operating funds and for the foreseeable future it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to PlainsCapital will continue to be PlainsCapital’s and Hilltop’s principal source of operating funds. Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. Pursuant to the Texas Finance Code, a Texas banking association may not pay a dividend that would reduce its outstanding capital and surplus unless it obtains the prior approval of the Texas Banking Commissioner. Additionally, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board have the authority to prohibit Texas state banks from paying a dividend when they determine the dividend would be an unsafe or unsound banking practice. As a member of the Federal Reserve System, the Bank must also comply with the dividend restrictions with which a national bank would be required to comply. Those provisions are generally similar 21 to those imposed by the state of Texas. Among other things, the federal 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. In the event of a liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its stockholders, including any depository institution holding company (such as PlainsCapital and Hilltop) or any stockholder or creditor thereof. Branching. The establishment of a bank branch must be approved by the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Board, which consider a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate powers. The regulators will also consider the applicant’s CRA record. Interstate Branching. Effective June 1, 1997, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the “Riegle-Neal Act”) amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and certain other statutes to permit state and national banks with different home states to merge across state lines, with approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, unless the home state of a participating bank had passed legislation prior to May 31, 1997 expressly prohibiting interstate mergers. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, de novo interstate branching by banks is permitted if, under the laws of the state where the branch is to be located, a state bank chartered in that state would be permitted to establish a branch. Prompt Corrective Action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) 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. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the banking regulator must appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. 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. A bank holding company must guarantee that a subsidiary depository institution meets its capital restoration plan, subject to various limitations. The controlling holding company’s obligation to fund a capital restoration plan is limited to the lesser of 5% of an undercapitalized subsidiary’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount required to meet regulatory capital requirements. 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 Bank was classified as “well capitalized” at December 31, 2015. In addition, if a bank is classified as “undercapitalized,” the bank is required to submit a capital restoration plan to the federal banking regulators. Pursuant to FDICIA, an “undercapitalized” bank is prohibited from increasing its assets, engaging in a new line of business, acquiring any interest in any company or insured depository institution, or opening or acquiring a new branch office, except under certain circumstances, including the acceptance by the federal banking regulators of a capital restoration plan for the bank. Furthermore, if a bank is classified as “undercapitalized,” the federal banking regulators may take certain actions to correct the capital position of the bank; if a bank is classified as “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” the federal banking regulators would be required to take one or more prompt corrective actions. These actions would include, among other things, requiring: sales of new securities to bolster capital, improvements in management, limits on interest rates paid, prohibitions on transactions with affiliates, termination of certain risky activities and restrictions on compensation paid to executive officers. If a bank is classified as “critically undercapitalized,” FDICIA requires the bank to be placed into conservatorship or receivership within 90 days, unless the federal banking regulators determines that other action would better achieve the purposes of FDICIA regarding prompt corrective action with respect to undercapitalized banks. 22 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. An exception to this rule is made, however, that provides that banks (i) with assets of less than $100 million, (ii) that are categorized as “well capitalized,” (iii) that were found to be well managed and composite rating was outstanding and (iv) have not been subject to a change in control during the last 12 months, need only be examined once every 18 months. FDIC Insurance Assessments. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system for insured depository institutions that takes into account the risks attributable to different categories and concentrations of assets and liabilities. The system assigns an institution to one of three capital categories: (1) “well capitalized;” (2) “adequately capitalized;” or (3) “undercapitalized.” These three categories are substantially similar to the prompt corrective action categories described above, with the “undercapitalized” category including institutions that are undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized for prompt corrective action purposes. The FDIC also assigns an institution to one of three supervisory subgroups based on a supervisory evaluation that the institution’s primary federal regulator provides to the FDIC and information that the FDIC determines to be relevant to the institution’s financial condition and the risk posed to the deposit insurance funds. The FDIC may terminate its insurance of deposits if it finds 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. The FDIC is required to maintain a designated reserve ratio of the deposit insurance fund (“DIF”) to insured deposits in the United States. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to assess insured depository institutions to achieve a DIF ratio of at least 1.35 percent by September 30, 2020. Pursuant to its authority in the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC on December 20, 2010, published a final rule establishing a higher long-term target DIF ratio of greater than 2%. Deposit insurance assessment rates are subject to change by the FDIC and will be impacted by the overall economy and the stability of the banking industry as a whole. The FDIC will notify the Bank concerning an assessment rate that we will be charged for the assessment period. As a result of the new regulations, we expect to incur higher annual deposit insurance assessments, which could have a significant adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. Accruals for DIF assessments were $4.0 million during 2015. In October 2015, the FDIC published a proposal to increase the DIF to the statutorily required minimum level of 1.35% by imposing on banks with at least $10 billion in assets a surcharge of 4.5 cents per $100 of their assessment base, after making certain adjustments. If this proposal is finalized and the Bank reaches an asset size of more than $10 billion, the Bank would be subject to this proposed surcharge. Management is monitoring this proposed rule. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased the standard maximum deposit insurance amount from $100,000 to $250,000. The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA requires, in connection with examinations of financial institutions, that federal banking regulators (in the Bank’s case, the Federal Reserve Board) 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 the Bank. Additionally, the Bank must publicly disclose the terms of various CRA-related agreements. During the third quarter of 2015, the Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA rating in connection with its most recent CRA performance evaluation. A CRA rating of less than “satisfactory” adversely affects a bank’s ability to establish new branches and impairs a bank’s ability to commence new activities that are “financial in nature” or acquire companies engaged in these activities. See “Risk factors — We are subject to extensive supervision and regulation that could restrict our activities and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business and limit our ability to generate income.” 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 23 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. The Bank and all of its subsidiaries have established policies and procedures to comply with the privacy provisions of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act. Federal Laws Applicable to Credit Transactions. The loan operations of the Bank are also subject to federal laws and implementing regulations applicable to credit transactions, such as the: (cid:120) Truth-In-Lending Act, governing disclosures of credit terms to consumer borrowers; (cid:120) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, requiring financial institutions to provide information to enable the public and public officials to determine whether a financial institution is fulfilling its obligation to help meet the housing needs of the community it serves; (cid:120) Equal Credit Opportunity Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, creed or other prohibited factors in extending credit; (cid:120) Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1978, governing the use and provision of information to credit reporting agencies and preventing identity theft; (cid:120) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, governing the manner in which consumer debts may be collected by collection agencies; (cid:120) Service Members Civil Relief Act, which amended the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, governing the repayment terms of, and property rights underlying, secured obligations of persons in military service; (cid:120) The Dodd-Frank Act, which establishes the CFPB, an independent entity within the Federal Reserve, dedicated to promulgating and enforcing consumer protection laws applicable to all entities offering consumer financial services or products; and (cid:120) The rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these federal laws. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. Federal Laws Applicable to Deposit Operations. The deposit operations of the Bank are subject to: (cid:120) Right to Financial Privacy Act, which imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribes procedures for complying with subpoenas of financial records, among other requests; (cid:120) Truth in Savings Act, which requires the Bank to disclose the terms and conditions on which interest is paid and fees are assessed in connection with deposit accounts; and (cid:120) Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E issued by the Federal Reserve Board and the CFPB to implement that act, which govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers’ rights and liabilities arising from the use of ATMs and other electronic banking services. The Dodd-Frank Act amends the Electronic Funds Transfer Act to, among other things, give the Federal Reserve Board the authority to establish rules regarding interchange fees charged for electronic debit transactions by payment card issuers having assets over $10 billion and to enforce a new statutory requirement that such fees be reasonable and proportional to the actual cost of a transaction to the issuer. Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve Board and the Texas Department of Banking monitor the capital adequacy of the Bank by using a combination of risk-based guidelines and leverage ratios. The agencies consider the 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. Under the regulatory capital guidelines within the Basel III capital rules, the Bank must maintain a total risk-based capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 8.0%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 6.0%, a common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 4.5%, and a Tier 1 capital to average total assets 24 ratio of at least 4.0% (3.0% for banks receiving the highest examination rating) to be considered “adequately capitalized.” See the discussion herein under “The FDIC Improvement Act.” At December 31, 2015, the Bank’s ratio of total risk-based capital to risk-weighted assets was 16.99%, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets was 16.25%, the Bank’s common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio was 16.23%, and the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total assets was 13.22%. On January 1, 2015, the Bank began transitioning to the final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms. For additional discussion of Basel III, see the section entitled “Government Supervision and Regulation — Corporate — Capital Adequacy Requirements and Basel III” earlier in this Item 1. FIRREA. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) includes various provisions that affect or may affect the Bank. Among other matters, FIRREA generally permits bank holding companies to acquire healthy thrifts as well as failed or failing thrifts. FIRREA removed certain cross marketing prohibitions previously applicable to thrift and bank subsidiaries of a common holding company. Furthermore, a multi-bank holding company may now be required to indemnify the DIF against losses it incurs with respect to such company’s affiliated banks, which in effect makes a bank holding company’s equity investments in healthy bank subsidiaries available to the FDIC to assist such company’s failing or failed bank subsidiaries. In addition, pursuant to FIRREA, any depository institution that has been chartered less than two years, is not in compliance with the minimum capital requirements of its primary federal banking regulator, or is otherwise in a troubled condition must notify its primary federal banking regulator of the proposed addition of any person to its board of directors or the employment of any person as a senior executive officer of the institution at least 30 days before such addition or employment becomes effective. During such 30 day period, the applicable federal banking regulatory agency may disapprove of the addition of or employment of such director or officer. The Bank is not subject to any such requirements. FIRREA also expanded and increased civil and criminal penalties available for use by the appropriate regulatory agency against certain “institution affiliated parties” primarily including: (i) management, employees and agents of a financial institution; (ii) independent contractors such as attorneys and accountants and others who participate in the conduct of the financial institution’s affairs and who caused or are likely to cause more than minimum financial loss to or a significant adverse effect on the institution, who knowingly or recklessly violate a law or regulation, breach a fiduciary duty or engage in unsafe or unsound practices. Such practices can include the failure of an institution to timely file required reports or the submission of inaccurate reports. Furthermore, FIRREA authorizes the appropriate banking agency to issue cease and desist orders that may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets or take other action as determined by the ordering agency to be appropriate. The FDIC Improvement Act. 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. 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 a certified public accountant to verify that the financial statements of the bank are presented in accordance with GAAP and comply with such other disclosure requirements as prescribed by the FDIC. 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. At December 31, 2015, the Bank was “well capitalized” and therefore not subject to any limitations with respect to its brokered deposits. Federal Limitations on Activities and Investments. The equity investments and activities, as a principle of FDIC-insured state-chartered banks, are generally limited to those that are permissible for national banks. Under regulations dealing with equity investments, an insured state bank generally may not directly or indirectly acquire or retain any equity investment of a type, or in an amount, that is not permissible for a national bank. 25 Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act gives “substitute checks,” such as a digital image of a check and copies made from that image, the same legal standing as the original paper check. Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) system, of which the Bank is a member, consists of regional FHLBs governed and regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Board. The FHLBs serve as reserve or credit facilities for member institutions within their assigned regions. The reserves are funded primarily from proceeds derived from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB system. The FHLBs 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, according to currently existing policies and procedures, the Bank is entitled to borrow from the FHLB of its respective region and is required to own a certain amount of capital stock in the FHLB. The Bank 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 the Bank are secured by a portion of the respective mortgage loan portfolio, certain other investments and the capital stock of the FHLB held by the Bank. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). The FAST Act, signed by President Obama on December 4, 2015, provides for funding highways and infrastructure in the United States. Part of the funding for this law comes from a reduction of the dividends paid by the Federal Reserve to its stockholders with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, effective January 1, 2016. On that date, the annual dividend on paid-in capital stock for stockholders with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion shall be the lesser of: (i) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend and (ii) 6 percent. Anti-terrorism and Money Laundering Legislation. The Bank is subject to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism of 2001, as amended (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), the Bank Secrecy Act and rules and regulations of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. These statutes and related rules and regulations impose requirements and limitations on specific financial transactions and account relationships intended to guard against money laundering and terrorism financing. The Bank has established a customer identification program pursuant to Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Bank Secrecy Act, and otherwise has implemented policies and procedures intended to comply with the foregoing rules. Broker-Dealer The Hilltop Broker-Dealers are broker-dealers registered with the SEC, FINRA, all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Hilltop Securities is also registered in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Much of the regulation of broker-dealers, however, has been delegated to self-regulatory organizations, principally FINRA, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and national securities exchanges. These self-regulatory organizations adopt rules (which are subject to approval by the SEC) for governing its members and the industry. Broker-dealers are also subject to the laws and rules of the states in which a broker-dealer conducts business. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers are members of, and are primarily subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by, FINRA. The regulations to which broker-dealers are subject cover all aspects of the securities business, including, but not limited to, sales and trade practices, net capital requirements, record keeping and reporting procedures, relationships and conflicts with customers, the handling of cash and margin accounts, experience and training requirements for certain employees, the conduct of investment banking and research activities and the conduct of registered persons, directors, officers and employees. Broker-dealers are also subject to the privacy and anti-money laundering laws and regulations discussed herein. Additional legislation, changes in rules promulgated by the SEC and by self-regulatory organizations or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules often directly affects the method of operation and profitability of broker-dealers. The SEC, the self-regulatory organizations and states may conduct administrative and enforcement proceedings that can result in censure, fine, suspension or expulsion of our broker-dealers, their registered persons, officers or employees. The principal purpose of regulation and discipline of broker-dealers is the protection of customers and the securities markets rather than protection of creditors and stockholders of broker-dealers. Limitation on Businesses. The businesses that the Hilltop Broker-Dealers may conduct are limited by its agreements with, and its oversight by, FINRA, other regulatory authorities and federal and state law. Participation in new business lines, including trading of new products or participation on new exchanges or in new countries often requires 26 governmental and/or exchange approvals, which may take significant time and resources. In addition, the Hilltop-Broker Dealers are operating subsidiaries of Hilltop, which means its activities are further limited by those that are permissible for subsidiaries of financial holding companies, and as a result, may be prevented from entering new businesses that may be profitable in a timely manner, if at all. Net Capital Requirements. The SEC, FINRA and various other regulatory authorities have stringent rules and regulations with respect to the maintenance of specific levels of net capital by regulated entities. Rule 15c3-1 of the Exchange Act (the “Net Capital Rule”) requires that a broker-dealer maintain minimum net capital. Generally, a broker-dealer’s net capital is net worth plus qualified subordinated debt less deductions for non-allowable (or non-liquid) assets and other adjustments and operational charges. At December 31, 2015, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers were in compliance with applicable net capital requirements. The SEC, CFTC, FINRA and other regulatory organizations impose rules that require notification when net capital falls below certain predefined thresholds. These rules also dictate the ratio of debt-to-equity in the regulatory capital composition of a broker-dealer, and constrain the ability of a broker-dealer to expand its business under certain circumstances. If a broker-dealer fails to maintain the required net capital, it may be subject to suspension or revocation of registration by the SEC or applicable regulatory authorities, and suspension or expulsion by these regulators could ultimately lead to the broker-dealer’s liquidation. Additionally, the Net Capital Rule and certain FINRA rules impose requirements that may have the effect of prohibiting a broker-dealer from distributing or withdrawing capital and requiring prior notice to, and approval from, the SEC and FINRA for certain capital withdrawals. Compliance with the net capital requirements may limit our operations, requiring the intensive use of capital. Such rules require that a certain percentage of our assets be maintained in relatively liquid form and therefore act to restrict our ability to withdraw capital from our broker-dealer entities, which in turn may limit our ability to pay dividends, repay debt or redeem or purchase shares of our outstanding common stock. Any change in such rules or the imposition of new rules affecting the scope, coverage, calculation or amount of capital requirements, or a significant operating loss or any unusually large charge against capital, could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends, repay debt, meet our debt covenant requirements or to expand or maintain our operations. In addition, such rules may require us to make substantial capital contributions into one or more of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers in order for such subsidiaries to comply with such rules, either in the form of cash or subordinated loans made in accordance with the requirements of all applicable net capital rules. Customer Protection Rule. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers that hold customers’ funds and securities are subject to the SEC’s customer protection rule (Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act), which generally provides that such broker- dealers maintain physical possession or control of all fully-paid securities and excess margin securities carried for the account of customers and maintain certain reserves of cash or qualified securities. Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”). The Hilltop Broker-Dealers are subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act and belong to SIPC, whose primary function is to provide financial protection for the customers of failing brokerage firms. SIPC provides protection for customers up to $500,000, of which a maximum of $250,000 may be in cash. Anti-Money Laundering. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers must also comply with the USA PATRIOT Act and other rules and regulations designed to fight international money laundering and to block terrorist access to the U.S. financial system. We are required to have systems and procedures to ensure compliance with such laws and regulations. CFTC Oversight. Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network are registered as introducing brokers with the CFTC and NFA. The CFTC also has net capital regulations (CFTC Rule 1.17) that must be satisfied. Our futures business is also regulated by the NFA, a registered futures association. FSC is registered with the CFTC as a commodity trading advisor. Violation of the rules of the CFTC, the NFA or the commodity exchanges could result in remedial actions including fines, registration restrictions or terminations, trading prohibitions or revocations of commodity exchange memberships. Investment Advisory Activity. First Southwest Asset Management, LLC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network are registered with, and subject to oversight and inspection by, the SEC as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. The investment advisory business of our subsidiaries is subject to significant federal regulation, including with respect to wrap fee programs, the management of client accounts, the safeguarding of client assets, client fees and disclosures, transactions among affiliates and recordkeeping and reporting procedures. Legislation and changes in regulations promulgated by the SEC or changes in the interpretation or 27 enforcement of existing laws and regulations often directly affect the method of operation and profitability of investment advisers. The SEC may conduct administrative and enforcement proceedings that can result in censure, fine, suspension, revocation or expulsion of the investment advisory business of our subsidiaries, our officers or employees. Volcker Rule. Provisions of the Volcker Rule and the final rules implementing the Volcker Rule also restrict certain activities provided by the Hilltop Broker-Dealers, including proprietary trading and sponsoring or investing in “covered funds.” Changing Regulatory Environment. The regulatory environment in which the Hilltop Broker-Dealers operate is subject to frequent change. Our business, financial condition and operating results may be adversely affected as a result of new or revised legislation or regulations imposed by the U.S. Congress, the SEC, FINRA or other U.S. and state governmental regulatory authorities. The business, financial condition and operating results of the Hilltop Broker- Dealers also may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental and regulatory authorities. In the current era of heightened regulation of financial institutions, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers can expect to incur increasing compliance costs, along with the industry as a whole. Mortgage Origination PrimeLending and the Bank are subject to the rules and regulations of the CFPB, FHA, VA, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Government National Mortgage Association 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. Mortgage origination activities are subject to, among others, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Federal Truth-in-Lending Act, Secure and Fair Enforcement of Mortgage Licensing Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder which, among other things, prohibit discrimination and require the disclosure of certain basic information to borrowers concerning credit terms and settlement costs. PrimeLending and the Bank are also subject to regulation by the Texas Department of Banking with respect to, among other things, the establishment of maximum origination fees on certain types of mortgage loan products. PrimeLending and the Bank are also subject to the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB and provides mortgage reform provisions regarding a customer’s ability to repay, restrictions on variable-rate lending, loan officers’ compensation, risk retention, and new disclosure requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act also clarifies that applicable state laws, rules and regulations related to the origination, processing, selling and servicing of mortgage loans continue to apply to PrimeLending. The additional regulatory requirements affecting our mortgage origination operations will result in increased compliance costs and may impact revenue. On August 16, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board published a final rule on loan broker compensation, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits certain compensation payments to loan brokers and the practice of steering consumers to loans not in their interest when it will result in greater compensation for a loan broker. This final rule became effective on April 1, 2011, however, the Federal Reserve Board noted in the final rule that the CFPB may clarify the rule in the future pursuant to the CFPB’s authority granted under the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB’s final rule addressing mortgage loan originator compensation is discussed in more detail below. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directed the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate regulations requiring lenders and securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans the lender sells and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues if the loans have not complied with the ability to repay standards spelled out in the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations. On March 2, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board published a final rule implementing a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that provides a separate, higher rate threshold for determining when the escrow requirements apply to higher-priced mortgage loans that exceed the maximum principal obligation eligible for purchase by Freddie Mac. In January 2013, the CFPB published final rules that will impact mortgage origination and servicing. Had these final rules not been published, many of the statutory requirements in Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act would have become effective on January 21, 2013 without any implementing regulations. Unless noted below, these final rules became effective in January 2014. 28 On October 22, 2014 the Federal Reserve Board, the SEC and several other agencies collectively issued a final rule that implements the credit risk retention provisions under Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules concerning mortgage origination and servicing address the following topics: Ability to Repay. This final rule implements the Dodd-Frank Act provisions requiring that for residential mortgages, creditors must make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. The final rule also establishes a presumption of compliance with the ability to repay determination for a certain category of mortgages called “qualified mortgages” meeting a series of detailed requirements. The final rule also provides a rebuttable presumption for higher-priced mortgage loans. High-Cost Mortgage. This final rule strengthens consumer protections for high-cost mortgages (generally bans balloon payments and prepayment penalties, subject to exceptions and bans or limits certain fees and practices) and requires consumers to receive information about homeownership counseling prior to taking out a high-cost mortgage. Appraisals for High-Risk Mortgages. The final rule permits a creditor to extend a higher-priced (subprime) mortgage loan (“HPML”) only if the following conditions are met (subject to exceptions): (i) the creditor obtains a written appraisal; (ii) the appraisal is performed by a certified or licensed appraiser; and (iii) the appraiser conducts a physical property visit of the interior of the property. The rule also requires that during the application process, the applicant receives a notice regarding the appraisal process and their right to receive a free copy of the appraisal. Copies of Appraisals. This final rule amends Regulation B that implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It requires a creditor to provide a free copy of appraisal or valuation reports prepared in connection with any closed-end loan secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The final rule requires notice to applicants of the right to receive copies of any appraisal or valuation reports and creditors must send copies of the reports whether or not the loan transaction is consummated. Creditors must provide the copies of the appraisal or evaluation reports for free, however, the creditors may charge reasonable fees for the cost of the appraisal or valuation unless applicable law provides otherwise. Escrow Requirements. This final rule implements Dodd-Frank Act changes that generally extend the required duration of an escrow account on certain higher-priced mortgage loans from a minimum of one year to a minimum of five years, subject to certain exemptions for loans made by certain creditors that operate predominantly in rural or underserved areas, as long as certain other criteria are met. This final rule became effective on June 1, 2013. Servicing. Two final rules were published to implement laws to protect consumers from detrimental actions by mortgage servicers and to provide consumers with better tools and information when dealing with mortgage servicers. One final rule amends Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act, and a second final rule amends Regulation X, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The rules cover nine major topics implementing the Dodd-Frank Act provisions related to mortgage servicing. The final rules include a number of exemptions and other adjustments for small servicers, defined as servicers that service 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans and service only mortgage loans that they or an affiliate originated or own. Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation. This final rule implements Dodd-Frank Act requirements, as well as revises and clarifies existing regulations and commentary on loan originator compensation. The rule also prohibits, among other things: (i) certain arbitration agreements; (ii) financing certain credit insurance in connection with a mortgage loan; (iii) compensation based on a term of a transaction or a proxy for a term of a transaction; and (iv) dual compensation from a consumer and another person in connection with the transaction. The final rule also imposes a duty on individual loan officers, mortgage brokers and creditors to be “qualified” and, when applicable, registered or licensed to the extent required under applicable State and Federal law. Risk Retention. This final rule implements the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act that at least one sponsor of each securitization retains at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing asset-backed securities. Sponsors are prohibited from hedging or transferring this credit risk, and the rule applies in both public and private transactions. Securitizations backed by “qualified residential mortgages” or “servicing assets” are exempt from the rule, and the definition of “qualified residential mortgages” is subject to review of the joint regulators every five years. The rule became effective on December 24, 2015 with respect to asset-backed securities collateralized by residential mortgages and December 24, 2016 with respect to all other classes of asset-backed securities. 29 Additional rules and regulations are expected. Any additional regulatory requirements affecting PrimeLending mortgage origination operations will result in increased compliance costs and may impact revenue. Insurance NLC’s insurance subsidiaries, NLIC and ASIC, are subject to regulation and supervision in each state where they are licensed to do business. This regulation and supervision is vested in state agencies having broad administrative power over the various aspects of the business of NLIC and ASIC. State insurance holding company regulation. NLC controls two operating insurance companies, NLIC and ASIC, and is subject to the insurance holding company laws of Texas, the state in which those insurance companies are domiciled. These laws generally require NLC to register with the Texas Department of Insurance and periodically to furnish financial and other information about the operations of companies within its holding company structure. Generally under these laws, all transactions between an insurer and an affiliated company in its holding company structure, including sales, loans, reinsurance agreements and service agreements, must be fair and reasonable and, if satisfying a specified threshold amount or of a specified category, require prior notice and approval or non-objection by the Texas Department of Insurance. National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) is a group consisting of state insurance commissioners that discuss issues and formulate policy with respect to regulation, reporting and accounting for insurance companies. Although the NAIC has no legislative authority and insurance companies are at all times subject to the laws of their respective domiciliary states and, to a lesser extent, other states in which they conduct business, the NAIC is influential in determining the form in which such laws are enacted. Certain Model Insurance Laws, Regulations and Guidelines, or Model Laws, have been promulgated by the NAIC as a minimum standard by which state regulatory systems and regulations are measured. Adoption of state laws that provide for substantially similar regulations to those described in the Model Laws is a requirement for accreditation by the NAIC. The NAIC provides authoritative guidance to insurance regulators on current statutory accounting issues by promulgating and updating a codified set of statutory accounting practices in its Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual. The Texas Department of Insurance has generally adopted these codified statutory accounting practices. Texas also has adopted laws substantially similar to the NAIC’s risk based capital (“RBC”) laws, which require insurers to maintain minimum levels of capital based on their investments and operations. Domestic property and casualty insurers are required to report their RBC based on a formula that attempts to measure statutory capital and surplus needs based on the risks in the insurer’s mix of products and investment portfolio. The formula is designed to allow the Texas Department of Insurance to identify potential inadequately capitalized companies. Under the formula, a company determines its RBC by taking into account certain risks related to its assets (including risks related to its investment portfolio and ceded reinsurance) and its liabilities (including underwriting risks related to the nature and experience of its insurance business). Among other requirements, an insurance company must maintain capital and surplus of at least 200% of the RBC computed by the NAIC’s RBC model (known as the “Authorized Control Level” of RBC). At December 31, 2015, NLIC and ASIC capital and surplus levels exceeded the minimum RBC requirements that would trigger regulatory attention. In their 2015 statutory financial statements, both NLIC and ASIC complied with the NAIC’s RBC reporting requirements. The NAIC’s Insurance Regulatory Information System (“IRIS”) was developed to assist state insurance departments in executing their statutory mandates to oversee the financial condition of insurance companies. IRIS identifies twelve industry ratios and specifies a range of “usual values” for each ratio. Departure from the usual values on four or more of these ratios can lead to inquiries from state insurance commissioners as to certain aspects of an insurer’s business. For 2015, all ratios for both NLIC and ASIC were within the usual values with two exceptions. Both companies fell below the indicated minimum investment yield range of 3%, with NLIC at 1.6% and ASIC at 1.4%, due to the concentration in cash at each company. We expect improvement in the yields at both companies as appropriate investment opportunities are identified. The NAIC adopted an amendment to its “Model Audit Rule” in response to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). The amendment is effective for financial statements for accounting periods after January 1, 2010. This amendment addresses auditor independence, corporate governance and, most notably, the application of certain 30 provisions of Section 404 of SOX regarding internal control reporting. The rules relating to internal controls apply to insurers with gross direct and assumed written premiums of $500 million or more, measured at the legal entity level (rather than at the insurance holding company level), and to insurers that the domiciliary commissioner selects from among those identified as in hazardous condition, but exempts SOX compliant entities. Neither NLIC nor ASIC currently has direct and assumed written premiums of at least $500 million, but it is conceivable that this may change in the future; however, NLC must be SOX compliant because it is wholly owned by Hilltop, a public company subject to SOX compliance. Federal Office of Insurance. The Dodd-Frank Act established within the Treasury Department a Federal Office of Insurance (“FIO”) and vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector, monitor the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable non-health insurance products, and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters. Management is monitoring the activities of the FIO for any possible federal regulation of the insurance industry. Legislative changes. From time to time, various regulatory and legislative changes have been, or are, proposed that would adversely affect the insurance industry. Among the proposals that have been, or are being, considered are the possible introduction of Federal regulation in addition to, or in lieu of, the current system of state regulation of insurers and proposals in various state legislatures (some of which proposals have been enacted) to conform portions of their insurance laws and regulations to various Model Laws adopted by the NAIC. NLC is unable to predict whether any of these laws and regulations will be adopted, the form in which any such laws and regulations would be adopted, or the effect, if any, these developments would have on its financial condition or results of operations. In November 2002, in response to the tightening supply in certain insurance and reinsurance markets resulting from, among other things, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) was enacted. TRIA was modified and extended by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 and extended again by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. These Acts created a Federal Program designed to ensure the availability of commercial insurance coverage for terrorist acts in the United States. This Program helped the commercial property and casualty insurance industry cover claims related to terrorism-related losses and requires such companies to offer coverage for certain acts of terrorism. As a result, NLC is prohibited from adding certain terrorism exclusions to the policies written by its insurance company subsidiaries. The 2005 Act extended the Program through 2007, but eliminated commercial auto, farm-owners and certain other commercial coverages from its scope. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 further extended the Program through December 31, 2020 and set the reimbursement percentage at 85%, subject to a decrease of one percentage point per calendar year until it equals 80%, and the deductible at 20%. Although NLC is protected by federally funded terrorism reinsurance as provided for in the TRIA, there is a substantial deductible that must be met, the payment of which could have an adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. NLC’s deductible under the Program was $0.8 million for 2015 and is estimated to be $0.7 million in 2016. Potential future changes to the TRIA could also adversely affect NLC by causing its reinsurers to increase prices or withdraw from certain markets where terrorism coverage is required. NLC had no terrorism-related losses in 2015. State insurance regulations. State insurance authorities have broad powers to regulate U.S. insurance companies. The primary purposes of these powers are to promote insurer solvency and to protect individual policyholders. The extent of regulation varies, but generally has its source in statutes that delegate regulatory, supervisory and administrative power to state insurance departments. These powers relate to, among other things, licensing to transact business, accreditation of reinsurers, admittance of assets to statutory surplus, regulating unfair trade and claims practices, establishing actuarial requirements and solvency standards, regulating investments and dividends, and regulating policy forms, related materials and premium rates. State insurance laws and regulations require insurance companies to file financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles prescribed by insurance departments in states in which they conduct insurance business, and their operations are subject to examination by those departments. As part of the broad authority that state insurance commissioners hold, they may impose periodic rules or regulations related to local issues or events. An example is the State of Oklahoma’s prohibition on the cancellation of policies for nonpayment of premium in the wake of severe tornadic activity. Due to the extent of damage and displacement of people, inability of mail to reach policyholders and inaccessibility of entire neighborhoods, the State of Oklahoma prohibited insurance companies from canceling or non-renewing policies for a period of time following the specific event. 31 Periodic financial and market conduct examinations. The insurance departments in every state in which NLC’s insurance companies do business may conduct on-site visits and examinations of its insurance companies at any time to review the insurance companies’ financial condition, market conduct and relationships and transactions with affiliates. In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance will conduct comprehensive examinations of insurance companies domiciled in Texas every three to five years. Examinations are generally carried out in cooperation with the insurance departments of other licensing states under guidelines promulgated by the NAIC. The Texas Department of Insurance completed their last examinations of NLIC and ASIC through December 31, 2010 in an examination report dated May 12, 2012. This examination report contained no information of any significant compliance issues and there is no indication of any significant changes to our financial statements as a result of the examination by the domiciliary state. State dividend limitations. The Texas Department of Insurance must approve any dividend declared or paid by an insurance company domiciled in the state if the dividend, together with all dividends declared or distributed by that insurance company during the preceding twelve months, exceeds the greater of (1) 10% of its policyholders’ surplus as of December 31 of the preceding year or (2) 100% of its net income for the preceding calendar year. The greater number is known as the insurer’s extraordinary dividend limit. At December 31, 2015, the extraordinary dividend limit for NLIC and ASIC was $12.2 million and $3.0 million, respectively. In addition, NLC’s insurance companies may only pay dividends out of their earned surplus. Statutory accounting principles. Statutory accounting principles (“SAP”) are a comprehensive basis of accounting developed to assist insurance regulators in monitoring and regulating the solvency of insurance companies. SAP rules are different from GAAP, and are intended to reflect a more conservative view of the insurer. SAP is primarily concerned with measuring an insurer’s surplus to policyholders. Accordingly, SAP focuses on valuing assets and liabilities of insurers at financial reporting dates in accordance with insurance laws and regulatory provisions applicable in each insurer’s domiciliary state. While GAAP is concerned with a company’s solvency, it also stresses other financial measurements, such as income and cash flows. Accordingly, GAAP gives more consideration to appropriate matching of revenues and expenses and accounting for management’s stewardship of assets than does SAP. As a direct result, different amounts of assets and liabilities will be reflected in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP as opposed to SAP. SAP, as established by the NAIC and adopted by Texas regulators, determines the statutory surplus and statutory net income of the NLC insurance companies and, thus, determines the amount they have available to pay dividends. Guaranty associations. In Texas, and in all of the jurisdictions in which NLIC and ASIC are, or in the future may be, licensed to transact business, there is a requirement that property and casualty insurers doing business within the jurisdiction must participate in guaranty associations, which are organized to pay limited covered benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issued by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired, insolvent or failed insurer was engaged. States generally permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets. NLC did not incur any levies in 2015, 2014 or 2013. Property and casualty insurance company insolvencies or failures may, however, result in additional guaranty fund assessments at some future date. At this time NLC is unable to determine the impact, if any, that these assessments may have on its financial condition or results of operations. NLC has established liabilities for guaranty fund assessments with respect to insurers that are currently subject to insolvency proceedings. National Flood Insurance Program. NLC’s insurance subsidiaries voluntarily participate as Write Your Own carriers in the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”). The NFIP is administered and regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). NLIC and ASIC operate as a fiscal agent of the Federal government in the selling and administering of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. This involves writing the policy, the collection of premiums and the paying of covered claims. All pricing is set by FEMA and all collections are made by NLIC and ASIC. NLIC and ASIC cede 100% of the policies written by NLIC and ASIC on the Standard Flood Insurance Policy to FEMA; however, if FEMA were unable to perform, NLIC and ASIC would have a legal obligation to the policyholders. 32 The terms of the reinsurance agreement are standard terms, which require NLIC and ASIC to maintain its rating criteria, determine policyholder eligibility, issue policies on NLIC and ASIC’s paper, endorse and cancel policies, collect from insureds and process claims. NLIC and ASIC receive ceding commissions from NFIP for underwriting administration, claims management, commission and adjuster fees. Participation in involuntary risk plans. NLC’s insurance companies are required to participate in residual market or involuntary risk plans in various states where they are licensed that provide insurance to individuals or entities that otherwise would be unable to purchase coverage from private insurers. If these plans experience losses in excess of their capitalization, they may assess participating insurers for proportionate shares of their financial deficit. These plans include the Georgia Underwriting Association, Texas FAIR Plan Association, Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency, the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the Mississippi Residential Property Insurance Underwriting Association and the Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association. For example in 2005, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the above plans levied collective assessments totaling $10.4 million on NLC’s insurance subsidiaries. Additional assessments, including emergency assessments, may follow. In some of these instances, NLC’s insurance companies should be able to recover these assessments through policyholder surcharges, higher rates or reinsurance. The ultimate impact hurricanes have on the Texas and Louisiana facilities is currently uncertain and future assessments can occur whenever the involuntary facilities experience financial deficits. Other. Insurance activities are subject to state insurance laws and regulations as determined by the particular insurance commissioner for each state in accordance with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, as well as subject to the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act and the privacy regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission. Changes in any of the laws governing our conduct could have an adverse impact on our ability to conduct our business or could materially affect our financial position, operating income, expense or cash flow. Item 1A. Risk Factors. The following discussion sets forth what management currently believes could be the most significant regulatory, market and economic, liquidity, legal and business and operational risks and uncertainties that could impact our business, results of operations and financial condition. Other risks and uncertainties, including those not currently known to us, could also negatively impact our businesses, results of operations and financial condition. Thus, the following should not be considered a complete discussion of all of the risks and uncertainties we may face and the order of their respective significance may change. Risks Related to our Business We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the SWS Merger. Achieving the anticipated cost savings and financial benefits of the SWS Merger and any other acquisitions we may complete will depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate the operations of the acquired companies with our own in an efficient and effective manner. It is possible that the integration process could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of ongoing business or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients, customers, depositors and employees. In addition, the integration of certain operations will require the dedication of significant management resources, which may temporarily distract management’s attention from our day-to-day business. Any inability to realize the full extent, or any, of the anticipated cost savings and financial benefits of the SWS Merger or any other acquisitions we make, as well as any delays encountered in the integration process, could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations, which could adversely affect our financial condition and cause a decrease in our earnings per share or decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the acquisitions and contribute to a decrease in the price of our common stock. If our allowance for loan losses is insufficient to cover actual loan losses, our banking segment earnings will be adversely affected. As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that we could sustain losses because our borrowers may not repay their loans in accordance with the terms of their loans. We have historically accounted for this risk by maintaining an allowance for loan losses in an amount intended to cover Bank management’s estimate of losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Under the acquisition method of accounting requirements, we were required to estimate the fair value of the loan portfolios 33 acquired in each of the PlainsCapital Merger, the FNB Transaction and the SWS Merger, respectively (collectively, the “Bank Transactions”), as of the applicable acquisition date and write down the recorded value of such acquired portfolio to that estimate. For most loans, this process was accomplished by computing the net present value of estimated cash flows to be received from borrowers of these loans. The allowance for loan losses that had been maintained by PlainsCapital, FNB or SWS, as applicable, prior to their respective transactions, was eliminated in this accounting process. A new allowance for loan losses has been established for loans made by the Bank subsequent to consummation of the PlainsCapital Merger and for any decrease from that originally estimated as of the applicable acquisition date in the estimate of cash flows to be received from the loans acquired in the Bank Transactions. The estimates of fair value as of the consummation of the Bank Transactions were based on economic conditions at such time and on Bank management’s projections concerning both future economic conditions and the ability of the borrowers to continue to repay their loans. If management’s assumptions and projections prove to be incorrect, however, the estimate of fair value may be higher than the actual fair value and we may suffer losses in excess of those estimated. Further, the allowance for loan losses established for new loans or for revised estimates may prove to be inadequate to cover actual losses, especially if economic conditions worsen. While management will endeavor to estimate the allowance to cover anticipated losses, no underwriting and credit monitoring policies and procedures that we could adopt to address credit risk could provide complete assurance that we will not incur unexpected losses. These losses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, federal regulators periodically evaluate the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs based on judgments different from those of our Bank management. As a result, any such increase in our provision for loan losses or additional loan charge-offs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. An adverse change in real estate market values may result in losses in our banking segment and otherwise adversely affect our profitability. At December 31, 2015, 42% of the loan portfolio of our banking segment was comprised of loans with real estate as the primary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides a source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. A decline in real estate values generally, and in Texas specifically, could impair the value of our collateral and our ability to sell the collateral upon any foreclosure. In the event of a default with respect to any of these loans, the amounts we receive upon sale of the collateral may be insufficient to recover the outstanding principal and interest on the loan. As a result, our results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected by a decrease in real estate market values. Our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by unpredictable economic, market and business conditions. Our business and results of operations are affected by general economic, market and business conditions. The credit quality of our loan portfolio necessarily reflects, among other things, the general economic conditions in the areas in which we conduct our business. Our continued financial success depends to a degree on factors beyond our control, including: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) national and local economic conditions, such as the level and volatility of short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, home prices, unemployment and under-employment levels, energy prices, bankruptcies, household income and consumer spending; general economic consequences of international conditions, such as weakness in the European and Asian economies and emerging markets and the impact of that weakness on the U.S. and global economies; the availability and cost of capital and credit; incidence of customer fraud; and federal, state and local laws affecting these matters. The deterioration of any of these conditions, as we have experienced with past economic downturns, could adversely affect our consumer and commercial businesses and securities portfolios, our level of charge-offs and provision for 34 credit losses, the carrying value of our deferred tax assets, the investment portfolio of our insurance segment, our capital levels and liquidity, and our results of operations. Although the United States has recently seen improvement in certain economic indicators, including improvement in the housing market, increasing consumer confidence, continued growth in private sector employment, and improved credit availability, these improvements are relatively recent and may not be sustainable. Several factors could pose risks to the financial services industry, including low oil prices, political gridlock in Washington, D.C., regulatory uncertainty, continued infrastructure deterioration, and international political unrest. In addition, the current environment of heightened scrutiny of financial institutions has resulted in increased public awareness of and sensitivity to banking fees and practices. Each of these factors may adversely affect our fees and costs. Our geographic concentration may magnify the adverse effects and consequences of any regional or local economic downturn. We conduct our banking operations primarily in Texas. At December 31, 2015, substantially all of the real estate loans in our loan portfolio were secured by properties located in our four largest markets within Texas, with 35.6%, 27.6%, 13.4% and 11.2% secured by properties located in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin/San Antonio, Rio Grande Valley/South Texas and Houston/Coastal Bend markets, respectively. Significantly all of these loans are made to borrowers who live and conduct business in Texas. Accordingly, economic conditions in Texas have a significant impact on the ability of the Bank’s customers to repay loans, the value of the collateral securing loans, our ability to sell the collateral upon any foreclosure, and the stability of the Bank’s deposit funding sources. Further, recent declines in crude oil prices may have a more profound effect on the economy of energy-dominant states such as Texas. At December 31, 2015, energy loans, including those within the exploration and production, oilfield services, pipeline construction, distribution and transportation sectors, comprised 3.6% of the Bank’s loan portfolio. The Bank also has loans extended to businesses that depend on the energy industry. If crude oil prices remain at low levels for an extended period, the Bank could experience weaker energy loan demand and increased losses within its energy and Texas-related loan portfolios. In addition, mortgage origination fee income and insurance premium volume are both dependent to a significant degree on economic conditions in Texas and California. During 2015, 22.2% and 14.7% by dollar volume of our mortgage loans originated were collateralized by properties located in Texas and California, respectively. Further, Texas insureds accounted for 70.5% and 69.3% of our insurance segment’s gross premiums written in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Any regional or local economic downturn that affects Texas or, to a lesser extent, California, whether caused by recession, inflation, unemployment, changing oil prices or other factors, may affect us and our profitability more significantly and more adversely than our competitors that are less geographically concentrated and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. We may suffer losses or be forced to make a “true-up” or reimbursement payment to the FDIC if our losses realized on the assets acquired in the FNB transaction are not covered by the loss-share agreements, the FDIC audits us and determines that we have not adequately managed these loans or we continue to experience favorable resolutions within our covered assets portfolio. Under the terms of the loss-share agreements we entered into with the FDIC in connection with the FNB Transaction, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse us for the following amounts with respect to the covered assets (including covered loans): (i) 80% of net losses on the first $240.4 million of net losses incurred; (ii) 0% of net losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of net losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of net losses in excess of $365.7 million of net losses incurred. Net losses are defined as book value losses plus certain defined expenses incurred in the resolution of assets, less subsequent recoveries. Under the loss-share agreement for commercial assets, the amount of subsequent recoveries that are reimbursable to the FDIC for a particular asset is limited to book value losses and expenses actually billed plus any book value charge-offs incurred prior to September 13, 2013 (the “Bank Closing Date”). There is no limit on the amount of subsequent recoveries reimbursable to the FDIC under the loss-share agreement for single family residential assets. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential assets are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. Our obligations under the loss-share agreements are extensive, and failure to comply with any obligations could result in a specific asset, or group of assets, losing loss-share coverage. Although the FDIC has agreed to reimburse us for the substantial portion of losses on covered loans, the FDIC has the right to refuse or delay payment for loan losses if we do not manage covered loans in accordance with the loss- share agreements and may audit our past practices and require us to return amounts reimbursed to us if we are found to 35 have not managed the portfolio properly. In addition, reimbursable losses are based on the book value of the relevant assets as determined by the FDIC as of the effective dates of the transactions. The amount that we realize on these loans could differ materially from the carrying value that will be reflected in our consolidated financial statements, based upon the timing and amount of collections on the covered assets in future periods. In addition, certain losses projected to be incurred during the loss-share period may not be realized until after the expiration date of the applicable agreement and, consequently, would not be covered by the loss-share agreements. Any losses we experience in the assets acquired in the FNB Transaction that are not covered under the loss-share agreements could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, in accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if our actual net realized losses over the life of the loss- share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement we entered into with the FDIC in connection with the FNB Transaction. While the ultimate amount of any “true-up” payment is unknown at this time and will vary based upon the amount of future losses or recoveries within our covered loan portfolio, the Bank has recorded a related “true-up” payment accrual of $5.5 million at December 31, 2015 based on the current estimate of aggregate realized losses on covered assets over the life of the loss-share agreements. Additionally, as estimates of realized losses on covered assets change, the value of the receivable under the loss-share agreements with the FDIC (“FDIC Indemnification Asset”) will be adjusted and therefore may not be realized. If the Bank continues to experience favorable resolutions within its covered assets portfolio and covered losses are lower than currently estimated, the Bank may be required to increase its “true-up” payment accrual and recognize negative accretion (amortization) on the FDIC Indemnification Asset. These changes will be partially offset by increased discount accretion on the covered loan portfolio. If such changes occur, our financial position and results of operations may be adversely affected. Our geographic concentration may also exacerbate the adverse effects on our insurance segment of inherently unpredictable catastrophic events. Our insurance segment expects to have large aggregate exposures to inherently unpredictable natural and man-made disasters of great severity, such as hurricanes, hail, tornados, windstorms, wildfires and acts of terrorism. Hurricanes Ike, Katrina and Rita highlighted the challenges inherent in predicting the impact of catastrophic events. The catastrophe models utilized by our insurance segment to assess its probable maximum insurance losses generally failed to adequately project the financial impact of these hurricanes. Although our insurance segment may attempt to exclude certain losses, such as terrorism and other similar risks, from some coverage that our insurance segment writes, it may be prohibited from, or may not be successful in, doing so. The occurrence of losses from catastrophic events may have a material adverse effect on our insurance segment’s ability to write new business and on its financial condition and results of operations. Increases in the values and geographic concentrations of policyholder property and the effects of inflation have resulted in increased severity of industry losses in recent years, and our insurance segment expects that these factors will increase the severity of losses in the future. Factors that may influence our insurance segment’s exposure to losses from these types of events, in addition to the routine adjustment of losses, include, among others: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) exhaustion of reinsurance coverage; increases in reinsurance rates; unanticipated litigation expenses; unrecoverability of ceded losses; impact on independent agent operations and future premium income in areas affected by catastrophic events; unanticipated expansion of policy coverage or reduction of premium due to regulatory, legislative and/or judicial action following a catastrophic event; and (cid:120) unanticipated demand surge related to other recent catastrophic events. Our insurance segment writes insurance primarily in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia and Louisiana. In 2015, Texas accounted for 70.5%, Arizona accounted for 9.6%, Oklahoma accounted for 6.6%, Tennessee accounted for 5.9% and Georgia accounted for 3.4% of our gross premiums written. As a result, a single catastrophe, destructive weather pattern, wildfire, terrorist attack, regulatory development or other condition or general economic trend affecting these regions or significant portions of these regions could adversely affect our insurance segment’s 36 financial condition and results of operations more significantly than other insurance companies that conduct business across a broader geographic area. Although our insurance segment purchases catastrophe reinsurance to limit its exposure to these types of catastrophes, in the event of one or more major catastrophes resulting in losses to it in excess of $125.0 million, our insurance segment’s losses would exceed the limits of its reinsurance coverage. Our risk management processes may not fully identify and mitigate exposure to the various risks that we face, including interest rate, credit, liquidity and market risk. We continue to refine our risk management techniques, strategies and assessment methods on an ongoing basis. However, risk management techniques and strategies, both ours and those available to the market generally, may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure in all economic market environments or against all types of risk. For example, we might fail to identify or anticipate particular risks, or the systems that we use, and that are used within our business segments generally, may not be capable of identifying certain risks. Certain of our strategies for managing risk are based upon our use of observed historical market behavior. We apply statistical and other tools to these observations to quantify our risk exposure. Any failures in our risk management techniques and strategies to accurately identify and quantify our risk exposure could limit our ability to manage risks. In addition, any risk management failures could cause our losses to be significantly greater than the historical measures indicate. Further, our quantified modeling does not take all risks into account. As a result, we also take a qualitative approach in reducing our risk. Our qualitative approach to managing those risks could also prove insufficient, exposing us to material unanticipated losses. Our business is subject to interest rate risk, and fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings, capital levels and overall results. The majority of our assets are monetary in nature and, as a result, we are subject to significant risk from changes in interest rates. Changes in interest rates may impact our net interest income in our banking segment as well as the valuation of our assets and liabilities in each of our segments. Earnings in our banking segment are significantly dependent on our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and securities, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect to periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our banking segment’s assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest- earning assets, or vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” may work against us, and our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. An increase in the general level of interest rates may also, among other things, adversely affect the demand for loans and our ability to originate loans. In particular, if mortgage interest rates increase, the demand for residential mortgage loans and the refinancing of residential mortgage loans will likely decrease, which will have an adverse effect on our income generated from mortgage origination activities. Conversely, a decrease in the general level of interest rates, among other things, may lead to prepayments on our loan and mortgage-backed securities portfolios and increased competition for deposits. Accordingly, changes in the general level of market interest rates may adversely affect our net yield on interest- earning assets, loan origination volume and our overall results. Our broker-dealer segment holds securities, principally fixed-income bonds, to support sales, underwriting and other customer activities. If interest rates increase, the value of debt securities held in the broker-dealer segment’s inventory would decrease. Rapid or significant changes in interest rates could adversely affect the segment’s bond sales, underwriting activities and broker-dealer businesses. Further, the profitability of our margin and stock lending businesses depends to a great extent on the difference between interest income earned on loans and investments of customer cash balances and the interest expense paid on customer cash balances and borrowings. Our insurance segment invested over 83% of its invested assets in fixed maturity assets such as bonds and mortgage- backed securities at December 31, 2015. Because bond trading prices decrease as interest rates rise, a significant increase in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our insurance segment’s financial condition and results of operations. On the other hand, decreases in interest rates could have an adverse effect on our insurance segment’s investment income and results of operations. For example, if interest rates decline, investment of new premiums received and funds reinvested will earn less. Additionally, mortgage-backed securities typically are prepaid more quickly when interest rates fall and the holder must reinvest the proceeds at lower interest rates. In periods of increasing interest rates, mortgage-backed securities typically are prepaid more slowly, which may require our insurance segment to receive interest payments that are below the then prevailing interest rates for longer time periods than expected. The volatility of 37 our insurance segment’s claims may force it to liquidate securities, which may cause it to incur capital losses. If our insurance segment’s investment portfolio is not appropriately matched with its insurance liabilities, it may be forced to liquidate investments prior to maturity at a significant loss to cover these liabilities. In addition, if we experience market disruption and volatility, such as that experienced in 2009 and 2010, we may experience additional losses on our investments and reductions in our earnings. Investment losses could significantly decrease the asset base and statutory surplus of our insurance segment, thereby adversely affecting its ability to conduct business and potentially its A.M. Best financial strength rating. In addition, we hold securities that may be sold in response to changes in market interest rates, changes in securities’ prepayment risk, increases in loan demand, general liquidity needs and other similar factors are classified as available for sale and are carried at estimated fair value, which may fluctuate with changes in market interest rates. The effects of an increase in market interest rates may result in a decrease in the value of our available for sale investment portfolio. Market interest rates are affected by many factors outside of our control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets. We may not be able to accurately predict the likelihood, nature and magnitude of such changes or how and to what extent such changes may affect our business. We also may not be able to adequately prepare for, or compensate for, the consequences of such changes. Any failure to predict and prepare for changes in interest rates, or adjust for the consequences of these changes, may adversely affect our earnings and capital levels and overall results of operations and financial condition. Our bank lending, margin lending, stock lending, securities trading and execution and mortgage purchase businesses are all subject to credit risk. We are exposed to credit risk in all areas of our business. The Bank is exposed to the risk that its loan customers may not repay their loans in accordance with their terms, the collateral securing the loans may be insufficient, or its loan loss reserve may be inadequate to fully compensate the Bank for the outstanding balance of the loan plus the costs to dispose of the collateral. Our mortgage warehousing activities subject us to credit risk during the period between funding by the Bank and when the mortgage company sells the loan to a secondary investor. Our broker-dealer business is subject to credit risk if securities prices decline rapidly because the value of our collateral could fall below the amount of the indebtedness it secures. In rapidly appreciating markets, credit risk increases due to short positions. Our securities lending business as well as our securities trading and execution businesses subject us to credit risk if a counterparty fails to perform or if collateral securing its obligations is insufficient. In securities transactions, we are subject to credit risk during the period between the execution of a trade and the settlement by the customer. Significant failures by our customers, including correspondents, or clients to honor their obligations, together with insufficient collateral and reserves, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We are heavily dependent on dividends from our subsidiaries. We are a financial holding company engaged in the business of managing, controlling and operating our subsidiaries, including the Bank and its subsidiary, PrimeLending, NLC and its two insurance company subsidiaries, NLIC and ASIC, and our Securities Holdings subsidiaries. We conduct no material business or other activity other than activities incidental to holding stock in the Bank, NLC and the Securities Holdings subsidiaries. As a result, we rely substantially on the profitability of, and dividends from, these subsidiaries to pay our operating expenses and to pay interest on our debt obligations. Each of the Bank, NLC and the Securities Holdings subsidiaries is subject to significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends to us. Accordingly, if the Bank, NLC or the Securities Holdings subsidiaries are unable to make cash distributions to us, then we may be unable to satisfy our obligations or make interest payments on our debt obligations. NLIC and ASIC are also subject to limitations under debt agreements limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends, including the indenture governing NLC’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 3.40% notes due 2035 and the surplus indentures governing NLIC’s two LIBOR plus 4.10% and 4.05% notes due 2033 and ASIC’s LIBOR plus 4.05% notes due 2034. 38 Our indebtedness may affect our ability to operate our business, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We may incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness. At December 31, 2015, on a consolidated basis, we had total deposits of $7.0 billion and other indebtedness of $1.3 billion, including $150.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes. Our significant amount of indebtedness could have important consequences, such as: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund our working capital needs, acquisitions, capital expenditures or other debt service requirements or for other purposes; limiting our ability to use operating cash flow in other areas of our business because we must dedicate a substantial portion of these funds to service debt; limiting our ability to compete with other companies who are not as highly leveraged, as we may be less capable of responding to adverse economic and industry conditions; restricting us from making strategic acquisitions, developing properties or exploiting business opportunities; restricting the way in which we conduct our business because of financial and operating covenants in the agreements governing our and certain of our subsidiaries’ existing and future indebtedness, including, in the case of certain indebtedness of subsidiaries, certain covenants that restrict the ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions to us; exposing us to potential events of default (if not cured or waived) under financial and operating covenants contained in our or our subsidiaries’ debt instruments that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results; increasing our vulnerability to a downturn in general economic conditions or a decrease in pricing of our products; and (cid:120) limiting our ability to react to changing market conditions in our industry and in our customers’ industries. In addition to our debt service obligations, our operations require substantial investments on a continuing basis. Our ability to make scheduled debt payments, to refinance our obligations with respect to our indebtedness and to fund capital and non-capital expenditures necessary to maintain the condition of our operating assets and properties, as well as to provide capacity for the growth of our business, depends on our financial and operating performance, which, in turn, is subject to prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, competitive, legal and other factors. Subject to the restrictions in the indenture governing the Senior Notes, we may incur significant additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the risks described above could increase. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness, including the Senior Notes, and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness that may not be successful. Our ability to satisfy our debt obligations will depend upon, among other things: (cid:120) (cid:120) our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control; and our future ability to refinance the Senior Notes, which depends on, among other things, our complying with the covenants in the indenture governing the Senior Notes. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that we will be able to obtain financing in an amount sufficient to fund our liquidity needs. If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to service our indebtedness, including the Senior Notes, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness, including the Senior Notes. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations, including our obligations under the Senior Notes. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, 39 which could further restrict our business operations. In addition, the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In the absence of such operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations, sell equity and/or negotiate with our lenders and other creditors to restructure the applicable debt in order to meet our debt service and other obligations. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions for fair market value or at all. The indenture governing the Senior Notes may restrict, or market or business conditions may limit, our ability to avail ourselves of some or all of these options. Furthermore, any proceeds that we could realize from any such dispositions may not be adequate to meet our debt service obligations then due. The indenture governing the Senior Notes contains, and any instruments governing future indebtedness of ours would likely contain, restrictions that will limit our flexibility in operating our business. The indenture governing the Senior Notes contains, and any instruments governing future indebtedness of ours would likely contain, a number of covenants that will impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us, including restrictions on our ability to, among other things: (cid:120) (cid:120) dispose of, or issue voting stock of, certain subsidiaries; or incur or permit to exist any mortgage, pledge, encumbrance or lien or charge on the capital stock of certain subsidiaries. Any of these restrictions could limit our ability to plan for, or react to market conditions and could otherwise restrict corporate activities. Any failure to comply with these covenants could result in a default under the indenture governing the Senior Notes offered hereby. Upon a default, holders of the Senior Notes offered hereby would have the ability ultimately to force us into bankruptcy or liquidation, subject to the indenture governing the Senior Notes. In addition, a default under the indenture governing the Senior Notes could trigger a cross default under the agreements governing our existing and future indebtedness. Our operating results may not be sufficient to service our indebtedness or to fund our other expenditures and we may not be able to obtain financing to meet these requirements. We are subject to extensive supervision and regulation that could restrict our activities and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business and limit our ability to generate income. We are subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision, including that of the Federal Reserve Board, the Texas Department of Banking, the Texas Department of Insurance, the FDIC, the CFPB, the SEC and FINRA. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not stockholders or other debt holders. Insurance regulations promulgated by state insurance departments are primarily intended to protect policyholders rather than stockholders or other debt holders. Likewise, regulations promulgated by FINRA are primarily intended to protect customers of broker-dealer businesses rather than stockholders or other debt holders. These regulations affect our lending practices, capital structure, capital requirements, investment practices, brokerage and investment advisory activities, dividend policy and growth, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in money damages, civil money penalties or reputational damage, as well as sanctions and supervisory actions by regulatory agencies that could subject us to significant restrictions or suspensions on our business and our ability to expand through acquisitions or branching. Further, our clearing contracts generally include automatic termination provisions that are triggered in the event we are suspended from any of the national exchanges of which we are a member for failure to comply with the rules or regulations thereof. While we have implemented policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations of laws and regulations, such violations may occur from time to time, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The U.S. Congress and federal regulatory agencies frequently revise banking and securities laws, regulations and policies. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act, which significantly alters the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB and requires the CFPB and other federal agencies to implement many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. We expect that several aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act may affect our business, including, without limitation, increased capital requirements, increased mortgage regulation, restrictions on proprietary trading in securities, restrictions on investments in hedge funds and private equity funds, executive compensation restrictions, potential federal oversight of the insurance industry and disclosure and reporting requirements. At this time, it is difficult to predict the extent to which the Dodd- 40 Frank Act or the resulting rules and regulations will affect our business. Compliance with these new laws and regulations likely will result in additional costs, which could be significant and may adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. During the third quarter of 2015, the Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA rating in connection with its most recent CRA performance evaluation. A CRA rating of less than “satisfactory” adversely affects a bank’s ability to establish new branches and impairs a bank’s ability to commence new activities that are “financial in nature” or acquire companies engaged in these activities. Other regulatory exam ratings or findings also may adversely impact our ability to branch, commence new activities or make acquisitions. We cannot predict whether or in what form any other proposed regulations or statutes will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected by any new regulation or statute. Such changes could subject our business to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. The impact of the changing regulatory capital requirements and new capital rules are uncertain. In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule that substantially amends the risk-based capital rules applicable to Hilltop and the Bank. The final rule implements the Basel III regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule includes new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which became effective on a phase-in basis for Hilltop and the Bank on January 1, 2015, and refines the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating these ratios. The new minimum capital requirements are: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from previous rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. The final rule also establishes a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum capital ratios and results in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%; (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 8.5%; and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. As of January 1, 2016, the new capital conservation buffer requirement is currently being phased in at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and will increase each year until fully implemented in January 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 actions. The application of more stringent capital requirements for Hilltop and the Bank could, among other things, adversely affect our results of operations and growth, require the raising of additional capital, restrict our ability to pay dividends or repurchase shares and result in regulatory actions if we were to be unable to comply with such requirements. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board adopted a final rule in February 2014 that clarifies how companies should incorporate the Basel III regulatory capital reforms into their capital and business projections during the 2014 and subsequent cycles of capital plan submissions and stress tests required under the Dodd-Frank Act. For companies and their subsidiary banks with between $10.0 billion and $50.0 billion in total consolidated assets, the initial stress testing cycle began on October 1, 2013 and the initial nine-quarter planning horizon for stress capital projections continued through the fourth quarter of 2015, which overlaps with the implementation of the Basel III capital reforms that began on January 1, 2015. At December 31, 2015, Hilltop and the Bank had $11.9 billion and $8.7 billion, respectively, in total consolidated assets and their average of total consolidated assets for the four most recent consecutive quarters was $12.3 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively. As a result of the SWS Merger, Hilltop has more than $10.0 billion in assets. Accordingly, Hilltop is currently subject to these capital planning and stress testing requirements, which will increase our cost of regulatory compliance. Compliance with these requirements may also necessitate that we hire additional compliance or other personnel, design and implement additional internal controls, 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. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing program will require Hilltop to submit its initial annual company-run stress test to the Federal Reserve Board using our capital planning tools to regulators by July 31, 2017. Hilltop will be required to publicly disclose a summary of the results of these forward looking, company-run stress tests that assess the impact of hypothetical macroeconomic baseline, adverse and severely adverse economic scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve Board. The stress testing and capital planning processes may, among other things, require us to limit any dividend or other capital distributions we may make to stockholders or increase our capital levels, modify our business and growth strategies or 41 decrease our exposure to various asset classes, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Management continues to study the implementation of Basel III regulatory capital reforms and stress testing requirements. In July 2013 the SEC also adopted various amendments to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act related to, among other things, securities lending, certain new deductions from net capital, proprietary accounts of broker-dealer customers, certain broker-dealer insolvency events and corresponding related amendments to books and records rules. The implementation of such requirements has increased and will likely continue to increase our cost of regulatory compliance. The CFPB has issued “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” rules that may have a negative impact on our loan origination process and foreclosure proceedings, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition. On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule to implement the “qualified mortgage” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring mortgage lenders to consider consumers’ ability to repay home loans before extending them credit. The CFPB’s “qualified mortgage” rule took effect on January 10, 2014. The final rule describes certain minimum requirements for lenders making ability-to-repay determinations, but does not dictate that they follow particular underwriting models. Lenders will be presumed to have complied with the ability-to-repay rule if they issue “qualified mortgages,” which are generally defined as mortgage loans prohibiting or limiting certain risky features. Loans that do not meet the ability-to-repay standard can be challenged in court by borrowers who default and the absence of ability-to- repay status can be used against a lender in foreclosure proceedings. Any loans that we make outside of the “qualified mortgage” criteria could expose us to an increased risk of liability and reduce or delay our ability to foreclose on the underlying property. The CFPB’s “qualified mortgage” rule could limit our ability or desire to make certain types of loans or loans to certain borrowers, or could make it more expensive or time consuming to make these loans. Any decreases in loan origination volume or increases in compliance and foreclosure costs caused by the rule could negatively affect our business, operating results and financial condition. Our broker-dealer business is subject to various risks associated with the securities industry. Our broker-dealer business is subject to uncertainties that are common in the securities industry. These uncertainties include: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) intense competition in the public finance and other sectors of the securities industry; the volatility of domestic and international financial, bond and stock markets; extensive governmental regulation; litigation; and substantial fluctuations in the volume and price level of securities. As a result, the revenues and operating results of our broker-dealer segment may vary significantly from quarter to quarter and from year to year. Unfavorable financial or economic conditions could reduce the number and size of transactions in which we provide financial advisory, underwriting and other services. Disruptions in fixed income and equity markets could lead to a decline in the volume of transactions executed for customers and, therefore, to declines in revenues from commissions and clearing services. Our broker-dealer business is much smaller and has much less capital than many competitors in the securities industry. In addition, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers are operating subsidiaries of Hilltop, which means that their activities are limited to those that are permissible for subsidiaries of a financial holding company. Market fluctuations could adversely impact our broker-dealer business. Our broker-dealer segment is subject to risks as a result of fluctuations in the securities markets. Our securities trading, market-making and underwriting activities involve the purchase and sale of securities as a principal, which subjects our capital to significant risks. Market conditions could limit our ability to sell securities purchased or to purchase securities sold in such transactions. If price levels for equity securities decline generally, the market value of equity securities that we hold in our inventory could decrease and trading volumes could decline. In addition, if interest rates increase, the 42 value of debt securities we hold in our inventory would decrease. Rapid or significant market fluctuations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. In addition, during periods of market disruption, it may be difficult to value certain assets if comparable sales become less frequent or market data becomes less observable. Certain classes of assets or loan collateral that were in active markets with significant observable data may become illiquid due to the current financial environment. In such cases, asset valuations may require more estimation and subjective judgment. Our investment advisory business may be affected if our investment products perform poorly. Poor investment returns and declines in client assets in our investment advisory business, due to either general market conditions or underperformance (relative to our competitors or to benchmarks) by investment products, affects our ability to retain existing assets, prevent clients from transferring their assets out of products or their accounts, or inhibit our ability to attract new clients or additional assets from existing clients. Any such poor performance could adversely affect our investment advisory business and the advisory fees that we earn on client assets. Our portfolio trading business is highly price competitive and serves a very limited market. Our portfolio trading business serves one small component of the capital markets group with a small customer base and a high service model, charging competitive commission rates. Consequently, growing or maintaining market share is very price sensitive. We rely upon a high level of customer service and product customization to maintain our market share; however, should prevailing market prices fall, or the size of our market segment or customer base decline, our profitability would be adversely impacted. In addition, in our portfolio trading business, we purchase securities as principal, which subjects our capital to significant risks. Our existing correspondents may choose to perform their own clearing services, move their clearing business to one of our competitors or exit the business. As our correspondents’ operations grow, they often consider the option of performing clearing functions themselves, in a process referred to as “self-clearing.” The option to convert to self-clearing operations may be attractive due to the fact that as the transaction volume of a broker-dealer grows, the cost of implementing the necessary infrastructure for self- clearing may eventually be offset by the elimination of per transaction processing fees that would otherwise be paid to a clearing firm. Additionally, performing their own clearing services allows self-clearing broker-dealers to retain their customers’ margin balances, free credit balances and securities for use in margin lending activities. Furthermore, our correspondents may decide to use the clearing services of one of our competitors or exit the business. Any significant loss of correspondents due to self-clearing or because of their use of a competitor’s clearing service or their exiting the business could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Several of our broker-dealer segment’s product lines rely on favorable tax treatment and changes in federal tax law could impact the attractiveness of these products to our customers. We offer a variety of services and products, such as individual retirement accounts and municipal bonds, which rely on favorable federal income tax treatment to be attractive to our customers. Should favorable tax treatment of these products be eliminated or reduced, sales of these products could be materially impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Our mortgage origination segment is subject to investment risk on loans that it originates. We intend to sell, and not hold for investment, substantially all residential mortgage loans that we originate through PrimeLending. At times, however, we may originate a loan or execute an interest rate lock commitment (“IRLC”) with a customer pursuant to which we agree to originate a mortgage loan on a future date at an agreed-upon interest rate without having identified a purchaser for such loan. An identified purchaser may also decline to purchase a loan for a variety of reasons. In these instances, we will bear interest rate risk on an IRLC until, and unless, we are able to find a buyer for the loan underlying such IRLC and the risk of investment on a loan until, and unless, we are able to find a buyer for such loan. In addition, if a customer defaults on a mortgage payment shortly after the loan is originated, the purchaser of the loan may have a put right, whereby the purchaser can require us to repurchase the loan at the full amount that it paid. During periods of market downturn, we have at times chosen to hold mortgage loans when the 43 identified purchasers have declined to purchase such loans because we could not obtain an acceptable substitute bid price for such loan. The failure of mortgage loans that we hold on our books to perform adequately could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Changes in interest rates may change the value of our mortgage servicing rights portfolio which may increase the volatility of our earnings. We have expanded, and may continue to expand, our residential mortgage servicing operations within our mortgage origination segment. As a result of our mortgage servicing business, we have a portfolio of MSR assets. A MSR is the right to service a mortgage loan – collect principal, interest and escrow amounts – for a fee. We measure and carry all of our residential MSR assets using the fair value measurement method. Fair value is determined as the present value of estimated future net servicing income, calculated based on a number of variables, including assumptions about the likelihood of prepayment by borrowers. One of the principal risks associated with MSR assets is that in a declining interest rate environment, they will likely lose a substantial portion of their value as a result of higher than anticipated prepayments. Moreover, if prepayments are greater than expected, the cash we receive over the life of the mortgage loans would be reduced. The mortgage origination segment uses derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swaps and swaptions, as a means to mitigate market risk associated with MSR assets. However, no hedging strategy can protect us completely, and hedging strategies may fail because they are improperly designed, improperly executed and documented or based on inaccurate assumptions and, as a result, could actually increase our risks and losses. The increasing size of our MSR portfolio may increase our interest rate risk and correspondingly, the volatility of our earnings, especially if we cannot adequately hedge the interest rate risk relating to our MSR assets. At December 31, 2015, the mortgage origination segment’s MSR asset had a fair value of $53.5 million. All income related to retained servicing, including changes in the value of the MSR asset, is included in noninterest income. Depending on the interest rate environment, it is possible that the fair value of our MSR asset may be reduced in the future. If such changes in fair value significantly reduce the carrying value of our MSR asset, our financial condition and results of operations would be negatively affected. Income that we recognize in connection with the purchase discount of the credit-impaired loans acquired in the Bank Transactions and accounted for under Accounting Standards Codification 310-30 could be volatile in nature and have significant effects on reported net income. In connection with the Bank Transactions, we acquired loans at an aggregate discount of $523.2 million. The Bank Transactions have each been accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting. Accordingly, the respective discounts are amortized and accreted to interest income on a monthly basis. The effective yield and related discount accretion on credit-impaired loans is initially determined at the acquisition date based upon estimates of the timing and amount of future cash flows as well as the amount of credit losses that will be incurred. These estimates are updated quarterly. In future periods, if actual historical results combined with future projections of these factors (amount, timing, or credit losses) differ from the initial projections, the effective yield and the amount of discount recognized will change. Volatility may increase as the variance of actual results from initial projections increases. As the acquired loans are removed from our books, the related discount will no longer be available for accretion into income. Aggregate accretion of $96.1 million on loans purchased at a discount in the Bank Transactions were recorded as interest income during 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the balance of our discount on loans in the aggregate was $242.7 million. We ultimately may write-off goodwill and other intangible assets resulting from business combinations. As a result of purchase accounting in connection with our acquisition of NLC, the PlainsCapital Merger, the FNB Transaction and the SWS Merger, our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2015, contained goodwill of $251.8 million and other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization, of $54.9 million. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate whether facts and circumstances indicate any impairment of value of intangible assets. As circumstances change, the value of these intangible assets may not be realized by us. If we determine that a material impairment has occurred, we will be required to write-off the impaired portion of intangible assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the write-off occurs. 44 The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if we are exposed to actual conditions different from the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies. The preparation of financial statements and related disclosure in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, which are included in this Annual Report, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that are considered “critical” by us because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially impact our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, such events or assumptions could have a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. We are dependent on our management team, and the loss of our senior executive officers or other key employees could impair our relationship with customers and adversely affect our business and financial results. Our success is dependent, to a large degree, upon the continued service and skills of our existing management team and other key employees with long-term customer relationships. Our business and growth strategies are built primarily upon our ability to retain employees with experience and business relationships within their respective segments. The loss of one or more of these key personnel could have an adverse impact on our business because of their skills, knowledge of the market, years of industry experience and the difficulty of finding qualified replacement personnel. In addition, we currently do not have non-competition agreements with certain members of management and other key employees. If any of these personnel were to leave and compete with us, our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth could suffer. A decline in the market for municipal advisory services could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Our broker-dealer segment has historically earned a significant portion of its revenues from advisory fees paid to it by its clients, in large part upon the successful completion of the client’s transaction. New issuances in the municipal market by cities, counties, school districts, state and other governmental agencies, airports, healthcare institutions, institutions of higher education and other clients that the public finance group serves can be subject to significant fluctuations based on by factors such as changes in interest rates, property tax bases, budget pressures on certain issuers caused by uncertain economic times and other factors. We expect that the reliance of our broker-dealer segment on advisory fees will continue for the foreseeable future, and a decline in public finance advisory engagements or the market for advisory services generally would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect our business. Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different counterparties and we routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, credit unions, investment banks, mutual and hedge funds, and other institutional clients. As a result, defaults by, or even negative speculation about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry in general, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the receivable due us. Any such losses could be material and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Negative publicity regarding us, or financial institutions in general, could damage our reputation and adversely impact our business and results of operations. Our ability to attract and retain customers and conduct our business could be adversely affected to the extent our reputation is damaged. Reputational risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion regarding our company, or financial institutions in general, is inherent in our business. Adverse perceptions concerning our reputation could lead to difficulties in generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them. In particular, negative perceptions concerning our reputation could lead to decreases in the level of deposits that consumer 45 and commercial customers and potential customers choose to maintain with us. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities or circumstances, including lending or foreclosure practices; sales practices; corporate governance and potential conflicts of interest; ethical failures or fraud, including alleged deceptive or unfair lending or pricing practices; regulatory compliance; protection of customer information; cyber- attacks, whether actual, threatened, or perceived; negative news about us or the financial institutions industry generally; general company performance; or from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to such activities or circumstances. Furthermore, our failure to address, or the perception that we have failed to address, these issues appropriately could impact our ability to keep and attract customers and/or employees and could expose us to litigation and/or regulatory action, which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. We depend on our computer and communications systems and an interruption in service would negatively affect our business. Our businesses rely on electronic data processing and communications systems. The effective use of technology allows us to better serve customers and clients, increases efficiency and reduces costs. Our continued success will depend, in part, upon our ability to successfully maintain, secure and upgrade the capability of our systems, our ability to address the needs of our clients by using technology to provide products and services that satisfy their demands and our ability to retain skilled information technology employees. Significant malfunctions or failures of our computer systems, computer security, software or any other systems in the trading process (e.g., record retention and data processing functions performed by third parties, and third party software, such as Internet browsers) could cause delays in customer trading activity. Such delays could cause substantial losses for customers and could subject us to claims from customers for losses, including litigation claiming fraud or negligence. In addition, if our computer and communications systems fail to operate properly, regulations would restrict our ability to conduct business. Any such failure could prevent us from collecting funds relating to customer and client transactions, which would materially impact our cash flows. Any computer or communications system failure or decrease in computer system performance that causes interruptions in our operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively or timely implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers and clients. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Our operational systems and networks have been, and will continue to be, subject to an increasing risk of continually evolving cybersecurity or other technological risks, which could result in a loss of customer business, financial liability, regulatory penalties, damage to our reputation or the disclosure of confidential information. We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business and maintain the security of confidential information and complex transactions, which subjects us to an increasing risk of cyber incidents from these activities due to a combination of new technologies and the increasing use of the Internet to conduct financial transactions, as well as a potential failure, interruption or breach in the security of these systems, including those that could result from attacks or planned changes, upgrades and maintenance of these systems. Such cyber incidents could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, securities trading, general ledger, deposits, computer systems, electronic underwriting servicing or loan origination systems. We also utilize relationships with third parties to aid in a significant portion of our information systems, communications, data management and transaction processing to third parties. These third parties with which we do business may also be sources of cybersecurity or other technological risks, including operational errors, system interruptions or breaches, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and misuse of intellectual property. If our third-party service providers encounter any of these issues, we could be exposed to disruption of service, reputation damages, and litigation risk that could be material to our business. Although we devote significant resources to maintain and regularly upgrade our systems and networks with measures such as intrusion detection and prevention systems and monitoring firewalls to safeguard critical business applications, there is no guarantee that these measures or any other measures can provide absolute security. Our computer systems, software and networks may be adversely affected by cyber incidents such as unauthorized access; loss or destruction of 46 data (including confidential client information); account takeovers; unavailability of service; computer viruses or other malicious code; cyber-attacks; and other events. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that these measures will promptly detect intrusions, and that we will not experience losses or incur costs or other damage related to intrusions that go undetected, at levels that adversely affect our financial results or reputation. These threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the part of employees or third parties, or may result from accidental technological failure. Additional challenges are posed by external extremist parties, including foreign state actors, in some circumstances, as a means to promote political ends. If one or more of these events occurs, it could result in the disclosure of confidential client or customer information, damage to our reputation with our clients, customers and the market, customer dissatisfaction, additional costs such as repairing systems or adding new personnel or protection technologies, regulatory penalties, exposure to litigation and other financial losses to both us and our clients and customers. Such events could also cause interruptions or malfunctions in our operations. We maintain cyber risk insurance, but this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our losses from any future breaches of our system. We have been the subject of “denial of services” attacks from external sources that have limited or interrupted the availability of our online banking services. Although to date we are not aware of any material losses relating to cyber- attacks or other information security breaches, we may suffer such losses in the future. We have taken steps to improve and upgrade the security of our systems in response to such threats, but such incidents could occur again, more frequently or on a more significant scale. In February 2014, FINRA released a report identifying principles and effective practices it expects firms to consider as they develop or enhance their cybersecurity programs, and in February 2015 and September 2015, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued Risk Alerts to provide information on summary findings and areas of focus on cybersecurity examinations. In light of the guidance in these recent reports, Securities Holdings evaluated its cybersecurity program by participating in an Information Security vulnerability assessment based on the Critical Security Controls (CSCs) standard established by the Center for Internet Security. In addition to its standard external penetration testing, Securities Holdings expanded the scope of the external provider to include application, and authenticated internal testing. We will continue to evaluate our cybersecurity program and will consider incorporating new practices as necessary to meet the expectations of such regulatory agencies. Such procedures include management-level engagement and corporate governance, risk management and assessment, technical controls, incident response planning, vendor management and staff training. Even if we implement these procedures, however, we cannot assure you that we will be fully protected from a cybersecurity incident, the occurrence of which could adversely affect our reputation and financial condition. We face strong competition from other financial institutions and financial service and insurance companies, which may adversely affect our operations and financial condition. Our banking segment primarily competes with national, regional and community banks within various markets where the Bank operates. The Bank also faces competition from banks and many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, savings banks, finance companies and credit unions. A number of these banks and other financial institutions have substantially greater resources and lending limits, larger branch systems and a wider array of banking services than we do. We also compete with other providers of financial services, such as money market mutual funds, brokerage and investment banking firms, consumer finance companies, pension trusts, insurance companies and governmental organizations, each of which may offer more favorable financing than we are able to provide. In addition, some of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern us. The banking business in Texas has become increasingly competitive over the past several years, and we expect the level of competition we face to further increase. Competition for deposits and in providing lending products and services to consumers and businesses in our market area is intense and pricing is important. Other factors encountered in competing for savings deposits are convenient office locations, interest rates and fee structures of products offered. Direct competition for savings deposits also comes from other commercial bank and thrift institutions, money market mutual funds and corporate and government securities that may offer more attractive rates than insured depository institutions are willing to pay. Competition for loans is based on factors such as interest rates, loan origination fees and the range of services offered by the provider. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our commitment to personalized customer service and responsiveness to customer needs while providing a range of competitive loan and deposit products and other services. Our profitability depends on our ability to compete effectively in these markets. This competition 47 may reduce or limit our margins on banking services, reduce our market share and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. The financial advisory and investment banking industries also are intensely competitive industries and will likely remain competitive. Our broker-dealer business competes directly with numerous other financial advisory and investment banking firms, broker-dealers and banks, including large national and major regional firms and smaller niche companies, some of whom are not broker-dealers and, therefore, not subject to the broker-dealer regulatory framework. In addition to competition from firms currently in the industry, there has been increasing competition from others offering financial services, including automated trading and other services based on technological innovations. Our broker-dealer business competes on the basis of a number of factors, including the quality of advice and service, technology, product selection, innovation, reputation client relationships and price. Many of our broker-dealer segment’s competitors in the investment banking industry have a greater range of products and services, greater financial and marketing resources, larger customer bases, greater name recognition, more managing directors to serve their clients’ needs, greater global reach and more established relationships with their customers than our broker-dealer business. Additionally, certain competitors of our financial advisory business have reorganized or plan to reorganize from investment banks into bank holding companies, which may provide them with a competitive advantage. These larger and better capitalized competitors may be more capable of responding to changes in the investment banking market, competing for skilled professionals, financing acquisitions, funding internal growth and competing for market share generally. Increased pressure created by any current or future competitors, or by competitors of our broker-dealer business collectively, could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations. Increased competition may result in reduced revenue and loss of market share. Further, as a strategic response to changes in the competitive environment, our broker-dealer business may from time to time make certain pricing, service or marketing decisions that also could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations. Our mortgage origination business faces vigorous competition from banks and other financial institutions, including large financial institutions as well as independent mortgage banking companies, commercial banks, savings banks and savings and loan associations. Our mortgage origination segment competes on a number of factors including customer service, quality and range of products and services offered, price, reputation, interest rates and loan origination fees. The ability to attract and retain skilled mortgage origination professionals is critical to our mortgage origination business. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our commitment to personalized customer service and responsiveness to customer needs while providing a range of competitive mortgage loan products and services. The insurance industry also is highly competitive and has, historically, been characterized by periods of significant price competition, alternating with periods of greater pricing discipline during which competitors focus on other factors, including service, experience, the strength of agent and policyholder relationships, reputation, speed and accuracy of claims payment, perceived financial strength, ratings, scope of business, commissions paid and policy and contract terms and conditions. Our insurance business competes with many other insurers, including large national companies that have greater financial, marketing and management resources than our insurance segment. Many of these competitors also have better ratings and market recognition than our insurance business. In addition, a number of new, proposed or potential industry developments also could increase competition in our insurance segment’s industry. These developments include changes in practices and other effects caused by the Internet (including direct marketing campaigns by our insurance segment’s competitors in established and new geographic markets), which have led to greater competition in the insurance business and increased expectations for customer service. These developments could prevent our insurance business from expanding its book of business. Our insurance business also faces competition from new entrants into the insurance market. New entrants do not have historic claims or losses to address and, therefore, may be able to price policies on a basis that is not favorable to our insurance business. New competition could reduce the demand for our insurance segment’s insurance products, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our mortgage origination and insurance businesses are subject to fluctuations based upon seasonal and other factors and, as a result, our results of operations for any given quarter may not be indicative of the results that may be achieved for the full fiscal year. Our mortgage origination business is subject to several variables that can impact loan origination volume, including seasonal and interest rate fluctuations. We typically experience increased loan origination volume from purchases of homes during the second and third calendar quarters, when more people tend to move and buy or sell homes. In addition, 48 an increase in the general level of interest rates may, among other things, adversely affect the demand for mortgage loans and our ability to originate mortgage loans. In particular, if mortgage interest rates increase, the demand for residential mortgage loans and the refinancing of residential mortgage loans will likely decrease, which will have an adverse effect on our mortgage origination activities. Conversely, a decrease in the general level of interest rates, among other things, may lead to increased competition for mortgage loan origination business. As a result of these variables, our results of operations for any single quarter are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved for a full fiscal year. Generally, our insurance segment’s insured risks exhibit higher losses in the second and third calendar quarters due to a seasonal concentration of weather-related events in its primary geographic markets. Although weather-related losses (including hail, high winds, tornadoes and hurricanes) can occur in any calendar quarter, the second calendar quarter, historically, has experienced the highest frequency of losses associated with these events. Hurricanes, however, are more likely to occur in the third calendar quarter of the year. If the actual losses and loss adjustment expenses of our insurance segment exceed its loss and expense estimates, its financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. The financial condition and results of operations of our insurance segment depend upon its ability to assess accurately the potential losses associated with the risks that it insures. Our insurance segment establishes reserve liabilities to cover the payment of all losses and loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”) incurred under the policies that it writes. These liability estimates include case estimates, which are established for specific claims that have been reported to our insurance segment, and liabilities for claims that have been incurred but not reported (“IBNR”). LAE represent expenses incurred to investigate and settle claims. To the extent that losses and LAE exceed estimates, NLIC and ASIC will be required to increase their reserve liabilities and reduce their income in the period in which the deficiency is identified. In addition, increasing reserves causes a reduction in policyholders’ surplus and could cause a downgrade in the ratings of NLIC and ASIC. This, in turn, could diminish our ability to sell insurance policies. The liability estimation process for our insurance segment’s casualty insurance coverage possesses characteristics that make case and IBNR reserving inherently less susceptible to accurate actuarial estimation than is the case with property coverages. Unlike property losses, casualty losses are claims made by third-parties of which the policyholder may not be aware and, therefore, may be reported a significant time after the occurrence, including sometimes years later. As casualty claims most often involve claims of bodily injury, assessment of the proper case estimates is a far more subjective process than claims involving property damage. In addition, in determining the case estimate for a casualty claim, information develops slowly over the life of the claim and can subject the case estimation to substantial modification well after the claim was first reported. Numerous factors impact the casualty case reserving process, such as venue, the amount of monetary damage, legislative activity, the permanence of the injury and the age of the claimant. The effects of inflation could cause the severity of claims from catastrophes or other events to rise in the future. Increases in the values and geographic concentrations of policyholder property and the effects of inflation have resulted in increased severity of industry losses in recent years, and our insurance segment expects that these factors will increase the severity of losses in the future. As NLC observed in 2008, the severity of some catastrophic weather events, including the scope and extent of damage and the inability to gain access to damaged properties, and the ensuing shortages of labor and materials and resulting demand surge, provide additional challenges to estimating ultimate losses. Our insurance segment’s liabilities for losses and LAE include assumptions about future payments for settlement of claims and claims handling expenses, such as medical treatments and litigation costs. To the extent inflation causes these costs to increase above liabilities established for these costs, our insurance segment expects to be required to increase its liabilities, together with a corresponding reduction in its net income in the period in which the deficiency is identified. Estimating an appropriate level of liabilities for losses and LAE is an inherently uncertain process. Accordingly, actual loss and LAE paid will likely deviate, perhaps substantially, from the liability estimates reflected in our insurance segment’s consolidated financial statements. Claims could exceed our insurance segment’s estimate for liabilities for losses and LAE, which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. 49 If our insurance segment cannot obtain adequate reinsurance protection for the risks it underwrites or its reinsurers do not pay losses in a timely fashion, or at all, our insurance segment will suffer greater losses from these risks or may reduce the amount of business it underwrites, which may materially adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations. Our insurance segment purchases reinsurance to protect itself from certain risks and to share certain risks it underwrites. During 2015 and 2014, our insurance segment’s personal lines ceded 6.7% and 10.0%, respectively, of its direct insurance premiums written (primarily through excess of loss, quota share and catastrophe reinsurance treaties) and its commercial lines ceded 4.2% and 5.6%, respectively, of its direct insurance premiums written (primarily through excess of loss and catastrophe reinsurance treaties). The total cost of reinsurance, inclusive of per risk excess and catastrophe, decreased 3.2% during 2015, which is partially attributable to reduced limits, lower premium rates and slightly higher reinstatement premiums in 2015 of $37 thousand. Reinsurance cost generally fluctuates as a result of storm costs or any changes in capacity within the reinsurance market. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases have prevented, insurers from obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance that they have considered adequate for their business needs. Accordingly, our insurance segment may not be able to obtain desired amounts of reinsurance. Even if our insurance segment is able to obtain adequate reinsurance, it may not be able to obtain it from entities with satisfactory creditworthiness or negotiate terms that it deems appropriate or acceptable. Although the cost of reinsurance is, in some cases, reflected in our insurance segment’s premium rates, our insurance segment may have guaranteed certain premium rates to its policyholders. Under these circumstances, if the cost of reinsurance were to increase with respect to policies for which our insurance segment guaranteed the rates, our insurance segment would be adversely affected. In addition, if our insurance segment cannot obtain adequate reinsurance protection for the risks it underwrites, it may be exposed to greater losses from these risks or it may be forced to reduce the amount of business that it underwrites for such risks, which will reduce our insurance segment’s revenue and may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations and financial condition. At December 31, 2015, our insurance segment had $16.9 million in reinsurance recoverables, including ceded paid loss recoverables, ceded losses and LAE recoverables and ceded unearned insurance premiums. Our insurance segment expects to continue to purchase substantial reinsurance coverage in the foreseeable future. Because our insurance segment remains primarily liable to its policyholders for the payment of their claims, regardless of the reinsurance it has purchased relating to those claims, in the event that one of its reinsurers becomes insolvent or otherwise refuses to reimburse our insurance segment for losses paid, or delays in reimbursing our insurance segment for losses paid, its liability for these claims could materially and adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations. We are subject to legal claims and litigation, including potential securities law liabilities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We face significant legal risks in each of the business segments in which we operate, and the volume of legal claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial service companies remains high. These risks often are difficult to assess or quantify, and their existence and magnitude often remain unknown for substantial periods of time. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us or any of our subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us, which could seriously harm our business and prospects. Further, regulatory inquiries and subpoenas, other requests for information, or testimony in connection with litigation may require incurrence of significant expenses, including fees for legal representation and fees associated with document production. These costs may be incurred even if we are not a target of the inquiry or a party to the litigation. Any financial liability or reputational damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, in the normal course of business, our broker-dealer segment has been subject to claims by customers and clients alleging unauthorized trading, churning, mismanagement, suitability of investments, breach of fiduciary duty or other alleged misconduct by our employees or brokers. We are sometimes brought into lawsuits based on allegations concerning our correspondents. As underwriters, we are subject to substantial potential liability for material misstatements and omissions in prospectuses and other communications with respect to underwritten offerings of securities. Prolonged litigation producing significant legal expenses or a substantial settlement or adverse judgment could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. 50 We may be subject to environmental liabilities in connection with the foreclosure on real estate assets securing the loan portfolio of our banking segment. Hazardous or toxic substances or other environmental hazards may be located on the real estate that secures our loans. If we acquire such properties as a result of foreclosure, or otherwise, we could become subject to various environmental liabilities. For example, we could be held liable for the cost of cleaning up or otherwise addressing contamination at or from these properties. We could also be held liable to a governmental entity or third party for property damage, personal injury or other claims relating to any environmental contamination at or from these properties. In addition, we could be held liable for costs relating to environmental contamination at or from our current or former properties. We may not detect all environmental hazards associated with these properties. If we ever became subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be harmed. If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide timely and reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. Any inability to provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud could harm our business. If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, our financial statements may not accurately reflect our financial condition. Inadequate internal controls over financial reporting could impact the reliability and timeliness of our financial reports and could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on our business and the value of our securities. The debt agreements of our insurance segment and its controlled affiliates contain financial covenants and impose restrictions on its business. The indenture governing NLC’s LIBOR plus 3.40% notes due 2035 contains restrictions on its ability to, among other things, declare and pay dividends and merge or consolidate. In addition, this indenture contains a change of control provision, which provides that (i) if a person or group becomes the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of 50% or more of NLC’s equity securities and (ii) if NLC’s ratings are downgraded by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in the Exchange Act), then each holder of the notes governed by such indenture has the right to require that NLC purchase such holder’s notes, in whole or in part, at a price equal to 100% of the then outstanding principal amount. Likewise, the surplus indentures governing NLIC’s two LIBOR plus 4.10% and 4.05% notes due 2033 and ASIC’s LIBOR plus 4.05% notes due 2034 contain restrictions on dividends and mergers and consolidations. In addition, NLC has other credit arrangements with its affiliates and other third-parties. NLC’s ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond its control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. The breach of any of these restrictions could result in a default under the loan agreements or indentures governing the notes or under its other debt agreements. An event of default under its debt agreements would permit some of its lenders to declare all amounts borrowed from them to be due and payable, together with accrued and unpaid interest. If NLC were unable to repay debt to its secured lenders, these lenders could proceed against the collateral securing that debt. In addition, acceleration of its other indebtedness may cause NLC to be unable to make interest payments on the notes. Other agreements that NLC or its insurance company subsidiaries may enter into in the future may contain covenants imposing significant restrictions on their respective businesses that are similar to, or in addition to, the covenants under their respective existing agreements. These restrictions may affect NLC’s ability to operate its business and may limit its ability to take advantage of potential business opportunities as they arise. Risks Related to our Substantial Cash Position and Related Strategies for its Use Because we intend to use a substantial portion of our remaining available cash to make acquisitions or effect a business combination, we may become subject to risks inherent in pursuing and completing any such acquisitions or business combination. We are endeavoring to make acquisitions or effect business combinations with a substantial portion of our remaining available cash. We may not, however, be able to identify suitable targets, consummate acquisitions or effect a combination on commercially acceptable terms or, if consummated, successfully integrate personnel and operations. The success of any acquisition or business combination will depend upon, among other things, the ability of management and our employees to integrate personnel, operations, products and technologies effectively, to attract, retain and motivate key personnel and to retain customers and clients of targets. In addition, any acquisition or business 51 combination we undertake may consume available cash resources, result in potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities and divert management’s attention from other business concerns. Even if we conduct extensive due diligence on a target business that we acquire or with which we merge, our diligence may not surface all material issues that may adversely affect a particular target business, and we may be forced to later write-down or write-off assets, restructure our operations or incur impairment or other charges that could result in our reporting losses. Consequently, we also may need to make further investments to support the acquired or combined company and may have difficulty identifying and acquiring the appropriate resources. We may enter, through acquisitions or a business combination, into new lines of business or initiate new service offerings subject to the restrictions imposed upon us as a regulated financial holding company. Accordingly, there is no basis for you to evaluate the possible merits or risks of the particular target business with which we may combine or that we may ultimately acquire. Difficult market conditions have adversely affected the yield on our available cash. Our primary objective is to preserve and maintain the liquidity of our available cash, while at the same time maximizing yields without significantly increasing risk. The capital and credit markets have been experiencing volatility and disruption for a prolonged period. This volatility and disruption reached unprecedented levels, resulting in dramatic declines in interest rates and other yields relative to risk. This downward pressure has negatively affected the yields we receive on our available cash. If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue or worsen, there can be no assurance that we will receive any significant yield on our available cash. Further, given current market conditions, no assurance can be given that we will be able to preserve our available cash. Risks Related to Our Common Stock We may issue shares of preferred stock or additional shares of common stock to complete an acquisition or effect a combination or under an employee incentive plan after consummation of an acquisition or combination, which would dilute the interests of our stockholders and likely present other risks. The issuance of shares of preferred stock or additional shares of common stock: (cid:120) may significantly dilute the equity interest of our stockholders; (cid:120) may subordinate the rights of holders of common stock if preferred stock is issued with rights senior to those afforded our common stock; (cid:120) could cause a change in control if a substantial number of shares of common stock are issued, which may affect, among other things, our ability to use our net operating loss carry forwards; and (cid:120) may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock. Our authorized capital stock includes ten million shares of preferred stock, all of which is unissued. Our board of directors, in its sole discretion, may designate and issue one or more additional series of preferred stock from the authorized and unissued shares of preferred stock. Subject to limitations imposed by law or our articles of incorporation, our board of directors is empowered to determine the designation and number of shares constituting each series of preferred stock, as well as any designations, qualifications, privileges, limitations, restrictions or special or relative rights of additional series. The rights of preferred stockholders may supersede the rights of common stockholders. Preferred stock could be issued with voting and conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting power of the shares of our common stock. The issuance of preferred stock could also result in a series of securities outstanding that would have preferences over the common stock with respect to dividends and in liquidation. Our common stock price may experience substantial volatility, which may affect your ability to sell our common stock at an advantageous price. Price volatility of our common stock may affect your ability to sell our common stock at an advantageous price. Market price fluctuations in our common stock may arise due to acquisitions, dispositions or other material public announcements, including those regarding dividends or changes in management, along with a variety of additional factors, including, without limitation, other risks identified in “Forward-looking Statements” and these “Risk Factors.” In addition, the stock markets in general, including the NYSE, have experienced extreme price and trading fluctuations. 52 These fluctuations have resulted in volatility in the market prices of securities that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in operating performance. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Existing circumstances may result in several of our directors having interests that may conflict with our interests. A director who has a conflict of interest with respect to an issue presented to our board will have no inherent legal obligation to abstain from voting upon that issue. We do not have provisions in our bylaws or charter that require an interested director to abstain from voting upon an issue, and we do not expect to add provisions in our charter and bylaws to this effect. Although each director has a duty to act in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests, there is a risk that, should interested directors vote upon an issue in which they or one of their affiliates has an interest, their vote may reflect a bias that could be contrary to our best interests. In addition, even if an interested director abstains from voting, the director’s participation in the meeting and discussion of an issue in which they have, or companies with which they are associated have, an interest could influence the votes of other directors regarding the issue. Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited. We are organized under Maryland law, which provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. In addition, our charter eliminates our directors’ and officers’ liability to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services or active and deliberate dishonesty established by a final judgment and that is material to the cause of action. Our bylaws require us to indemnify our directors and officers for liability resulting from actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. As a result, our stockholders and we may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist under common law. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that could discourage acquisition bids or merger proposals, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Authority to Issue Additional Shares. Under our charter, our board of directors may issue up to an aggregate of ten million shares of preferred stock without stockholder action. The preferred stock may be issued, in one or more series, with the preferences and other terms designated by our board of directors that may delay or prevent a change in control of us, even if the change is in the best interests of stockholders. At December 31, 2015, no shares of preferred stock were outstanding. Banking Laws. Any change in control of our company is subject to prior regulatory approval under the Bank Holding Company Act or the Change in Bank Control Act, which may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change in control of us. Insurance Laws. NLIC and ASIC are domiciled in the State of Texas. Before a person can acquire control of an insurance company domiciled in Texas, prior written approval must be obtained from the Texas Department of Insurance. Acquisition of control would be presumed on the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of ten percent or more of our outstanding voting stock, unless the regulators determine otherwise. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the Texas Department of Insurance will consider several factors, such as: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) the financial strength of the acquirer; the integrity and management experience of the acquirer’s board of directors and executive officers; the acquirer’s plans for the management of the insurer; the acquirer’s plans to declare dividends, sell assets or incur debt; the acquirer’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer; the impact of the acquisition on continued licensure of the domestic insurer; 53 (cid:120) (cid:120) the impact on the interests of Texas policyholders; and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals for us and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control of us, including transactions that some or all of our stockholders might consider desirable. FINRA. Any change in control (as defined under FINRA rules) of any of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers, including through acquisition, is subject to prior regulatory approval by FINRA which may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or other change in control of such broker-dealers. Restrictions on Calling Special Meeting, Cumulative Voting and Director Removal. Our bylaws includes a provision prohibiting the holders of less than a majority of the voting power represented by all of our shares issued, outstanding and entitled to be voted at a proposed meeting, from calling a special meeting of stockholders. Our charter does not provide for the cumulative voting in the election of directors. In addition, our charter provides that our directors may only be removed for cause and then only by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast in the election of directors. Any amendment to our charter relating to the removal of directors requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. These provisions of our bylaws and charter may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change in control of us. An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit. An investment in our common stock is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the FDIC, SIPC, the Texas Department of Insurance or any other government agency. Accordingly, you should be capable of affording the loss of any investment in our common stock. Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments. None. Item 2. Properties. We lease office space for our principal executive offices in Dallas, Texas. In addition to our principal office, our various business segments conduct business at various locations. We have options to renew leases at most locations that we do not own. Banking. At December 31, 2015, our banking segment conducted business at 74 locations throughout Texas, including seven support facilities. Our banking segment’s principal executive offices are located in Dallas, Texas, in space leased by PlainsCapital. We lease 33 banking locations including our principal offices and we own the remaining 41 banking locations. Broker-dealer. Our broker-dealer segment is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and at December 31, 2015 conducted business from over 50 locations in 18 states. Each of these locations is leased by First Southwest or Hilltop Securities. Mortgage Origination. Our mortgage origination segment is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and at December 31, 2015 conducted business from over 280 locations in 41 states. Each of these locations is leased by PrimeLending. Insurance. At December 31, 2015, our insurance segment leases office space in Waco, Texas for its corporate, claims and customer service operations. Item 3. Legal Proceedings. For a description of material pending legal proceedings, see the discussion set forth under the heading “Legal Matters” in Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, in the notes to our consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated by reference herein. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures. Not applicable. 54 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. Securities, Stockholder and Dividend Information Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “HTH”. Our common stock has no public trading history prior to February 12, 2004. Our common stock closed at $15.93 on February 23, 2016. At February 24, 2016, there were 98,085,931 shares of our common stock outstanding with 522 stockholders of record. Subject to the restrictions discussed below, our stockholders are entitled to receive dividends when, as, and if declared by our board of directors out of funds legally available for that purpose. Our board of directors exercises discretion with respect to whether we will pay dividends and the amount of such dividend, if any. Factors that affect our ability to pay dividends on our common stock in the future include, without limitation, our earnings and financial condition, liquidity and capital resources, the general economic and regulatory climate, our ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to our common stock and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. We have not declared or paid any dividends in the past two completed fiscal years. As a holding company, we are ultimately dependent upon our subsidiaries to provide funding for our operating expenses, debt service and dividends. Various laws limit the payment of dividends and other distributions by our subsidiaries to us, and may therefore limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock. If required payments on our outstanding junior subordinated debentures held by our unconsolidated subsidiary trusts are not made or suspended, we may be prohibited from paying dividends on our common stock. Regulatory authorities could impose administratively stricter limitations on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Regulatory Capital.” The following table discloses the high and low sales prices per quarter for our common stock during 2015 and 2014. Quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not represent actual transactions. Year Ended December 31, 2015 First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter Year Ended December 31, 2014 First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter Price Range High Low $ 20.10 $ 17.34 $ 24.70 $ 19.09 $ 24.50 $ 18.11 $ 23.12 $ 18.97 $ 25.61 $ 22.42 $ 25.08 $ 19.72 $ 22.39 $ 19.32 $ 22.20 $ 19.27 55 Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans The following table sets forth information at December 31, 2015 with respect to compensation plans under which shares of our common stock may be issued. Additional information concerning our stock-based compensation plans is presented in Note 20, Stock-Based Compensation, in the notes to our consolidated financial statements. Equity Compensation Plan Information Number of securities Plan Category Equity compensation plans approved by security holders* Total Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of Weighted-average exercise price of remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities outstanding options, outstanding options, warrants and rights warrants and rights reflected in first column) 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 7.70 7.70 2,570,555 2,570,555 * In September 2012, our stockholders approved the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2012 Plan”), which allows for the granting of nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance awards, dividend equivalent rights and other awards to employees of Hilltop, its subsidiaries and outside directors of Hilltop. Upon the effectiveness of the 2012 Plan, no additional awards are permissible under the 2003 equity incentive plan (the “2003 Plan”). In the aggregate, 4,000,000 shares of common stock may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the 2012 Plan. At December 31, 2015, 1,501,829 awards had been granted pursuant to the 2012 Plan, while 72,384 awards were forfeited and are eligible for reissuance. All shares outstanding under the 2003 Plan and the 2012 Plan, whether vested or unvested, are entitled to receive dividends and to vote, unless forfeited. No participant in our 2012 Plan may be granted awards in any fiscal year covering more than 1,250,000 shares of our common stock. Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities There were no repurchases of shares of common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Period October 1 – October 31, 2015 November 1 – November 30, 2015 December 1 – December 31, 2015 Total Total Number of Shares Purchased Average Price Paid per Share Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (1) — $ — — — $ — — — — — $ — — — 3,921 3,921 — (1) On May 18, 2015, we announced a stock repurchase program under which it authorized us to repurchase, in the aggregate, up to $30.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Under the stock repurchase program authorized, we could repurchase shares in open-market purchases or through privately negotiated transactions as permitted under Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Exchange Act. We repurchased an aggregate of $30.0 million of our outstanding common stock under this program prior to its termination effective December 31, 2015. Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities On October 20, 2015, we issued an aggregate of 5,412 shares of common stock under the 2012 Plan to certain non- employee directors as compensation for their service on our Board of Directors during the third quarter of 2015. The shares were issued pursuant to the exemption from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. 56 Item 6. Selected Financial Data. Our historical consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and our consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our historical consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The following table shows our selected historical financial data for the periods indicated. You should read our selected historical financial data, together with the notes thereto, in conjunction with the more detailed information contained in our consolidated financial statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in this Annual Report. Our operating results for 2012 include the results from the operations acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger for the month of December 2012, and the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction and SWS Merger are included in our operating results beginning September 14, 2013 and January 1, 2015, respectively (dollars in thousands, except per share data and weighted average shares outstanding). Statement of Operations Data: Total interest income Total interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan losses Net interest income after provision for loan losses Total noninterest income Total noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes Income tax expense (benefit) Net income (loss) Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest Income (loss) attributable to Hilltop Dividends on preferred stock (1) Income (loss) applicable to Hilltop common stockholders Per Share Data: Net income (loss) - basic Weighted average shares outstanding - basic Net income (loss) - diluted Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted Book value per common share Tangible book value per common share Balance Sheet Data: Total assets Cash and due from banks Securities Investment in SWS common stock (2) Loans held for sale Non-covered loans, net of unearned income Covered loans Allowance for loan losses Goodwill and other intangible assets, net Total deposits Notes payable Junior subordinated debentures Total stockholders’ equity Performance Ratios (3): Return on average stockholders’ equity Return on average assets Net interest margin (taxable equivalent) (4) Efficiency ratio (5)(6)(7) Asset Quality Ratios (3): Total nonperforming assets to total loans and other real estate (6) Allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans (6) Allowance for loan losses to total loans (6) Net charge-offs to average loans outstanding (6) Capital Ratios: Equity to assets ratio Tangible common equity to tangible assets Regulatory Capital Ratios (3): Hilltop - Leverage ratio (8) Hilltop - Common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio (9) Hilltop - Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio Hilltop - Total risk-based capital ratio Bank - Leverage ratio (8) Bank - Common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio (9) Bank - Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio Bank - Total risk-based capital ratio 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 469,838 61,255 408,583 12,715 395,868 1,227,642 1,340,016 283,494 70,915 212,579 1,606 210,973 1,854 209,119 2.10 99,074 2.09 99,962 17.56 14.46 11,867,001 652,036 1,219,874 — 1,533,678 5,220,040 380,294 (46,947) 306,676 6,952,683 238,716 67,012 1,738,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 388,769 27,628 361,141 16,933 344,208 799,311 965,353 178,166 65,608 112,558 908 111,650 5,703 105,947 1.18 89,710 1.17 90,573 14.93 11.47 9,242,416 782,473 1,109,461 70,282 1,309,693 3,920,476 642,640 (41,652) 311,591 6,369,892 56,684 67,012 1,461,239 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 329,075 32,874 296,201 37,158 259,043 850,085 911,735 197,393 70,684 126,709 1,367 125,342 4,327 121,015 1.43 84,382 1.40 90,331 13.27 9.70 8,904,122 713,099 1,261,989 — 1,089,039 3,514,646 1,006,369 (34,302) 322,729 6,722,918 56,327 67,012 1,311,922 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39,038 10,196 28,842 3,800 25,042 224,232 255,517 (6,243) (1,145) (5,098) 494 (5,592) 259 (5,851) (0.10) 58,754 (0.10) 58,754 12.34 8.37 7,286,865 722,039 1,081,066 — 1,401,507 3,152,396 — (3,409) 331,508 4,700,461 141,539 67,012 1,146,550 11,049 8,985 2,064 — 2,064 141,650 155,254 (11,540) (5,009) (6,531) — (6,531) — (6,531) (0.12) 56,499 (0.12) 56,499 11.60 11.01 925,425 578,520 224,200 — — — — — 33,062 — 131,450 — 655,383 12.32 % 1.70 % 3.81 % 56.45 % 2.34 % 137.99 % 0.84 % 0.14 % 8.01 % 1.26 % 4.74 % 61.17 % 4.14 % 74.01 % 0.91 % 0.21 % 10.48 % 1.66 % 4.47 % 42.58 % 3.70 % 136.39 % 0.76 % 0.18 % (0.62) % (0.08) % 4.64 % NM NM NM NM NM 14.64 % 12.37 % 15.80 % 11.59 % 14.73 % 10.19 % 15.71 % 10.05 % 70.82 % 69.74 % 14.17 % 12.81 % 13.08 % 19.02 % 19.69 % 10.31 % 13.74 % 14.45 % 18.53 % 19.13 % 9.29 % 13.38 % 14.00 % 17.72 % 17.81 % 8.84 % 11.83 % 11.93 % 12.65 % 17.87 % 18.48 % 18.89 % 13.22 % 16.23 % 16.25 % 16.99 % 57 Other Data (10): Net loss and LAE ratio Expense ratio GAAP combined ratio Statutory surplus (11) Statutory premiums to surplus ratio 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 61.1 % 33.8 % 94.9 % 57.4 % 31.9 % 89.3 % 70.3 % 32.3 % 102.6 % 74.4 % 34.4 % 108.8 % 72.2 % 34.0 % 106.2 % $ 152,342 $ 141,987 $ 125,054 $ 120,319 $ 118,708 105.4 % 115.8 % 130.7 % 125.0 % 119.4 % (1) Series B preferred stock was redeemed in April 2015. (2) For periods prior to 2014, Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock was accounted for and included within its available for sale securities portfolio. (3) Noted measures are typically used for measuring the performance of banking and financial institutions. Our operations prior to the PlainsCapital Merger are limited to our insurance operations. Therefore, noted measures for periods prior to 2012 are not a useful measure and have been excluded. (4) Taxable equivalent adjustments are based on a 35% tax rate. The adjustment to interest income was $3.0 million, $2.3 million, $2.4 million and $0.2 million during 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Net interest margin (taxable equivalent) is defined as taxable equivalent net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets. Our operations prior to the PlainsCapital Merger were limited to our insurance operations. Therefore, noted measure for 2012 reflects the ratio for the month ended December 31, 2012. (5) Noninterest expenses divided by the sum of total noninterest income and net interest income for the year. (6) Noted measures are typically used for measuring the performance of banking and financial institutions. Our operations prior to the PlainsCapital Merger are limited to our insurance operations. Additionally, noted measure is not meaningful (“NM”) in 2012. (7) Only considers operations of banking segment. (8) Ratio for 2012 was calculated using the average assets for the month of December. (9) Common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio applicable for reporting periods beginning after January 1, 2015. (10) Only considers operations of insurance segment. (11) Statutory surplus includes combined surplus of NLIC and ASIC. GAAP Reconciliation and Management’s Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures We present two measures in our selected financial data that are not measures of financial performance recognized by GAAP. “Tangible book value per common share” is defined as our total stockholders’ equity, excluding preferred stock, reduced by goodwill and other intangible assets, divided by total common shares outstanding. “Tangible common equity to tangible assets” is defined as our total stockholders’ equity, excluding preferred stock, reduced by goodwill and other intangible assets divided by total assets reduced by goodwill and other intangible assets. These measures are important to investors interested in changes from period to period in tangible common equity per share exclusive of changes in intangible assets. For companies such as ours that have engaged in business combinations, purchase accounting can result in the recording of significant amounts of goodwill and other intangible assets related to those transactions. You should not view this disclosure as a substitute for results determined in accordance with GAAP, and our disclosure is not necessarily comparable to that of other companies that use non-GAAP measures. The following table reconciles these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures, “book value per common share” and “Hilltop stockholders’ equity to total assets” (dollars in thousands, except per share data). 2015 2014 December 31, 2013 Book value per common share Effect of goodwill and intangible assets per share Tangible book value per common share $ $ $ 17.56 (3.10) 14.46 $ $ $ 14.93 (3.46) 11.47 $ $ $ 13.27 (3.57) 9.70 $ $ $ 2012 2011 12.34 $ 11.60 (3.97) $ (0.59) 8.37 $ 11.01 Hilltop stockholders’ equity Less: preferred stock Less: goodwill and intangible assets, net Tangible common equity Total assets Less: goodwill and intangible assets, net Tangible assets Equity to assets Tangible common equity to tangible assets $ 1,736,954 — $ 1,460,452 114,068 $ 1,311,141 114,068 $ 1,144,496 114,068 $ 655,383 — 306,676 1,430,278 311,591 1,034,793 322,729 874,344 331,508 698,920 33,062 622,321 11,867,001 9,242,416 8,904,122 7,286,865 925,425 306,676 11,560,325 311,591 8,930,825 322,729 8,581,393 331,508 6,955,357 33,062 892,363 14.64 % 15.80 % 14.73 % 15.71 % 70.82 % 12.37 % 11.59 % 10.19 % 10.05 % 69.74 % 58 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. The following discussion is intended to help the reader understand our results of operations and financial condition and is provided as a supplement to, and should be read in conjunction with, our audited consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto commencing on page F-1. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our results and the timing of selected events may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including those discussed under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. See “Forward-Looking Statements.” All dollar amounts in the following discussion are in thousands, except per share amounts. Unless the context otherwise indicates, all references in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, or MD&A, to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” or “ours” or similar words are to Hilltop Holdings Inc. and its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, references to “Hilltop” refer solely to Hilltop Holdings Inc., references to “PlainsCapital” refer to PlainsCapital Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Securities Holdings” refer to Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), references to “Hilltop Securities” refer to Hilltop Securities Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as Southwest Securities, Inc.), references to “HTS Independent Network” refer to Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings that was formerly known as SWS Financial Services, Inc.), references to the “Bank” refer to PlainsCapital Bank (a wholly owned subsidiary of PlainsCapital), references to “FNB” refer to First National Bank, references to “SWS” refer to the former SWS Group, Inc., references to “First Southwest” refer to First Southwest Holdings, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Securities Holdings) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “FSC” refer to First Southwest Company, LLC (a former wholly owned subsidiary of First Southwest), references to “PrimeLending” refer to PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLC” refer to National Lloyds Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop) and its subsidiaries as a whole, references to “NLIC” refer to National Lloyds Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC) and references to “ASIC” refer to American Summit Insurance Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of NLC). OVERVIEW We are a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Our primary line of business is to provide business and consumer banking services from offices located throughout Texas through the Bank. We also provide an array of financial products and services through our broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance segments. Effective January 1, 2015, in connection with our acquisition of SWS, we modified our organizational structure into three primary operating business units, PlainsCapital (banking and mortgage origination), Securities Holdings (broker- dealer) and NLC (insurance). The PlainsCapital unit continues to include the Bank and PrimeLending, while the new Securities Holdings unit includes First Southwest (transferred from the PlainsCapital unit effective January 1, 2015), and two entities acquired on January 1, 2015, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. FSC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network operated as separate broker-dealers, under coordinated leadership from the date of the SWS Merger until January 22, 2016, when we merged FSC into Hilltop Securities to form a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name. We use the term “Hilltop Broker-Dealers” to refer to FSC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network prior to January 22, 2016 and Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network after such date. The following includes additional details regarding the financial products and services provided by each of our primary operating business units. PlainsCapital. PlainsCapital is a financial holding company headquartered in Dallas, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, traditional banking and wealth, investment management and treasury management services primarily in Texas and residential mortgage loans throughout the United States. Securities Holdings. Securities Holdings is a holding company headquartered in Dallas, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, investment banking and other related financial services, including municipal advisory, sales, 59 trading and underwriting of taxable and tax-exempt fixed income securities, equity trading, clearing, securities lending, structured finance and retail brokerage services throughout the United States. NLC. NLC is a property and casualty insurance holding company headquartered in Waco, Texas that provides, through its subsidiaries, fire and homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States. During 2015, our net income to common stockholders was $209.1 million, or $2.09 per diluted share. The consolidated operating results during 2015 include the recognition of a bargain purchase gain of $81.3 million related to our acquisition of SWS. We reported $283.5 million of consolidated income before income taxes during 2015, including the following contributions from our four reportable operating segments. (cid:120) The banking segment contributed $175.4 million of income before income taxes during 2015; (cid:120) The broker-dealer segment incurred losses before income taxes of $0.3 million during 2015; (cid:120) The mortgage origination segment contributed $47.5 million of income before income taxes during 2015; and (cid:120) The insurance segment contributed $15.7 million of income before income taxes during 2015. At December 31, 2015, on a consolidated basis, we had total assets of $11.9 billion, total deposits of $7.0 billion, total loans, including loans held for sale, of $7.1 billion and stockholders’ equity of $1.7 billion. On January 1, 2015, we completed our acquisition of SWS in a stock and cash transaction (the “SWS Merger”), whereby SWS’s broker-dealer subsidiaries, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc., became subsidiaries of Securities Holdings and SWS’s banking subsidiary, Southwest Securities, FSB (“SWS FSB”), was merged into the Bank, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop. As a result of the SWS Merger, each outstanding share of SWS common stock was converted into the right to receive 0.2496 shares of Hilltop common stock and $1.94 in cash, equating to $6.92 per share based on Hilltop’s closing price on December 31, 2014 and resulting in an aggregate purchase price of $349.1 million, consisting of 10.1 million shares of common stock, $78.2 million in cash and $70.3 million associated with our existing investment in SWS common stock. On October 5, 2015, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc. were renamed “Hilltop Securities Inc.” and “Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc.”, respectively. The operations acquired in the SWS Merger were included in our operating results beginning January 1, 2015 and such operations included a preliminary bargain purchase gain of $82.8 million as disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015. During 2015, certain adjustments were recorded that resulted in an aggregate decrease in the preliminary bargain purchase gain associated with the SWS Merger to $81.3 million, which also decreased net income for the three months ended March 31, 2015 by $1.5 million as compared with amounts previously reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. Accordingly, our results for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 and related disclosures will be revised to reflect these adjustments in future filings. On April 9, 2015, we completed an offering of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of our 5% senior notes due 2025 (“Senior Unregistered Notes”) in a private offering. On April 28, 2015, we used the net proceeds of the offering to redeem all of our outstanding Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B (“Series B Preferred Stock”) at an aggregate liquidation value of $114.1 million, plus accrued but unpaid dividends of $0.4 million, and utilized the remainder for general corporate purposes. In connection with the issuance of the Senior Unregistered Notes, on April 9, 2015, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the Senior Unregistered Notes and agreed to offer to exchange the Senior Unregistered Notes for notes registered under the Securities Act (the “Senior Registered Notes”). The terms of the Senior Registered Notes are substantially identical to the Senior Unregistered Notes for which they were exchanged (including principal amount, interest rate, maturity and redemption rights), except that the Senior Registered Notes generally are not subject to transfer restrictions. On May 22, 2015, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Senior Registered Notes prospectus, we commenced an offer to exchange the outstanding Senior Unregistered Notes for Senior Registered Notes. Substantially all of the Senior Unregistered Notes were tendered for exchange, and on June 22, 2015, we fulfilled all of the requirements of the registration rights agreement for the Senior Unregistered Notes by issuing Senior Registered Notes in exchange for the tendered Senior Unregistered Notes. We refer to the Senior Registered Notes and the Senior Unregistered Notes that remain outstanding collectively as the “Senior Notes.” 60 Company Background In January 2007, we acquired NLC, a property and casualty insurance holding company. As a result, our subsequent primary operations through November 2012 were limited to providing fire and homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States through NLC’s wholly owned subsidiaries, NLIC and ASIC. On November 30, 2012, we acquired PlainsCapital Corporation pursuant to a plan of merger whereby PlainsCapital Corporation merged with and into our wholly owned subsidiary (the “PlainsCapital Merger”), which continued as the surviving entity under the name “PlainsCapital Corporation”. Concurrent with the consummation of the PlainsCapital Merger, Hilltop became a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. On September 13, 2013 (the “Bank Closing Date”), the Bank assumed substantially all of the liabilities, including all of the deposits, and acquired substantially all of the assets of Edinburg, Texas-based FNB from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as receiver, and reopened former branches of FNB acquired from the FDIC under the “PlainsCapital Bank” name (the “FNB Transaction”). Pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement by and among the FDIC as receiver for FNB, the FDIC and the Bank (the “P&A Agreement”), the Bank and the FDIC entered into loss-share agreements whereby the FDIC agreed to share in the losses of certain covered loans and covered other real estate owned (“OREO”) that the Bank acquired in the FNB Transaction. The fair value of the assets acquired was $2.2 billion, including $1.1 billion in covered loans, $286.2 million in securities, $135.2 million in covered OREO and $42.9 million in non-covered loans. The Bank also assumed $2.2 billion in liabilities, consisting primarily of deposits. On January 1, 2015, we acquired SWS through the SWS Merger. Based on purchase date valuations, the fair value of the assets acquired was $3.3 billion, including $707.5 million in securities, $863.8 million in non-covered loans and $1.2 billion in broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables. The fair value of liabilities assumed was $2.9 billion, consisting primarily of deposits of $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion in broker-dealer and clearing organization payables. Segment Information We have three primary operating business units, PlainsCapital (banking and mortgage origination), Securities Holdings (broker-dealer) and NLC (insurance). Under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), our business units are comprised of four reportable business segments organized primarily by the core products offered to the segments’ respective customers: banking, broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance. The SWS Merger did not result in changes to our four reportable business segments. Consistent with our historical segment operating results since 2013, we anticipate that future revenues will be driven primarily from the banking segment, with the remainder being generated by our broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance segments. Operating results for the mortgage origination segment have historically been more volatile than operating results for the banking, broker-dealer and insurance segments. The banking segment includes the operations of the Bank, the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction since September 14, 2013, and, since January 1, 2015, the operations of the former SWS FSB. The banking segment primarily provides business and consumer banking services from offices located throughout Texas and generates revenue from its portfolio of earning assets. The Bank’s results of operations are primarily dependent on net interest income, while also deriving revenue from other sources, including service charges on customer deposit accounts and trust fees. The broker-dealer segment includes the operations of First Southwest, and since January 1, 2015, the operations of Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. The broker-dealer segment generates a majority of its revenues from fees and commissions earned from investment advisory and securities brokerage services. The principal subsidiaries of First Southwest as of December 31, 2015 were FSC, formerly a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and First Southwest Asset Management, LLC, a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. Hilltop Securities is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and FINRA and a member of the NYSE, and HTS Independent Network is an introducing broker-dealer that is also registered with the SEC and FINRA. The mortgage origination segment includes the operations of PrimeLending, which offers a variety of loan products and generates revenue predominantly from fees charged on the origination of loans and from selling these loans in the secondary market. 61 The insurance segment includes the operations of NLC, which operates through its wholly owned subsidiaries, NLIC and ASIC. Insurance segment income is primarily generated from revenue earned on net insurance premiums less loss and loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”) and policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses in Texas and other areas of the southern United States. Corporate includes certain activities not allocated to specific business segments. These activities include holding company financing and investing activities, and management and administrative services to support the overall operations of the Company including, but not limited to, certain executive management, corporate relations, legal, finance, and acquisition costs. The elimination of intercompany transactions are included in “All Other and Eliminations.” Additional information concerning our reportable segments is presented in Note 30, Segment and Related Information, in the notes to our consolidated financial statements. The following tables present certain information about the operating results of our reportable segments (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes Year Ended December 31, 2014 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes Year Ended December 31, 2013 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes How We Generate Revenue Banking $ $ 369,493 12,795 62,639 243,926 175,411 Banking $ $ 334,377 16,916 67,438 245,790 139,109 Banking $ $ 293,254 37,140 71,045 155,102 172,057 Mortgage $ $ Broker-Dealer Origination (10,423) — 597,163 539,257 47,483 32,971 (80) 334,495 367,812 (266) $ $ Insurance 3,187 $ — 171,185 158,720 15,652 $ Mortgage $ $ Broker-Dealer Origination (12,591) — 456,776 431,820 12,365 12,144 17 119,451 124,715 6,863 $ $ Insurance 3,672 $ — 173,577 151,541 25,708 $ Mortgage $ $ Broker-Dealer Origination (37,840) — 537,497 472,284 27,373 12,064 18 102,714 112,360 2,400 $ $ Insurance 7,442 $ — 166,163 166,006 7,599 $ $ Corporate (5,109) — 81,289 31,926 44,254 $ $ All Other and Hilltop Eliminations 18,464 — (19,129) (1,625) 960 Consolidated 408,583 12,715 1,227,642 1,340,016 283,494 $ $ $ $ Corporate 5,219 — 5,985 13,878 (2,674) $ $ All Other and Hilltop Eliminations 18,320 — (23,916) (2,391) (3,205) Consolidated 361,141 16,933 799,311 965,353 178,166 $ $ $ $ Corporate (1,597) — — 10,439 (12,036) $ $ All Other and Hilltop Eliminations 22,878 — (27,334) (4,456) — Consolidated 296,201 37,158 850,085 911,735 197,393 $ $ $ We generate revenue from net interest income and from noninterest income. Net interest income represents the difference between the income earned on our assets, including our loans and investment securities, and our cost of funds, including the interest paid on the deposits and borrowings that are used to support our assets. Net interest income is a significant contributor to our operating results. Fluctuations in interest rates, as well as the amounts and types of interest- earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities we hold, affect net interest income. We generated $408.6 million in net interest income during 2015, compared with net interest income of $361.1 million during 2014 and net interest income of $296.2 million during 2013. The increase in net interest income during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger within our broker-dealer and banking segments, while the increase in net interest income during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction within our banking segment. The other component of our revenue is noninterest income, which is primarily comprised of the following: (i) Income from broker-dealer operations. Through the Hilltop Broker-Dealers, we provide investment banking and other related financial services. We generated $276.6 million, $101.9 million and $93.1 million in investment advisory fees and commissions and securities brokerage fees and commissions during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 62 (ii) (iii) Income from mortgage operations. Through PrimeLending, we generate noninterest income by originating and selling mortgage loans. During 2015, 2014 and 2013, we generated $596.8 million, $453.4 million and $537.3 million, respectively, in net gains from the sale of loans, other mortgage production income (including income associated with retained mortgage servicing rights), and mortgage loan origination fees. Income from insurance operations. Through NLC, we provide fire and limited homeowners insurance for low value dwellings and manufactured homes. We generated $162.1 million, $164.5 million and $157.5 million in net insurance premiums earned during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. In the aggregate, we generated $1.2 billion, $799.3 million and $850.1 million in noninterest income during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Excluding the bargain purchase gain of $81.3 million related to the SWS Merger in 2015 and $12.6 million related to the FNB Transaction in 2013, our noninterest income during 2015 and 2013 was $1.1 billion and $837.5 million, respectively. We are presenting these financial measures because certain investors may find them useful in evaluating our business and financial results. In addition to the bargain purchase gains, the increase in noninterest income during 2015, compared with 2014, was predominantly attributable to increases in noninterest income in our broker-dealer segment due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger and our mortgage origination segment due to increases in mortgage loan sales and origination volumes. The decrease in noninterest income during 2014, compared with 2013, other than bargain purchase gain, was primarily due to the decrease in loan origination volume within our mortgage origination segment, partially offset by increases in noninterest income in our banking, insurance and broker-dealer segments. We also incur noninterest expenses in the operation of our businesses. Our businesses engage in labor intensive activities and, consequently, employees’ compensation and benefits represent the majority of our noninterest expenses. Consolidated Operating Results Net income applicable to common stockholders during 2015 was $209.1 million, or $2.09 per diluted share, compared with net income applicable to common stockholders of $105.9 million, or $1.17 per diluted share, during 2014, and net income applicable to common stockholders of $121.0 million, or $1.40 per diluted share, during 2013. The consolidated operating results during 2015 include the recognition of a bargain purchase gain related to the SWS Merger of $81.3 million. Included in the bargain purchase gain is a reversal of a $33.4 million valuation allowance against SWS deferred tax assets. This amount is based on our expected ability to realize these acquired deferred tax assets through our consolidated core earnings, the implementation of certain tax planning strategies and reversal of timing differences. SWS’s net operating loss carryforwards are subject to an annual limitation on their usage because of the ownership change effected in connection with the SWS Merger. In addition, the bargain purchase gain reflects our acquisition date fair value allocation to identifiable intangible assets of $7.5 million. The consolidated operating results during 2013 include the recognition of a bargain purchase gain related to the FNB Transaction of $12.6 million, before income taxes of $4.5 million. The operations acquired in the FNB Transaction are included in our operating results beginning September 14, 2013, and are therefore not fully reflected in our consolidated statement of operations during 2013. We expect the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction to continue to have a significant effect on the Bank’s operating results in future periods. As a result of the SWS Merger, the operations, assets and liabilities acquired in the SWS Merger have been included in our balance sheet and operating results since January 1, 2015. We expect the operations acquired in the SWS Merger to continue to have a significant effect on our broker-dealer segment. In addition, transaction costs primarily related to the execution and closing of the SWS Merger, and integration-related costs associated with employee expenses (such as severance and retention), professional fees (such as consulting and legal) and contractual costs (such as vendor contract termination and lease), have been incurred as a result of the plan to integrate the operations and systems acquired in the SWS Merger. During 2015, we incurred $13.7 million in pre-tax transaction costs related to the SWS Merger, while pre- tax integration-related costs associated with employee, professional fee and contractual expenses during 2015 were $8.7 million, $6.5 million, and $2.7 million, respectively. During 2014, we incurred $1.4 million in pre-tax transaction costs related to the SWS Merger. On October 22, 2015, FINRA granted approval to combine FSC and Hilltop Securities, subject to customary conditions. Since this approval, we have integrated the back-office systems of FSC and Hilltop Securities and, effective as of the close of business on January 22, 2016, we merged FSC and Hilltop Securities into a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name. As a result, we expect to begin realizing cost savings in 2016, although we expect these cost savings to be partially offset by additional integration costs that we anticipate incurring during the first six months of 2016. 63 Certain items included in net income for 2015, 2014 and 2013 resulted from purchase accounting associated with the PlainsCapital Merger, the FNB Transaction and the SWS Merger (collectively, the “Bank Transactions”). Income before taxes during 2015 includes net accretion of $15.3 million, $60.4 million and $17.3 million on earning assets and liabilities acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger, FNB Transaction, and SWS Merger, respectively, offset by amortization of identifiable intangibles of $8.7 million, $0.9 million and $1.0 million, respectively. Income before taxes during 2014 includes net accretion of $33.9 million and $49.2 million on earning assets and liabilities acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, offset by amortization of identifiable intangibles of $9.2 million and $1.0 million, respectively. Income before taxes during 2013 includes net accretion of $58.5 million and $10.2 million on earning assets and liabilities acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, offset by amortization of identifiable intangibles of $9.8 million and $0.3 million, respectively. We consider the ratios shown in the table below to be key indicators of our performance. Performance Ratios: Return on average stockholder's equity Return on average assets Net interest margin (taxable equivalent) (1) (2) 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 12.32 % 1.70 % 3.81 % 8.01 % 1.26 % 4.74 % 10.48 % 1.66 % 4.47 % (1) Taxable equivalent net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets. (2) During 2015, taxable equivalent net interest margin was 81 basis points lower due to the impact related to the securities financing operations within our Broker-Dealer segment. The effect on taxable equivalent net interest margin was nominal during 2014 and 2013. During 2015, the consolidated taxable equivalent net interest margin of 3.81% was 94 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $19.0 million, $60.4 million and $16.7 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger, FNB Transaction, and SWS Merger, respectively, and PlainsCapital Merger-related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $3.4 million. During 2014, the consolidated taxable equivalent net interest margin of 4.74% was 125 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $37.4 million and $43.6 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, PlainsCapital Merger-related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $4.1 million, and FNB Transaction-related amortization of premium on acquired time deposits of $5.5 million. During 2013, the consolidated taxable equivalent net interest margin of 4.47% was 103 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $61.8 million and $7.5 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, PlainsCapital Merger-related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $5.7 million, and amortization of premium on acquired time deposits of $2.4 million and $2.7 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively. The FNB Transaction-related accretion of discount on loans of $60.4 million and $43.6 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, included accretion of approximately $35 million and $30 million, respectively, due to better-than-expected resolution of covered purchased credit impaired (“PCI”) loans during the respective periods. This better-than-expected performance and resulting increases in yields calculated as a part of the Bank’s quarterly recast process led to the reclassification of $70.9 million and $105.5 million, respectively, from nonaccretable difference to accretable yield. 64 other financial institutions Other Interest-earning assets, gross Allowance for loan losses Interest-earning assets, net Noninterest-earning assets Total assets Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Interest-bearing liabilities Interest-bearing deposits Notes payable and other borrowings Total interest-bearing liabilities Noninterest-bearing liabilities Noninterest-bearing deposits Other liabilities Total liabilities Stockholders’ equity Noncontrolling interest Total liabilities and stockholders' equity Net interest income (2) Net interest spread (2) Net interest margin (2) The table below provides additional details regarding our consolidated net interest income (dollars in thousands). 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 Average Outstanding Earned or Yield or Interest Annualized Average Interest Annualized Average Interest Annualized Outstanding Earned or Yield or Outstanding Earned or Yield or Assets Interest-earning assets Loans, gross (1) Investment securities - taxable Investment securities - non-taxable (2) Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell Balance Paid Rate Balance Paid Rate Balance Paid Rate $ 6,550,164 $ 390,359 5.96 % $ 5,461,611 $ 341,458 6.21 % $ 4,584,079 $ 284,782 6.15 % 1,112,524 26,511 2.38 % 1,072,564 29,206 2.72 % 947,844 27,078 2.85 % 250,870 9,629 3.84 % 182,881 7,028 3.84 % 192,933 7,158 3.71 % 99,037 120 0.12 % 18,120 52 0.29 % 27,996 113 0.40 % Interest-bearing deposits in 587,742 2,189,579 10,789,916 (42,924) 10,746,992 1,734,266 $ 12,481,258 1,491 44,729 472,839 1,602 11,770 391,116 698,638 0.25 % 2.04 % 229,461 4.38 % 7,663,275 (40,516) 7,622,759 1,343,070 $ 8,965,829 727,284 0.23 % 5.16 % 160,320 5.08 % 6,640,456 (22,906) 6,617,550 996,327 $ 7,613,877 1,848 10,479 331,458 0.25 % 6.58 % 4.96 % $ 4,804,077 $ 15,523 0.32 % $ 4,490,748 $ 15,742 0.35 % $ 3,923,895 $ 14,877 0.38 % 3,128,152 45,732 1.46 % 934,031 11,886 1.27 % 823,478 17,997 2.19 % 7,932,229 61,255 0.77 % 5,424,779 27,628 0.51 % 4,747,373 32,874 0.69 % 2,187,336 647,985 10,767,550 1,713,030 678 $ 12,481,258 1,862,277 283,922 7,570,978 1,394,351 500 $ 8,965,829 1,370,029 299,871 6,417,273 1,195,960 644 $ 7,613,877 $ 411,584 $ 363,488 $ 298,584 3.61 % 3.81 % 4.57 % 4.74 % 4.27 % 4.47 % (1) Average balance includes non-accrual loans. (2) Taxable equivalent adjustments are based on a 35% tax rate. The adjustment to interest income was $3.0 million, $2.3 million and $2.4 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The banking segment’s net interest margin exceeds our consolidated net interest margin shown above. Our consolidated net interest margin includes certain items that are not reflected in the calculation of our net interest margin within our banking segment and reduce our consolidated net interest margin, such as the borrowing costs of Hilltop and the yields and costs associated with certain items within interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities in the broker-dealer segment, including items related to securities financing operations that particularly decrease net interest margin. In addition, yields and costs on certain interest-earning assets, such as warehouse lines of credit extended to subsidiaries by the banking segment, are eliminated from the consolidated financial statements. On a consolidated basis, net interest income increased $47.4 million during 2015, compared with 2014, while net interest income increased $64.9 million during 2014, compared with 2013. The increase during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger within our broker-dealer and banking segments, partially offset by a reduction in recurring quarterly investment and interest income, as well as interest expense on the Senior Notes beginning May 2015, at corporate. The increase during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction within our banking segment. 65 The provision for loan losses is determined by management as the amount to be added to the allowance for loan losses after net charge-offs have been deducted to bring the allowance to a level which, in management’s best estimate, is necessary to absorb probable losses within the existing loan portfolio. The consolidated provision for loan losses, substantially all of which relates to the banking segment, was $12.7 million, $16.9 million and $37.2 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The provision for loan losses during 2015 was comprised of charges relating to newly originated loans and acquired loans without credit impairment at acquisition of $13.8 million, partially offset by the recapture of PCI loans of $1.1 million, compared with charges relating to newly originated loans and acquired loans without credit impairment at acquisition of $6.1 million and $33.1 million, respectively, and PCI loans of $10.8 million and $4.1 million, respectively, during 2014 and 2013. Consolidated noninterest income increased $428.3 million during 2015, compared with 2014, while consolidated noninterest income decreased $50.8 million during 2014, compared with 2013. These year-over-year changes included the recognition of a bargain purchase gain related to the SWS Merger of $81.3 million during 2015 and the recognition of a pre-tax bargain purchase gain related to the FNB Transaction of $12.6 million during 2013. Other changes in noninterest income during 2015, compared with 2014, included increases in securities commissions and fees (net of intercompany eliminations) and investment banking and advisory fees within our broker-dealer segment of $174.7 million and an increase within our mortgage origination segment of $140.4 million. The remaining changes in noninterest income during 2014, compared with 2013, included the reduction in net gains from sale of loans, other mortgage production income and mortgage loan origination fees within our mortgage origination segment of $83.9 million, slightly offset by increases in noninterest income in our broker-dealer and insurance segments of $16.7 million and $7.4 million, respectively. Consolidated noninterest expense during 2015 increased $374.7 million, compared with 2014, while consolidated noninterest expense during 2014 increased $53.6 million, compared with 2013. The year-over-year increase during 2015, compared with 2014, included significant increases in noninterest expenses within our broker-dealer segment of $243.0 million primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired as part of the SWS Merger. In addition, during 2015 we incurred pre-tax transaction and integration costs related to the SWS Merger of $31.6 million. Changes between 2015 and 2014 within the major components of noninterest expense included increases of $275.2 million in employees’ compensation and benefits and $76.7 million in other expenses primarily attributable to increases in our broker-dealer segment due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger and mortgage origination segment due to the increase in mortgage origination loan volume. The year-over-year changes between 2014 and 2013 included significant increases in noninterest expenses within our banking segment of $90.7 million, primarily due to the inclusion of those operations acquired as part of the FNB Transaction and within our broker-dealer segment of $12.4 million due to increases in professional fees and compensation costs that vary with noninterest income. These increases were partially offset by significant decreases in noninterest expenses within our mortgage origination segment of $40.5 million, primarily due to reductions in variable compensation tied to mortgage loan originations and initiatives to decrease segment operating costs, and within our insurance segment of $14.5 million due to improved claims loss experience associated with the significant decline in the severity of severe weather-related events during 2014. Changes between 2014 and 2013 within the major components of noninterest expense included increases of $10.2 million in employees’ compensation and benefits, $15.4 million in occupancy and equipment and $43.6 million in other expenses, partially offset by decreases of $16.3 million in losses and LAE. Consolidated income tax expense during 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $70.9 million, $65.6 million and $70.7 million, respectively, reflecting effective rates of 25.0%, 36.8% and 35.8%, respectively. The decrease in our effective tax rate during 2015 was primarily because no income taxes were recorded in connection with the bargain purchase gain of $81.3 million associated with the SWS Merger because the acquisition was a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, during 2015, we recorded an income tax benefit of $2.1 million as a result of the SWS Merger to reverse our deferred tax liability for the difference between book and tax basis on Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock and also reversed a valuation allowance of $1.9 million previously established on a deferred tax asset for a capital loss carryforward. Therefore, the effective income tax rate during 2015 is not necessarily indicative of anticipated future effective tax rates. 66 Segment Results Banking Segment Income before income taxes in our banking segment during 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $175.4 million, $139.1 million, $172.1 million, respectively. The increase in income before income taxes during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to an increase in net interest income, partially offset by pre-tax costs of $3.0 million directly attributable to the integration of the former SWS FSB. The change in income before income taxes during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily because of an increase in noninterest expense, partially offset by an increase in net interest income and a decrease in the provision for loan losses. This year-over-year increase in noninterest income included the recognition of a pre-tax bargain purchase gain related to the FNB Transaction of $12.6 million during 2013. The operations acquired as a part of the SWS Merger had a significant effect on net interest income during 2015, compared with 2014, while the FNB Transaction had a significant effect on each of the components of income before income taxes during 2014, compared with 2013. We consider the ratios shown in the table below to be key indicators of the performance of our banking segment. Performance Ratios: Efficiency ratio (1) Return on average assets Net interest margin (taxable equivalent) (2) 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 56.45 % 1.36 % 5.08 % 61.17 % 1.20 % 5.00 % 42.58 % 1.78 % 5.17 % (1) Noninterest expenses divided by the sum of total noninterest income and net interest income for the period. (2) Taxable equivalent net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets. During 2015, the banking segment’s taxable equivalent net interest margin of 5.08% was 142 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $19.0 million, $60.4 million and $16.7 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger, FNB Transaction, and SWS Merger, respectively, and PlainsCapital Merger-related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $3.4 million. During 2014, the banking segment’s taxable equivalent net interest margin of 5.00% was 143 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $37.4 million and $43.6 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, PlainsCapital Merger-related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $4.1 million, and FNB Transaction-related amortization of premium on acquired time deposits of $5.5 million. During 2013, the banking segment’s taxable equivalent net interest margin of 5.17% was 120 basis points greater due to the impact of purchase accounting and primarily related to accretion of discount on loans of $61.8 million and $7.5 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively, PlainsCapital Merger- related amortization of premium on acquired securities of $5.7 million, and amortization of premium on acquired time deposits of $2.4 million and $2.7 million associated with the PlainsCapital Merger and FNB Transaction, respectively. The FNB Transaction-related accretion of discount on loans of $60.4 million and $43.6 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, included accretion of approximately $35 million and $30 million, respectively, due to better-than-expected resolution of covered PCI loans during the respective periods. This better-than-expected performance and resulting increases in yields calculated as a part of the Bank’s quarterly recast process led to the reclassification of $70.9 million and $105.5 million, respectively, from nonaccretable difference to accretable yield. 67 The table below provides additional details regarding our banking segment’s net interest income (dollars in thousands). 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 Average Outstanding Earned or Yield or Interest Annualized Average Interest Annualized Average Interest Annualized Outstanding Earned or Yield or Outstanding Earned or Yield or Balance Paid Rate Balance Paid Rate Balance Paid Rate $ 4,789,972 $ 328,384 6.86 % $ 4,189,895 $ 292,859 6.99 % $ 3,279,228 $ 238,314 7.27 % 1,055,525 37,772 3.58 % 912,652 34,598 3.79 % 947,064 51,114 5.40 % 791,994 17,241 2.18 % 886,168 17,956 2.03 % 792,860 14,625 1.84 % 141,186 5,295 3.75 % 149,656 5,800 3.88 % 158,739 5,734 3.61 % 21,821 65 0.30 % 18,120 52 0.29 % 26,373 75 0.28 % 484,553 49,988 7,335,039 (42,579) 7,292,460 1,125,974 $ 8,418,434 1,366 1,745 391,868 1,362 1,717 354,344 527,678 0.28 % 3.49 % 45,225 5.34 % 6,729,394 (40,352) 6,689,042 1,245,722 $ 7,934,764 494,220 0.26 % 3.80 % 31,794 5.27 % 5,730,278 (22,752) 5,707,526 940,880 $ 6,648,406 1,319 1,311 312,492 0.27 % 4.12 % 5.45 % $ 4,413,352 $ 16,992 0.39 % $ 4,451,191 $ 15,801 0.35 % $ 3,900,867 $ 14,889 0.38 % 585,732 2,118 0.36 % 587,921 1,780 0.30 % 391,111 1,340 0.34 % 4,999,084 19,110 0.38 % 5,039,112 17,581 0.35 % 4,291,978 16,229 0.38 % Assets Interest-earning assets Loans, gross (1) Subsidiary warehouse lines of credit Investment securities - taxable Investment securities - non-taxable (2) Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell Interest-bearing deposits in other financial institutions Other Interest-earning assets, gross Allowance for loan losses Interest-earning assets, net Noninterest-earning assets Total assets Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity Interest-bearing liabilities Interest-bearing deposits Notes payable and other borrowings Total interest-bearing liabilities (3) Noninterest-bearing liabilities Noninterest-bearing deposits Other liabilities Total liabilities Stockholders’ equity 2,144,282 49,388 7,192,754 1,225,680 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 8,418,434 1,808,225 35,755 6,883,092 1,051,672 $ 7,934,764 1,419,594 39,028 5,750,600 897,806 $ 6,648,406 Net interest income (2) Net interest spread (2) Net interest margin (2) $ 372,758 $ 336,763 $ 296,263 4.96 % 5.08 % 4.92 % 5.00 % 5.07 % 5.17 % (1) Average balance includes non-accrual loans. (2) Taxable equivalent adjustments are based on a 35% tax rate. The adjustment to interest income was $1.8 million, $2.0 million and $2.0 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. (3) Excludes the allocation of interest expense on PlainsCapital debt of $1.4 million, $1.1 million and $1.0 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The banking segment’s net interest margin exceeds our consolidated net interest margin. Our consolidated net interest margin includes certain items that are not reflected in the calculation of our net interest margin within our banking segment and reduce our consolidated net interest margin, such as the borrowing costs of Hilltop and the yields and costs associated with certain items within interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities in the broker-dealer segment, including items related to securities financing operations that particularly decrease net interest margin. In addition, the banking segment’s interest-earning assets include warehouse lines of credit extended to other subsidiaries, which are eliminated from the consolidated financial statements. 68 The following table summarizes the changes in the banking segment’s net interest income for the periods indicated below, including the component changes in the volume of average interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and changes in the rates earned or paid on those items (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014 Change Due To (1) 2014 vs. 2013 Change Due To (1) Volume Yield/Rate Change Volume Yield/Rate Change Interest income Loans, gross Subsidiary warehouse lines of credit Investment securities - taxable Investment securities - non-taxable (2) Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell Interest-bearing deposits in other financial institutions Other Total interest income (2) Interest expense Deposits Notes payable and other borrowings Total interest expense $ 41,943 $ (6,418) $ 35,525 $ 66,182 $ (11,637) $ 54,545 (16,516) 3,331 66 (14,659) 1,610 394 (1,857) 1,721 (328) 5,416 (1,908) (328) (2,242) 1,193 (177) 3,174 (715) (505) 11 2 13 (23) — (23) (111) 181 45,204 115 (153) (7,680) 4 28 37,524 89 554 66,338 (46) (148) (24,486) 43 406 41,852 $ (134) $ 1,325 $ 1,191 $ 2,101 $ (1,189) $ (7) (141) 345 1,670 338 1,529 674 2,775 (234) (1,423) 912 440 1,352 Net interest income (2) $ 45,345 $ (9,350) $ 35,995 $ 63,563 $ (23,063) $ 40,500 (1) Changes attributable to both volume and yield/rate are included in yield/rate column. (2) Taxable equivalent. Taxable equivalent net interest income increased $36.0 million during 2015, compared with 2014. Increases in the volume of interest-earning assets, primarily loans acquired in the SWS Merger and additional amounts drawn on the subsidiary warehouse lines of credit, increased taxable equivalent net interest income by $45.2 million during 2015, compared with 2014. Changes in the yields earned on interest-earning assets decreased taxable equivalent net interest income by $7.7 million during 2015, compared with 2014, primarily due to the net effects of lower yields on the loan portfolio and subsidiary warehouse lines of credit, partially offset by increased yields on the investment portfolio. Changes in rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities decreased taxable equivalent net interest income by $1.7 million during 2015, compared with 2014, primarily due to lower amortization of premiums on time deposits acquired in the FNB Transaction. Taxable equivalent net interest income increased $40.5 million during 2014, compared with 2013. Increases in the volume of interest-earning assets, primarily loans acquired in the FNB Transaction, increased taxable equivalent net interest income by $66.3 million during 2014, compared with 2013, while increases in the volume of interest-bearing liabilities, primarily deposits assumed in the FNB Transaction, reduced taxable equivalent interest income by $2.8 million during this same period. Changes in the yields earned on interest-earning assets decreased taxable equivalent net interest income by $24.5 million during 2014, compared with 2013, primarily due to the net effects of lower yields on the loan portfolio and subsidiary warehouse lines of credit, partially offset by increased yields on the investment portfolio. Changes in rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities increased taxable equivalent interest income by $1.4 million during 2014, compared with 2013, primarily due to the amortization of premiums on time deposits acquired in the FNB Transaction. The banking segment’s noninterest income was $62.6 million, $67.4 million and $71.0 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The decrease during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to year-over-year decreases in accretion on the receivable under the loss-share agreements with the FDIC (“FDIC Indemnification Asset”), OREO income and service fees, partially offset by $4.4 million of realized gains on securities acquired in the SWS Merger and subsequently sold during 2015. The changes in noninterest income between 2014 and 2013 included the recognition of a pre-tax bargain purchase gain related to the FNB Transaction of $12.6 million during 2013. The remaining changes in noninterest income during 2014, compared with 2013, were due to increases in service charges and fees on deposits assumed in the FNB Transaction, partially offset by a reduction in intercompany financing fees charged to the mortgage origination segment which are eliminated from the consolidated financial statements. 69 The banking segment’s noninterest expenses were $243.9 million, $245.8 million and $155.1 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Noninterest expenses were primarily comprised of employees’ compensation and benefits, and occupancy expenses. Noninterest expenses during 2015, compared with 2014, were relatively flat, but included reduced write downs on certain OREO assets acquired in the FNB Transaction and increased gains on the sale of certain OREO assets also acquired in the FNB Transaction. These changes were offset by increases in compensation and benefits associated with the addition of employees of the former SWS FSB and pre-tax integration-related costs directly attributable to the integration of the former SWS FSB of $3.0 million related to employee, professional fees and contractual expenses. The significant increase in noninterest expenses during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the FNB Transaction and write downs of $19.7 million associated with covered OREO assets during 2014. The write downs to fair value of the covered OREO reflect new appraisals on certain OREO acquired in the FNB Transaction and OREO acquired from the foreclosure on certain loans acquired in the FNB Transaction. Although the Bank recorded a fair value discount on the acquired assets upon acquisition, in some cases additional downward valuations were required. These additional downward valuation adjustments reflect changes to the assumptions regarding the fair value of the OREO, including in some cases the intended use of the OREO due to the availability of more information as well as the passage of time. The process of determining fair value is subjective in nature and requires the use of significant estimates and assumptions. Although the Bank makes market-based assumptions when valuing acquired assets, new information may come to light that causes estimates to increase or decrease. When the Bank determines, based on subsequent information, that its estimates require adjustment, the Bank records the adjustment. The accounting for such adjustments requires that the decreases to fair value be recorded at the time such new information is received, while increases to fair value are recorded when the asset is subsequently sold. 70 Broker-Dealer Segment Loss before income taxes in our broker-dealer segment during 2015 was $0.3 million, while income before income taxes during 2014 and 2013 was $6.9 million and $2.4 million, respectively. The change in income (loss) before income taxes during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily the result of pre-tax transaction and integration-related costs of $15.2 million directly attributable to the SWS Merger, while most of the improvement in income before income taxes during 2014, compared with 2013, was in fees earned from advising public finance clients on an increased volume of debt offerings due to lower interest rates and an improving economy. As shown in the table below, the operations acquired in the SWS Merger had a significant impact on each of the components of income (loss) before income taxes during 2015, compared with 2014 and 2013. The following table provides additional details regarding our broker-dealer operating results (in thousands). Net interest income: Securities lending Other Total net interest income Noninterest income: Securities commissions and fees by business line (1): Capital markets Retail Clearing Other Investment banking and advisory fees by business line: Public finance Capital markets Retail Structured finance Clearing Other Other Total noninterest income Noninterest expense: Compensation and benefits expenses Other Total noninterest expense 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 Variance $ $ 11,158 21,813 32,971 $ 3,276 8,868 12,144 3,400 $ 8,664 12,064 7,882 $ 12,945 20,827 56,135 78,470 23,919 3,506 162,030 90,337 2,384 15,258 5,678 48 2,227 115,932 56,533 334,495 255,629 112,103 367,732 15,413 777 10,805 316 27,311 69,304 (252) (2) 2,768 45 2,690 74,553 17,587 119,451 78,598 46,134 124,732 18,935 828 8,981 571 29,315 59,871 (1,376) (2) 3,213 44 1,973 63,723 9,676 102,714 68,276 44,102 112,378 40,722 77,693 13,114 3,190 134,719 21,033 2,636 15,260 2,910 3 (463) 41,379 38,946 215,044 177,031 65,969 243,000 (124) 204 80 (3,522) (51) 1,824 (255) (2,004) 9,433 1,124 — (445) 1 717 10,830 7,911 16,737 10,322 2,032 12,354 Income (loss) before income taxes $ (266) $ 6,863 $ 2,400 $ (7,129) $ 4,463 (1) Securities commissions and fees includes income of $1.4 million during 2015 that is eliminated in consolidation. The broker-dealer segment had net interest income of $33.0 million, $12.1 million and $12.1 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. In the broker-dealer segment, interest is earned from securities lending activities, interest charged on customer margin loan balances and interest earned on investment securities used to support sales, underwriting and other customer activities. The increase in net interest income during 2015, compared with 2014 was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger. Noninterest income was $334.5 million, $119.5 million and $102.7 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The increase in noninterest income of $215.0 million during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to an increase of $174.4 million associated with the inclusion of the former SWS’s operations, increased fees earned by FSC from increased volumes in its non-profit housing program and increased advisory fees earned by FSC from public finance clients. The increase in noninterest income of $16.7 million during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily from fees earned on advising public finance clients on an increased volume of debt offerings. The broker-dealer segment participates in programs in which it issues forward purchase commitments of mortgage- backed securities to certain non-profit housing clients and sells U.S. Agency TBA securities. Additionally, TBA purchase and sales agreements are entered into to assist small to mid-size mortgage loan originators in hedging the interest rate risk associated with their client-owned mortgages. The fair values of these derivative instruments increased $43.7 million, $16.2 million and $11.4 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers also hold trading securities to support sales, underwriting and other customer activities. The fair values of securities within this trading portfolio increased $13.0 million and $1.3 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, and decreased 71 $1.8 million during 2013. These changes in the fair value of derivative instruments and trading portfolio are included within other noninterest income. Noninterest expenses were $367.7 million, $124.7 million and $112.4 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The increase in noninterest expenses, including provision for loan losses, of $243.0 million during 2015, compared with 2014, reflects an increase of $177.0 million in employees’ compensation and benefits costs, of which $154.0 million was associated with the operations acquired in the SWS Merger and an increase in compensation that varies with noninterest income of $20.6 million in First Southwest’s compensation and benefits expenses. In addition, during 2015, the broker- dealer segment incurred pre-tax transaction costs of $0.8 million, while pre-tax integration-related costs resulting from employee expenses, professional fees and contractual expenses directly attributable to the integration of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger were $6.9 million, $5.6 million and $1.9 million, respectively, during 2015. The increase in noninterest expenses of $12.4 million during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to increases of $6.8 million in employees’ compensation costs that varies with noninterest income, benefits costs and $2.3 million in litigation defense costs associated with a lawsuit pending in the state of Rhode Island. Increases in occupancy and equipment expenses accounted for the majority of the noninterest expenses incurred during each respective period. On October 22, 2015, FINRA granted approval to combine FSC and Hilltop Securities, subject to customary conditions. Since this approval, we have integrated the back-office systems of FSC and Hilltop Securities and, effective as of January 22, 2016, we merged FSC and Hilltop Securities into a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name. As a result, we expect to begin realizing cost savings to commence in 2016, however, we expect these costs savings to be potentially offset by integration costs that we anticipate incurring during the first six months of 2016. Selected information concerning the broker-dealer segment follows (dollars in thousands). Compensation as a % of net revenue FDIC insured program balances at PlainsCapital Bank (end of period) Other FDIC insured program balances (end of period) Customer margin balances (end of period) Customer funds on deposit, including short credits (end of period) Public finance: Number of issues Aggregate amount of offerings Capital markets: Total volumes Net inventory (end of period) Retail: Retail employee representatives (end of period) Independent registered representatives (end of period) Structured finance: Lock production/TBA volume Clearing: Total tickets Correspondents (end of period) Securities lending: Interest-earning assets - stock borrowed (end of period) Interest-bearing liabilities - stock loaned (end of period) Year Ended December 31, 2015 2014 2013 69.6% 845,569 1,380,030 414,013 474,773 1,655 70,021,094 76,737,890 62,879 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59.7% 280,812 193,788 207,299 136,886 1,170 40,741,221 32,463,513 44,894 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59.5% 220,549 110,068 148,388 104,578 1,522 33,672,254 30,502,416 37,838 118 234 4 — 4 — 3,848,214 $ 1,658,217 $ 1,072,391 2,396,478 205 1,307,741 1,235,466 $ $ $ 1,500,192 74 152,899 117,822 $ $ $ 829,615 77 107,365 74,913 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 72 Mortgage Origination Segment Income before income taxes in our mortgage origination segment during 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $47.5 million, $12.4 million and $27.4 million, respectively. The increase in income before income taxes during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to increases in noninterest income partially offset by increases in compensation that varies with the volume of mortgage loan originations (“variable compensation”), and to a lesser extent, increases in other noninterest expenses. The decrease in income before income taxes during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to a decrease in noninterest income, partially offset by decreases in noninterest expense and net interest expense. Net interest expense of $10.4 million, $12.6 million and $37.8 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, resulted from interest incurred on a warehouse line of credit held with the Bank as well as related intercompany financing costs, partially offset by interest income earned on loans held for sale. The mortgage origination segment originates all of its mortgage loans through a retail channel. The following table provides certain details regarding our mortgage loan originations and selected information for the periods indicated below (dollars in thousands). Mortgage Loan Originations - units 2015 % of Total 59,621 Year Ended December 31, 2014 % of Total 48,655 2013 % of Total 55,781 Mortgage Loan Originations - volume $ 13,352,119 $ 10,363,848 $ 11,792,562 Mortgage Loan Originations: Conventional Government Jumbo Other Home purchases Refinancings Texas California Florida Ohio North Carolina Maryland Washington Virginia Arizona South Carolina All other states $ 8,394,709 3,395,587 961,598 600,225 $ 13,352,119 62.87 % $ 25.43 % 7.20 % 4.50 % 6,487,825 2,737,415 863,770 274,838 100.00 % $ 10,363,848 62.60 % $ 26.41 % 8.34 % 2.65 % 7,505,437 3,465,078 780,604 41,443 100.00 % $ 11,792,562 63.65 % 29.38 % 6.62 % 0.35 % 100.00 % $ 9,891,792 3,460,327 $ 13,352,119 8,295,994 74.08 % $ 25.92 % 2,067,854 100.00 % $ 10,363,848 8,178,970 80.05 % $ 3,613,592 19.95 % 100.00 % $ 11,792,562 69.36 % 30.64 % 100.00 % $ 2,967,740 1,965,039 644,090 555,106 492,879 452,280 451,277 442,924 415,215 385,347 4,580,222 $ 13,352,119 2,453,705 22.23 % $ 1,552,372 14.72 % 505,507 4.82 % 401,379 4.16 % 423,164 3.69 % 298,577 3.39 % 298,845 3.38 % 322,134 3.32 % 339,830 3.11 % 307,832 2.89 % 34.30 % 3,460,503 100.00 % $ 10,363,848 2,660,810 23.68 % $ 2,082,184 14.98 % 456,643 4.88 % 383,518 3.87 % 618,802 4.08 % 385,215 2.88 % 360,100 2.88 % 466,531 3.11 % 392,006 3.28 % 318,109 2.97 % 3,668,644 33.39 % 100.00 % $ 11,792,562 22.56 % 17.66 % 3.87 % 3.25 % 5.25 % 3.27 % 3.05 % 3.96 % 3.32 % 2.70 % 31.11 % 100.00 % Mortgage Loan Sales - volume $ 13,129,069 $ 10,164,350 $ 12,045,842 The mortgage lending business is subject to variables that can impact loan origination volume, including seasonal and interest rate fluctuations. Historically, the mortgage origination segment has typically experienced increased loan origination volume from purchases of homes during the spring and summer, when more people tend to move and buy or sell homes. An increase in mortgage interest rates tends to result in decreased loan origination volume from refinancings, while a decrease in mortgage interest rates tends to result in increased loan origination volume from refinancings. Changes in interest rates have historically had a lesser impact on home purchases volume than on refinancing volume. On October 3, 2015, lender compliance changes associated with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures (“TRID”) became effective and significantly modified required disclosure documents and settlement procedures associated with home mortgage loans. Lender compliance with TRID could result in delays in loan closings or delays in mortgage processing, particularly in the early stages of implementation. While the implementation of TRID by PrimeLending has not yet significantly impacted its loan origination volumes, the long-term impact of TRID on the mortgage loan origination process, volumes and associated costs are yet unknown. 73 Refinancing volume increased to $3.5 billion during 2015 (representing 25.9% of total loan origination volume) from $2.1 billion during 2014 (representing 20.0% of total loan origination volume). The increase in refinancing volume as a percent of total loan origination volume during 2015, compared to 2014, was primarily the result of a decline in mortgage interest rates during the first six months of 2015. Refinancing volume during the first six months of 2015 and 2014 represented 30.8% and 17.9% of total loan origination volume, respectively, compared with 21.1% and 21.7% during the second six months of 2015 and 2014, respectively. Home purchases volume during 2015 increased to $9.9 billion from $8.3 billion during 2014. Refinancing volumes decreased to $2.1 billion from $3.6 billion during 2014 compared with 2013 (representing 20.0% and 30.6%, respectively, of total loan origination volume), while home purchases volume of $8.3 billion during 2014 was virtually unchanged from 2013. The decrease in refinancing volume during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily due to an increase in mortgage interest rates beginning in May 2013 and continuing through the fourth quarter of 2013. Refinancing volumes as a percentage of total loan origination volume were 40.0% and 19.0% during the first and second six months of 2013, respectively. During the first three quarters of 2014, refinancing volumes as a percentage of total loan origination volume were consistent with the last six months of 2013, ranging between 16% and 21%. During the fourth quarter 2014, refinancing volume increased to 25% of total origination volume, as interest rates decreased during that time. While the Federal Reserve Board increased the target federal funds rate in December 2015 for the first time in seven years and indicated that it may further increase such target rate in 2016, mortgage interest rates have declined during January and February 2016. This recent decrease in mortgage rates may affect total loan origination volume in the near-term, increasing refinancing volume above normal seasonal levels. The mortgage origination segment’s total loan origination volume during 2015 increased 28.8%, compared with 2014, while income before income taxes during 2015 increased 284.0%, compared with 2014. Income before income taxes during 2015 increased at a greater rate than loan origination volume compared with 2014, primarily due to noninterest income increasing by 30.7%, compared with an increase in noninterest expense of 24.9%. While the mortgage origination segment’s total loan origination volume decreased 12.1% between 2014 and 2013, income before income taxes decreased 54.8%, primarily due to a 15.0% reduction in noninterest income, partially offset by a combined 12.9% decrease in noninterest expense and net interest expense. To address negative trends in loan origination volume resulting from changes in interest rates that began in May 2013, the mortgage origination segment reduced its non-origination employee headcount approximately 22% during the third and fourth quarters of 2013. Salaries and benefits expenses during 2014 decreased 11.0%, compared with 2013, as the benefits of the headcount reductions made in the third and fourth quarters of 2013 were realized in 2014. The mortgage origination segment also engaged in other initiatives to reduce segment operating costs during the third and fourth quarters of 2013 that were primarily responsible for the decrease of 6.0% in non-employee related expenses, including occupancy and administrative costs, during 2014, as compared with 2013. As loan origination volumes in 2015 approached volumes experienced during the second quarter of 2013, employee headcount as of December 31, 2015 increased to a level similar to that prior to the headcount reduction actions during the third and fourth quarters of 2013. As a result, salaries and benefit expenses during 2015 increased 15.8% compared with 2014. Noninterest income was $597.2 million, $456.8 million and $537.5 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and was comprised of the following (in thousands). Net gains from sale of loans Mortgage loan origination fees Other mortgage production income: $ Change in net fair value and related derivative activity: Interest rate lock commitments and loans held for 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 370,384 $ 63,011 491,532 $ 77,708 2013 465,656 $ 79,736 Variance 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 (95,272) (16,725) 121,148 $ 14,697 sale Mortgage servicing rights asset Servicing fees 13,796 (5,424) 19,551 597,163 $ 14,349 (4,304) 13,336 456,776 $ (11,132) — 3,237 537,497 $ (553) (1,120) 6,215 140,387 $ 25,481 (4,304) 10,099 (80,721) $ Net gains on sale of loans and mortgage origination fees increased 32.7% and 23.3% during 2015, respectively, compared with 2014. These increases were primarily a result of increases of 29.2% and 28.8% in total loan sales and origination volumes, respectively, during 2015, in addition to an approximate 3% increase in average loan sales margins and an approximate 4% decrease in average loan origination fees, compared with 2014. Net gains on sale of loans and mortgage origination fees decreased 20.5% and 21.0% during 2014, respectively, compared with 2013. The decrease in 74 net gains on sale of loans during 2014 was primarily a result of a 15.6% decrease in total loan sales volume, in addition to an approximate 6% decrease in average loan sales margins, compared with 2013. The decrease in mortgage loan origination fees during 2014 was primarily a result of a 12.1% decrease in total loan origination volume, in addition to an approximate 10% decrease in average loan origination fees, compared with 2013. Average combined loan sales margins and origination fees began to decrease during the fourth quarter of 2013 and continued to decrease through the second quarter of 2014. While these average margins increased during the last six months of 2014, surpassing average margins recognized during the fourth quarter of 2013, these average margins did not return to levels recognized during the first three quarters of 2013. Noninterest income included increases of $13.8 million and $14.3 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, compared with a decrease of $11.1 million during 2013, in the net fair value of the mortgage origination segment’s interest rate lock commitments (“IRLCs”) and loans held for sale and the related activity associated with forward commitments used by the mortgage origination segment to mitigate interest rate risk associated with its IRLCs and mortgage loans held for sale. The increases during 2015 and 2014 were primarily a result of increases in the volume of IRLCs and mortgage loans held during these periods, in addition to increases in the average value of individual IRLCs and mortgage loans. The decrease during 2013 in net fair value was primarily the result of a decrease in the volume of IRLCs and mortgage loans held during this period, partially offset by an increase in the average value of individual IRLCs and mortgage loans. The mortgage origination segment sells substantially all mortgage loans it originates to various investors in the secondary market, the majority servicing released. During the six months ended June 30, 2013, the mortgage origination segment retained servicing on approximately 8% of loans sold. This rate increased to approximately 22% during the third and fourth quarters of 2013, and approximately 31% during 2014 before decreasing to approximately 20% during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and approximately 7% during the fourth quarter of 2015. The mortgage origination segment’s determination of whether to retain or release servicing on mortgage loans it sells is impacted by, among other things, changes in mortgage interest rates, and refinancing and market activity. The related mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”) asset was valued at $53.5 million on $5.2 billion of serviced loan volume at December 31, 2015, compared with a value of $37.4 million on $3.8 billion of serviced loan volume at December 31, 2014. The mortgage origination segment may, from time to time, manage its MSR asset through different strategies, including varying the percentage of mortgage loans sold servicing released and opportunistically selling MSR assets. The mortgage origination segment has also retained servicing on certain loans sold to the banking segment. Gains and losses associated with such sales to the banking segment and the related MSR asset are eliminated in consolidation. During the third quarter of 2014, the mortgage origination segment began using derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swaps, swaptions and forward commitments to sell mortgage-backed securities, as a means to mitigate market risk associated with its MSR asset. Changes in the net fair value of the MSR asset and the related derivatives resulted in net losses of $5.4 million and $4.3 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. These net losses were offset by net servicing income of $8.9 million and $6.6 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. In July 2014, the mortgage origination segment sold MSR assets of $11.4 million, which represented $1.0 billion of its serviced loan volume at that time. Noninterest expenses were $539.3 million, $431.8 million and $472.3 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and were comprised of the following (in thousands). Variable compensation Segment operating costs Unreimbursed closing costs Servicing expense $ $ 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 164,394 $ 226,721 33,947 6,758 431,820 $ 228,590 $ 263,049 37,010 10,608 539,257 $ 2013 186,150 $ 254,320 30,095 1,719 472,284 $ Variance 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 (21,756) (27,599) 3,852 5,039 (40,464) 64,196 $ 36,328 3,063 3,850 107,437 $ Employees’ compensation and benefits accounted for the majority of the noninterest expenses incurred during all periods presented. Variable compensation increased $64.2 million during 2015, compared with 2014, and comprised 62.2% and 57.8% of the total employees’ compensation and benefits expenses during 2015 and 2014, respectively. Variable compensation decreased $21.8 million during 2014, compared with 2013, and comprised 58.2% of the total employees’ compensation and benefits expenses during 2013. Variable compensation tends to fluctuate to a greater degree than loan origination volumes because mortgage loan originator and fulfillment staff incentive compensation plans are structured to pay at increasing rates as higher monthly volume tiers are achieved. 75 While total loan origination volumes increased 28.8% during 2015, compared with 2014, the mortgage origination segment’s operating costs increased 16.0%. The largest increases in segment operating costs during 2015, compared with 2014, were increases in employee compensation and benefits totaling $18.9 million. The remaining increases in segment operating costs during 2015, compared with 2014, were primarily increases in costs associated with loan servicing, loan production, advertising and business development, and technology initiatives. During 2014, compared with 2013, segment operating costs decreased 10.9%, while total loan origination volumes decreased 12.1%. Employee compensation and benefits decreased $14.5 million during 2014, compared with 2013, primarily as a result of headcount reductions in the third and fourth quarters of 2013. The remaining decreases in segment operating costs during 2014, compared with 2013, were primarily decreases in costs associated with general administration. Segment operating costs tend to fluctuate with, but at a lesser magnitude than, loan origination volume, as these costs are comprised of salaries, benefits, occupancy and administrative costs, which are not normally highly sensitive to changes in loan origination volume. The mortgage origination segment records unreimbursed closing costs as noninterest expense when it pays a customer’s closing costs. Unreimbursed closing costs are generally paid in return for the customer choosing to accept a higher interest rate on the customer’s mortgage loan, and as a result, unreimbursed closing costs typically increase as mortgage interest rates decrease and decrease as mortgage interest rates increase, subject to other market forces that may cause this relationship to differ in the short-term. Between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, the mortgage origination segment sold mortgage loans totaling $76.1 billion. These loans were sold under sales contracts that generally include provisions that hold the mortgage origination segment responsible for errors or omissions relating to its representations and warranties that loans sold meet certain requirements, including representations as to underwriting standards and the validity of certain borrower representations in connection with the loan. In addition, the sales contracts typically require the refund of purchased servicing rights plus certain investor servicing costs if a loan experiences an early payment default. While the mortgage origination segment sold loans prior to 2006, it does not anticipate experiencing significant losses in the future on loans originated prior to 2006 as a result of investor claims under these provisions of its sales contracts. When an investor claim for indemnification of a loan sold is made, the mortgage origination segment evaluates the claim and determines if the claim can be satisfied through additional documentation or other deliverables. If the claim cannot be satisfied in that manner, the mortgage origination segment negotiates with the investor to reach a settlement of the claim. Settlements typically result in either the repurchase of a loan or reimbursement to the investor for losses incurred on the loan. Following is a summary of the mortgage origination segment’s claims resolution activity relating to loans sold between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015 (dollars in thousands). Claims resolved with no payment $ 219,756 0.29% $ % of Loans Amount Sold % of Loans Amount Sold — 0.00% Original Loan Balance Loss Recognized Claims resolved as a result of a loan repurchase or payment to an investor for losses incurred (1) 244,528 0.32% 464,284 0.61% $ 27,909 0.04% 27,909 0.04% $ (1) Losses incurred include refunded purchased servicing rights. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the mortgage origination segment’s indemnification liability reserve totaled $16.6 million and $17.6 million, respectively. The related provision for indemnification losses was $4.0 million, $3.1 million, and $3.5 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 76 Insurance Segment Income before income taxes in our insurance segment was $15.7 million, $25.7 million and $7.6 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Included within noninterest income of the insurance segment during 2013 was the recognition of a non-recurring gain of $3.7 million. This non-recurring gain, which was eliminated upon consolidation, was due to our redemption during the fourth quarter of 2013 of $6.9 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.50% Senior Exchangeable Notes due 2025 (the “Exchangeable Notes”) of HTH Operating Partnership LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop, which were held by our insurance subsidiaries. The insurance segment is subject to claims arising out of severe weather, the incidence and severity of which are inherently unpredictable. Generally, the insurance segment’s insured risks exhibit higher losses in the second and third calendar quarters due to a seasonal concentration of weather-related events in its primary geographic markets. Although weather-related losses (including hail, high winds, tornadoes and hurricanes) can occur in any calendar quarter, the second calendar quarter, historically, has experienced the highest frequency of losses associated with these events. Hurricanes, however, are more likely to occur in the third calendar quarter of the year. The insurance segment periodically reviews the pricing of its primary products in each state of operation utilizing a consulting actuarial firm to supplement normal review processes resulting in filings to increase rates as deemed necessary. The benefit of these rate actions are not fully realized until all customers renew their policies under the new rates, typically one year from the date of rate change implementation. Concurrently, business concentrations are reviewed and actions initiated, including cancellation of agents, non-renewal of policies and cessation of new business writing on certain products in problematic geographic areas. Rate actions have historically reduced the rate of premium growth for targeted areas when compared with the patterns exhibited in prior quarters and years and reduced the insurance segment’s exposure to volatile weather in these areas, but competition and customer response to rate increases has negatively impacted customer retention and new business. The insurance segment aims to manage and diversify its business concentrations and products to minimize the effects of future weather-related events. While the insurance segment had positive earnings during each of 2013, 2014 and 2015, the changes experienced in operating results between periods were primarily a result of changes in growth rates of earned premium and claims loss experience associated with the general severity of severe weather-related events. During 2015, compared with 2014, earned premiums declined and claims loss experience worsened, while during 2014, compared with 2013, earned premiums grew and claims loss experience improved. Based on our estimates of the ultimate losses, claims associated with severe weather-related events during 2015 totaled $35.3 million through December 31, 2015, with a net loss, after reinsurance, of $26.2 million during 2015. During 2014, and based on our estimates of the ultimate losses, claims associated with severe weather-related events totaled $21.7 million through December 31, 2014, with a net loss, after reinsurance, of $19.9 million during 2014. The insurance segment had positive results during 2013, despite experiencing three tornado, wind and hail storms during the second quarter of 2013. Based on estimates of the ultimate cost, two of these storms are considered catastrophic losses as they exceeded our $8 million reinsurance retention during the third quarter of 2013. The estimate of ultimate losses from these storms totaled $26.5 million through December 31, 2013 with a net loss, after reinsurance, of $22.1 million. The insurance segment’s operations resulted in combined ratios of 94.9% during 2015, compared with 89.3% and 102.6% during 2014 and 2013, respectively. The increase in the combined ratio during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily driven by the effects of a decrease in net insurance premiums earned, an increase in frequency and severity of severe weather events in our geographic coverage area, an increase in claims loss reserves associated with prior period adverse development related to litigation emerging from a series of hail storms within the 2012 through 2014 accident years, and additional costs associated with sales, marketing and corporate organizational initiatives. The year-over-year improvement in the combined ratios between 2014 and 2013 was primarily driven by the increase in net earned premiums and improvement in our claims loss experience. The combined ratio is a measure of overall insurance underwriting profitability, and represents the sum of loss and LAE and underwriting expenses divided by net insurance premiums earned. Noninterest income of $171.2 million, $173.6 million and $166.2 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, included net insurance premiums earned of $162.1 million, $164.5 million and $157.5 million, respectively. The decrease in net insurance premiums earned during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to the effect of decreases in direct insurance premiums written, while the increase in earned premiums during 2014, compared with 2013, was primarily attributable to rate and volume increases in homeowners and mobile home products. 77 Direct insurance premiums written by major product line are presented in the table below (in thousands). Direct Insurance Premiums Written: Homeowners Fire Mobile Home Commercial Other Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Variance 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 $ $ 72,939 52,167 38,161 3,536 222 167,025 $ $ 76,250 54,375 37,611 3,973 255 172,464 $ $ 79,711 54,566 34,940 4,489 276 173,982 $ $ (3,311) (2,208) 550 (437) (33) (5,439) $ $ (3,461) (191) 2,671 (516) (21) (1,518) The total direct insurance premiums written for our three largest insurance product lines decreased by $5.0 million during 2015, compared with 2014, due to efforts to reduce concentrations both geographically and within specific product lines, agent management initiatives and competitive pressure. During 2014, total direct insurance premiums written for our three largest insurance product lines decreased by $1.0 million compared to 2013. This decrease was due to efforts to reduce concentrations both geographically and within specific product lines. Net insurance premiums earned by major product line are presented in the table below (in thousands). Net Insurance Premiums Earned: Homeowners Fire Mobile Home Commercial Other Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Variance 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 $ $ 70,781 50,623 37,032 3,431 215 162,082 $ $ 72,739 51,871 35,880 3,790 244 164,524 $ $ 72,175 49,407 31,636 4,065 250 157,533 $ $ (1,958) (1,248) 1,152 (359) (29) (2,442) $ $ 564 2,464 4,244 (275) (6) 6,991 Net insurance premiums earned during 2015 decreased compared to 2014 primarily due to the decreases in net insurance premiums written during 2015. Net insurance premiums earned during 2014 increased compared to 2013 primarily due to the increases in net insurance premiums written of $0.9 million in 2014. However, during the fourth quarter of 2014, compared with the same period in 2013, net insurance premiums earned were relatively flat. The reduction in net insurance premiums earned when compared with the patterns exhibited in prior quarters and years was consistent with the insurance segment’s previously discussed efforts to manage and diversify its business concentrations and products to minimize the effects of future weather-related events. Noninterest expenses of $158.7 million, $151.5 million and $166.0 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, include both loss and LAE expenses and policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses, as well as other noninterest expenses. Loss and LAE are recognized based on formula and case basis estimates for losses reported with respect to direct business, estimates of unreported losses based on past experience and deduction of amounts for reinsurance placed with reinsurers. Loss and LAE during 2015 was $99.1 million, compared to $94.4 million and $110.8 million during 2014 and 2013, respectively. As a result, the loss and LAE ratio during 2015, 2014 and 2013 was 61.1%, 57.4% and 70.3%, respectively. The increase in the loss and LAE ratio during 2015, compared with 2014, was primarily due to the effects of net insurance premiums earned being relatively flat, the increase in frequency and severity of severe weather events in our geographic coverage area and the increase in claims loss reserves associated with prior period adverse development related to litigation emerging from a series of hail storms within the 2012 through 2014 accident years. The ratio improvements during 2014, compared with 2013, were primarily a result of growth in earned premium and improved claims loss experience associated with the significant decline in the severity of severe weather-related events during 2014 and the improved containment of expected losses during 2013 from the prior year weather events. The insurance segment seeks to generate underwriting profitability. Management evaluates NLC’s loss and LAE ratio by bifurcating the losses to derive catastrophic and non-catastrophic loss ratios. The non-catastrophic loss ratio excludes Property Claims Services events that exceed $1.0 million of losses to NLC. Catastrophic events, including those that do not exceed our reinsurance retention, affect insurance segment loss ratios. During 2015, catastrophic events that did not exceed reinsurance retention accounted for $26.2 million of the total loss and LAE, as compared to $19.9 million and $22.6 million during 2014 and 2013, respectively. The inclusion of catastrophic events increased insurance segment combined ratios by 16.2%, 14.1% and 14.3% during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 78 Policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses encompass all expenses incurred relative to NLC operations, and include elements of multiple categories of expense otherwise reported as noninterest expense in the consolidated statements of operations. The following table details the calculation of the underwriting expense ratio for the periods presented (dollars in thousands). Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs Other underwriting expenses Total Agency expenses Total less agency expenses Net insurance premiums earned Expense ratio $ $ $ $ Year Ended December 31, 2014 41,609 13,823 55,432 (3,023) 52,409 164,524 2015 40,258 17,609 57,867 (3,128) 54,739 162,082 $ $ $ 31.9 % $ $ 33.8 % 2013 40,592 12,859 53,451 (2,571) 50,880 157,533 Variance 2015 vs 2014 2014 vs 2013 $ $ $ (1,351) 3,786 2,435 (105) 2,330 (2,442) $ $ $ 1,017 964 1,981 (452) 1,529 6,991 32.3 % 1.9 % (0.4) % 79 Corporate Corporate includes certain activities not allocated to specific business segments. These activities include holding company financing and investing activities, and management and administrative services to support the overall operations of the Company including, but not limited to, certain executive management, corporate relations, legal, finance, and acquisition costs. As a holding company, Hilltop’s primary investment objectives are to preserve capital and have cash resources available to make acquisitions. Investment and interest income earned, primarily from available cash and available-for-sale securities, including our note receivable from SWS, was $0.4 million, $5.2 million and $6.6 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. On October 2, 2014, Hilltop exercised its warrant to purchase 8,695,652 shares of SWS common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share (the “SWS Warrant”). The aggregate exercise price was paid by the automatic elimination of the $50.0 million aggregate principal amount note receivable from SWS. Consequently, recurring quarterly investment and interest income of $1.6 million were no longer recognized beginning in the fourth calendar quarter of 2014. Investment and interest income during 2015 primarily consisted of intercompany interest earned on a loan to First Southwest that was paid off in January 2016. On April 9, 2015, as previously discussed, Hilltop completed its offering of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes and used the net proceeds of the offering to redeem all of its outstanding Series B Preferred Stock at an aggregate liquidation value of $114.1 million, plus accrued but unpaid dividends of $0.4 million. Consequently, recurring annual interest expense of $7.5 million will be incurred. Interest expense related to the Senior Notes was $5.5 million during 2015. Interest expense of $8.2 million during 2013 was due to interest costs associated with the Exchangeable Notes of HTH Operating Partnership LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop. During 2013, interest expense included the recognition of a non-recurring charge of $2.1 million due to the write-off of remaining unamortized loan origination fees associated with all outstanding Exchangeable Notes being called for redemption during the fourth quarter of 2013. Noninterest income was $81.3 million and $6.0 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively. Noninterest income during 2015 represents the recognition of a bargain purchase gain related to the SWS Merger of $81.3 million. Included in the bargain purchase gain is a reversal of a $33.4 million valuation allowance against SWS deferred tax assets. This amount is based on our expected ability to realize these acquired deferred tax assets through our consolidated core earnings, the implementation of certain tax planning strategies and reversal of timing differences. SWS’s net operating loss carryforwards are subject to an annual Section 382 limitation on their usage because of the ownership change. Following the exercise of the SWS Warrant, Hilltop owned approximately 21% of the outstanding shares of SWS common stock as of October 2, 2014. Contemporaneous with the exercise of the SWS Warrant, Hilltop changed the accounting method for its investment in SWS common stock and elected to account for its investment in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Value Option Subsections of the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) (the “Fair Value Option”) as permitted by GAAP. Hilltop had previously accounted for its investment in SWS common stock as an available for sale security. Under the Fair Value Option, Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock is recorded at fair value effective October 2, 2014, with changes in fair value being recorded in other noninterest income within the consolidated statement of operations rather than as a component of other comprehensive income. Hilltop’s election to apply the provisions of the Fair Value Option resulted in Hilltop recording those unrealized gains previously associated with its investment in SWS common stock of $7.2 million. For the period from October 3, 2014 through December 31, 2014, the change in fair value of Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock resulted in a loss of $1.2 million. In the aggregate, Hilltop recorded a $6.0 million net gain in other noninterest income during 2014. Noninterest expenses of $31.9 million, $13.9 million and $10.4 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, were primarily comprised of employees’ compensation and benefits and professional fees, including corporate governance, legal and transaction costs. During 2015, compared with 2014, noninterest expenses included year-over-year increases in employees’ compensation and benefits costs of $3.4 million associated with increases in headcount and incentive compensation costs, as well as transaction and integration-related costs directly attributable to the SWS Merger. During 2015, Hilltop incurred pre-tax transaction costs related to the SWS Merger of $12.9 million and pre-tax integration- related costs associated with professional fees of $0.5 million, compared with $1.4 million in pre-tax transaction costs related to the SWS Merger during 2014. During 2013, noninterest expenses included the recognition of a non-recurring loss of $3.7 million associated with the Exchangeable Notes held by our insurance segment being called for redemption during the fourth quarter of 2013. This loss was eliminated in consolidation. 80 Financial Condition The following discussion contains a more detailed analysis of our financial condition at December 31, 2015 as compared to December 31, 2014 and 2013. Securities Portfolio At December 31, 2015, investment securities consisted of securities of the U.S. Treasury, U.S. government and its agencies, obligations of municipalities and other political subdivisions, primarily in the State of Texas, mortgage- backed, corporate debt, and equity securities. We may categorize investments as trading, available for sale, and held to maturity. Trading securities are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near term and are carried at fair value, marked to market through operations and held at the Bank and the Hilltop Broker-Dealers. Securities that may be sold in response to changes in market interest rates, changes in securities’ prepayment risk, increases in loan demand, general liquidity needs and other similar factors are classified as available for sale and are carried at estimated fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Securities are classified as held to maturity based on the intent and ability of our management, at the time of purchase, to hold such securities to maturity. These securities are carried at amortized cost. The table below summarizes our securities portfolio (in thousands). Trading securities, at fair value U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Corporate debt securities States and political subdivisions Unit investment trusts Private-label securitized product Other Securities available for sale, at fair value U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Corporate debt securities States and political subdivisions Commercial mortgage-backed securities Equity securities Note receivable Warrant Securities held to maturity, at amortized cost U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations States and political subdivisions Total securities portfolio 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 $ 20,481 $ — $ — 36,244 12,505 19,280 264 34,735 58,588 18,400 12,324 1,325 214,146 — 5,126 19,932 — 4 40,616 — — 39 65,717 — 4,573 19,926 — 1 34,313 — — 33 58,846 44,603 19,613 43,528 296,636 35,853 9,207 52,701 97,950 118,725 531 17,500 — — 673,706 516,241 41,843 11,055 87,124 98,472 136,785 640 13,762 — — 925,535 662,732 48,678 11,409 120,461 76,608 156,835 760 22,079 47,909 12,144 1,203,143 25,146 25,008 — 69,379 23,735 18,658 167,541 27,563 332,022 1,219,874 — 29,782 — 57,328 6,091 118,209 1,109,461 $ $ — — — — — — 1,261,989 $ 81 We had net unrealized gains of $3.7 million and $0.8 million related to the available for sale investment portfolio at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, compared with a net unrealized loss of $53.7 million at December 31, 2013. The significant change in the net unrealized gain (loss) position of our available for sale investment portfolio during 2014 was due to the effects of decreases in market interest rates that resulted in an increase in the fair value of our debt securities. As previously discussed, Hilltop’s election to apply the provisions of the Fair Value Option for its investment in SWS common stock effective October 2, 2014, resulted in Hilltop recording an unrealized net gain of $7.2 million associated with its investment in SWS common stock during 2014. Therefore, Hilltop’s securities portfolio included its $70.3 million investment in SWS common stock in other assets within the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2014. The net unrealized loss associated with the securities held to maturity portfolio was $0.6 million at December 31, 2015, compared with a net unrealized gain of $0.1 million at December 31, 2014. Banking Segment The banking segment’s securities portfolio plays a role in the management of our interest rate sensitivity and generates additional interest income. In addition, the securities portfolio is used to meet collateral requirements for public and trust deposits, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and other purposes. The available for sale securities portfolio serves as a source of liquidity. Historically, the Bank’s policy has been to invest primarily in securities of the U.S. government and its agencies, obligations of municipalities in the State of Texas and other high grade fixed income securities to minimize credit risk. At December 31, 2015, the banking segment’s securities portfolio of $882.3 million was comprised of trading securities of $19.9 million, available for sale securities of $530.4 million and held to maturity securities of $332.0 million. Broker-Dealer Segment Our broker-dealer segment holds securities to support sales, underwriting and other customer activities. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers are required to carry their securities at fair value and record changes in the fair value of the portfolio in operations. Accordingly, the securities portfolio of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers included trading securities of $194.2 million at December 31, 2015. In addition, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers enter into transactions that represent commitments to purchase and deliver securities at prevailing future market prices to facilitate customer transactions and satisfy such commitments. Accordingly, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers’ ultimate obligation may exceed the amount recognized in the financial statements. These securities, which are carried at fair value and reported as securities sold, not yet purchased in the consolidated balance sheet, had a value of $130.0 million at December 31, 2015. Insurance Segment Our insurance segment’s primary investment objective is to preserve capital and manage for a total rate of return. NLC’s strategy is to purchase securities in sectors that represent the most attractive relative value. Our insurance segment invests the premiums it receives from policyholders until they are needed to pay policyholder claims or other expenses. At December 31, 2015, the insurance segment’s securities portfolio was comprised of $143.2 million in available for sale securities and $7.2 million of other investments included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheet. 82 The following table sets forth the estimated maturities of our debt securities, excluding trading securities, at December 31, 2015. Contractual maturities may be different (dollars in thousands, yields are tax-equivalent). One Year One Year to Five Years to Greater Than Or Less Ten Years Five Years Ten Years Total U.S. Treasury securities: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield U.S. government agencies: Bonds: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Residential mortgage-backed securities: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Commercial mortgage-backed securities: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Collateralized mortgage obligations: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Corporate debt securities: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield States and political subdivisions: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Commercial mortgage-backed securities: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Total securities portfolio: Amortized cost Fair value Weighted average yield Non-Covered Loan Portfolio $ 55,006 54,989 $ 9,620 9,599 $ 4,950 5,131 $ 0.55 % 0.94 % 2.65 % — — — $ 69,576 69,719 0.75 % 1,937 1,949 1.60 % $ 21,156 21,330 $ 12,118 13,087 $ 331,616 329,422 $ 366,827 365,788 1.60 % 3.55 % 2.23 % 2.23 % $ 2 2 — % $ 386 392 2.85 % 988 1,064 3.74 % $ $ — — — — — — 198 198 1.01 % 567 570 1.59 % 7,380 7,459 4.04 % 3,240 3,240 0.93 % — — — $ 39,516 41,453 $ $ 4.27 % 3,883 3,891 1.85 % — — — $ $ $ $ $ 22,560 22,511 3.01 % 9,146 9,153 1.29 % 47,064 48,080 3.39 % 14,071 14,261 2.51 % — — — 67,565 67,639 $ 75,326 77,433 $ 110,897 113,287 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 57,223 58,441 $ 58,599 59,899 3.14 % 3.14 % 5,074 5,091 $ 27,832 27,800 3.37 % 3.06 % 212,125 209,851 $ 221,838 219,574 1.98 % 1.95 % 917 958 6.22 % $ 94,877 97,950 3.84 % 122,615 125,021 $ 143,809 146,413 2.49 % 2.44 % $ 498 531 6.22 % 498 531 6.22 % 730,068 729,315 $ 983,856 987,674 0.98 % 2.94 % 3.01 % 2.29 % 2.33 % Consolidated non-covered loans held for investment are detailed in the table below, classified by portfolio segment and segregated between those considered to be PCI loans and all other originated or acquired loans (in thousands). PCI loans showed evidence of credit deterioration on the date of acquisition that made it probable that all contractually required principal and interest payments will not be collected. December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Non-covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses Non-covered loans, net of allowance 83 Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans $ 2,142,423 $ 13,350 $ 2,155,773 2,313,239 705,356 45,672 5,220,040 (45,415) $ 5,107,057 $ 67,568 $ 5,174,625 2,260,464 700,206 44,893 5,147,986 (40,929) 52,775 5,150 779 72,054 (4,486) December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Non-covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses Non-covered loans, net of allowance December 31, 2013 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Non-covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses Non-covered loans, net of allowance Banking Segment Total Loans Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans $ 1,745,409 $ 13,442 $ 1,758,851 1,694,835 413,643 53,147 3,920,476 (37,041) $ 3,839,845 $ 43,590 $ 3,883,435 1,670,684 404,465 51,009 3,871,567 (31,722) 24,151 9,178 2,138 48,909 (5,319) Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans $ 1,600,450 $ 36,816 $ 1,637,266 1,457,253 364,551 55,576 3,514,646 (33,241) $ 3,384,150 $ 97,255 $ 3,481,405 1,418,003 344,734 51,067 3,414,254 (30,104) 39,250 19,817 4,509 100,392 (3,137) The loan portfolio constitutes the major earning asset of the banking segment and typically offers the best alternative for obtaining the maximum interest spread above the banking segment’s cost of funds. The overall economic strength of the banking segment generally parallels the quality and yield of its loan portfolio. The banking segment’s loan portfolio consists of the non-covered loan portfolio and the covered loan portfolio. The covered loan portfolio consists of loans acquired in the FNB Transaction that are subject to loss-share agreements with the FDIC and is discussed below. The non-covered loan portfolio includes all other loans held by the Bank and is discussed herein. The banking segment’s total non-covered loans, net of the allowance for non-covered loan losses, were $5.9 billion, $4.7 billion and $4.2 billion at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The banking segment’s non-covered loan portfolio includes a $1.5 billion warehouse line of credit extended to PrimeLending, of which $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion was drawn at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. At December 31, 2013, the banking segment’s non- covered loan portfolio included $1.0 billion drawn against the PrimeLending warehouse line of credit, as well as term loans to First Southwest that had outstanding balances of $23.0 million. Amounts advanced against the warehouse line of credit and the First Southwest term loan are eliminated from net loans on our consolidated balance sheets. The banking segment does not generally participate in syndicated loan transactions and has no foreign loans in its portfolio. At December 31, 2015, the banking segment had non-covered loan concentrations (loans to borrowers engaged in similar activities) that exceeded 10% of total non-covered loans in its real estate portfolio. The areas of concentration within our non-covered real estate portfolio were non-construction commercial real estate loans, non-construction residential real estate loans, and construction and land development loans, which represented 30.1%, 14.2% and 13.5%, respectively, of the banking segment’s total non-covered loans at December 31, 2015. The banking segment’s non- covered loan concentrations were within regulatory guidelines at December 31, 2015. Broker-Dealer Segment The loan portfolio of the broker-dealer segment consists primarily of margin loans to customers and correspondents that are included within the commercial and industrial portfolio segment in the table above. These loans are collateralized by the securities purchased or by other securities owned by the clients and, because of collateral coverage ratios, are believed to present minimal collectability exposure. Additionally, these loans are subject to a number of regulatory requirements as well as the Hilltop Broker-Dealers’ internal policies. The broker-dealer segment’s total non-covered loans, net of the allowance for non-covered loan losses, were $602.8 million, $378.3 million and $281.6 million at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The increase during 2015, compared to 2014, was primarily attributable to the inclusion of the assets acquired in the SWS Merger. The increase during 2014, compared to 2013, was primarily attributable to increased borrowings in margin accounts held by FSC customers and correspondents. 84 Mortgage Origination Segment The loan portfolio of the mortgage origination segment consists of loans held for sale, primarily single-family residential mortgages funded through PrimeLending, and IRLCs with customers pursuant to which we agree to originate a mortgage loan on a future date at an agreed-upon interest rate. The components of the mortgage origination segment’s loans held for sale and IRLCs are as follows (in thousands). Loans held for sale: Unpaid principal balance Fair value adjustment IRLCs: Unpaid principal balance Fair value adjustment 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 $ 1,410,445 50,390 $ 1,460,835 $ 1,218,792 53,360 $ 1,272,152 $ 1,037,528 21,555 $ 1,059,083 $ $ 944,942 23,762 968,704 $ $ 621,216 17,057 638,273 $ $ 602,467 12,151 614,618 The mortgage origination segment uses forward commitments to mitigate interest rate risk associated with its loans held for sale and IRLCs. The notional amounts of these forward commitments at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $2.0 billion, $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, while the related estimated fair values were ($1.2) million, ($11.1) million and $10.5 million, respectively. Covered Loan Portfolio Banking Segment Loans acquired in the FNB Transaction that are subject to loss-share agreements with the FDIC are referred to as “covered loans” and reported separately in our consolidated balance sheets. Under the terms of the loss-share agreements, the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Bank the following amounts with respect to the covered assets (including covered loans): (i) 80% of net losses on the first $240.4 million of net losses incurred; (ii) 0% of net losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of net losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of net losses in excess of $365.7 million of net losses incurred. Net losses are defined as book value losses plus certain defined expenses incurred in the resolution of assets, less subsequent recoveries. Under the loss-share agreement for commercial assets, the amount of subsequent recoveries that are reimbursable to the FDIC for a particular asset is limited to book value losses and expenses actually billed plus any book value charge-offs incurred prior to the Bank Closing Date. There is no limit on the amount of subsequent recoveries reimbursable to the FDIC under the loss-share agreement for single family residential assets. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential assets are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if our actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank estimated that the sum of covered losses and reimbursable expenses subject to the loss-share agreements will exceed $240.4 million, but will not exceed $365.7 million. Unless actual plus projected covered losses and reimbursable expenses exceed $365.7 million, the Bank will not record additional amounts to the FDIC Indemnification Asset. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank had billed $125.4 million of covered net losses to the FDIC, of which 80%, or $100.3 million, were reimbursable under the loss-share agreements. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank had received aggregate reimbursements of $100.3 million from the FDIC. While the ultimate amount of any “true- up” payment is unknown at this time and will vary based upon the amount of future losses or recoveries within our covered loan portfolio, the Bank has recorded a related “true-up” payment accrual of $5.5 million at December 31, 2015 based on the current estimate of aggregate realized losses on covered assets over the life of the loss-share agreements. Additionally, as estimates of realized losses on covered assets change, the value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset will be adjusted and therefore may not be realized. If the Bank continues to experience favorable resolutions within its covered assets portfolio and covered losses are lower than currently estimated, the Bank may be required to increase its “true-up” payment accrual and recognize negative accretion (amortization) on the FDIC Indemnification Asset. These changes will be partially offset by increased discount accretion on the covered loan portfolio. 85 In connection with the FNB Transaction, the Bank acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. Based on purchase date valuations, the banking segment’s portfolio of acquired covered loans had a fair value of $1.1 billion as of the Bank Closing Date, with no carryover of any allowance for loan losses. Unless the banking segment acquires additional loans subject to loss-share agreements with the FDIC, the covered portfolio will continue to decrease as covered loans are liquidated. Covered loans held for investment are detailed in the table below and classified by portfolio segment (in thousands). Covered loans, net of allowance $ Covered loans, net of allowance $ December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses December 31, 2013 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Non-covered loans, gross Allowance for loan losses Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans 1,294 $ 7,507 $ 147,502 9,524 — 158,320 (32) 8,801 341,048 193,546 30,445 20,921 — — 380,294 221,974 (1,532) (1,500) 158,288 $ 220,474 $ 378,762 Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans $ $ 10,345 $ 20,435 $ 30,780 552,850 183,886 368,964 59,010 13,021 45,989 — — — 642,640 207,252 435,388 (4,611) (77) (4,534) 207,175 $ 430,854 $ 638,029 Loans, excluding PCI Loans $ PCI Loans Total Loans 66,943 787,982 564,678 151,444 126,068 — — 1,006,369 729,156 (1,061) (882) 277,034 $ 728,274 $ 1,005,308 28,533 $ 38,410 $ 223,304 25,376 — 277,213 (179) Non-covered loans, net of allowance $ At December 31, 2015, the banking segment had covered loan concentrations (loans to borrowers engaged in similar activities) that exceeded 10% of total covered loans in its real estate portfolio. The areas of concentration within our covered real estate portfolio were non-construction residential real estate loans and non-construction commercial real estate loans, which represented 56.6% and 33.1%, respectively, of the banking segment’s total covered loans at December 31, 2015. The banking segment’s covered loan concentrations were within regulatory guidelines at December 31, 2015. 86 Loan Portfolio Maturities Banking Segment The following table provides information regarding the maturities of the banking segment’s non-covered and covered commercial and real estate loans held for investment, net of unearned income (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial Real estate (including construction and land development) Total Fixed rate loans Floating rate loans Total Due Within One Year $ 2,605,998 $ Due From One Due After Five Years To Five Years Total 275,598 $ 50,826 $ 2,932,422 1,429,888 3,392,124 $ 4,035,886 $ 1,441,796 $ 846,864 $ 6,324,546 1,166,198 796,038 $ 3,256,294 $ 1,391,934 $ 836,663 $ 5,484,891 839,655 $ 4,035,887 $ 1,441,796 $ 846,863 $ 6,324,546 779,593 10,200 49,862 In the table above, floating rate loans that have reached their applicable rate floor or ceiling are classified as fixed rate loans rather than floating rate loans. The majority of floating rate loans carry an interest rate tied to The Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, as published in The Wall Street Journal. Allowance for Loan Losses The allowance for loan losses is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense, which represents management’s best estimate of probable losses inherent in our existing non-covered and covered loan portfolios. Management has responsibility for determining the level of the allowance for loan losses, subject to review by the Loan Review Committee of the Bank’s board of directors. It is management’s responsibility at the end of each quarter, or more frequently as deemed necessary, to analyze the level of the allowance for loan losses to ensure that it is appropriate for the estimated credit losses in the portfolio. Estimated credit losses are the probable current amount of loans that we will be unable to collect given facts and circumstances as of the evaluation date. When management determines that a loan, or portion thereof, is uncollectible, the loan, or portion thereof, is charged-off against the allowance for loan losses, or for acquired loans accounted for in pools, charged against the pool discount. Recoveries on charge-offs of loans acquired in the Bank Transactions that occurred prior to their acquisition represent contractual cash flows not expected to be collected and are recorded as accretion income. Recoveries on acquired loans charged-off subsequent to their acquisition are credited to the allowance for loan loss, except for recoveries on loans accounted for in pools, which are credited to the pool discount. We have developed a methodology that seeks to determine an allowance within the scope of the Receivables and Contingencies Topics of the ASC. Each of the loans that has been determined to be impaired is within the scope of the Receivables Topic. Impaired loans that are equal to or greater than $0.5 million are individually evaluated using one of three impairment measurement methods as of the evaluation date: (1) the present value of expected future discounted cash flows on the loan, (2) the loan’s observable market price, or (3) the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Specific reserves are provided in our estimate of the allowance based on the measurement of impairment under these three methods, except for collateral dependent loans, which require the fair value method. All non-impaired loans are within the scope of the Contingencies Topic. Estimates of loss for the Contingencies Topic are calculated based on historical loss, adjusted for qualitative or environmental factors. The Bank uses a rolling three year average net loss rate to calculate historical loss factors. The analysis is conducted by call report loan category, and further disaggregates commercial and industrial loans by collateral type. The analysis uses net charge-off experience by considering charge-offs and recoveries in determining the loss rate. The historical loss calculation for the quarter is calculated by dividing the current quarter net charge-offs for each loan category by the quarter ended loan category balance. The Bank utilizes a weighted average loss rate to better represent recent trends. The Bank weights the most recent four quarter average at 120% versus the oldest four quarters at 80%. 87 While historical loss experience provides a reasonable starting point for the analysis, historical losses are not the sole basis upon which we determine the appropriate level for the allowance for loan losses. Management considers recent qualitative or environmental factors that are likely to cause estimated credit losses associated with the existing portfolio to differ from historical loss experience, including but not limited to: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) changes in the volume and severity of past due, nonaccrual and classified loans; changes in the nature, volume and terms of loans in the portfolio; changes in lending policies and procedures; changes in economic and business conditions and developments that affect the collectability of the portfolio; changes in lending management and staff; changes in the loan review system and the degree of oversight by the Bank’s board of directors; and any concentrations of credit and changes in the level of such concentrations. Changes in the volume and severity of past due, nonaccrual and classified loans, as well as changes in the nature, volume and terms of loans in the portfolio are key indicators of changes that could indicate a necessary adjustment to the historical loss factors. The magnitude of the impact of these factors on our qualitative assessment of the allowance for loan loss changes from quarter to quarter. The loan review program is designed to identify and monitor problem loans by maintaining a credit grading process, requiring that timely and appropriate changes are made to reviewed loans and coordinating the delivery of the information necessary to assess the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses. Loans are evaluated for impaired status when: (i) payments on the loan are delayed, typically by 90 days or more (unless the loan is both well secured and in the process of collection), (ii) the loan becomes classified, (iii) the loan is being reviewed in the normal course of the loan review scope, or (iv) the loan is identified by the servicing officer as a problem. We review on an individual basis all loan relationships equal to or greater than $0.5 million that exhibit probable or observed credit weaknesses, the top 25 loan relationships by dollar amount in each market we serve, and additional relationships necessary to achieve adequate coverage of our various lending markets. In connection with the Bank Transactions, we acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. PCI loans acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger are accounted for on an individual loan basis, while PCI loans acquired in each of the FNB Transaction and the SWS Merger are accounted for in pools as well as on an individual loan basis. We have established under our PCI accounting policy a framework to aggregate certain acquired loans into various loan pools based on a minimum of two layers of common risk characteristics for the purpose of determining their respective fair values as of their acquisition dates, and for applying the subsequent recognition and measurement provisions for income accretion and impairment testing. The common risk characteristics used for the pooling of the FNB and SWS PCI loans are risk grade and loan collateral type. The loans acquired in the Bank Transactions were initially recorded at fair value with no carryover of any allowance for loan losses. An allowance for loan losses on PCI loans is calculated using the quarterly recast of cash flows expected to be collected for each loan or pool. These evaluations require the continued use and updating of key assumptions and estimates such as default rates, loss severity given default and prepayment speed assumptions (similar to those used for the initial fair value estimate). Management judgment must be applied in developing these assumptions. If expected cash flows for a loan or pool decreases, an increase in the allowance for loan losses is made through a charge to the provision for loan losses. If expected cash flows for a loan or pool increase, any previously established allowance for loan losses is reversed and any remaining difference increases the accretable yield. This increase in accretable yield is taken into income over the remaining life of the loan. Loans without evidence of credit impairment at acquisition are subsequently evaluated for any required allowance at each reporting date. An allowance for loan losses is calculated using a methodology similar to that described above for originated loans. The allowance as determined for each loan collateral type is compared to the remaining fair value discount for that loan collateral type. If greater, the excess is recognized as an addition to the allowance through a provision for loan losses. If less than the discount, no additional allowance is recorded. Charge-offs and losses first reduce any remaining fair value discount for the loan and once the discount is depleted, losses are applied against the allowance established for that loan. Provisions for loan losses are charged to operations to record the total allowance for loan losses at a level deemed appropriate by the banking segment’s management based on such factors as the volume and type of lending it conducted, 88 the amount of non-performing loans and related collateral security, the present level of the allowance for loan losses, the results of recent regulatory examinations, generally accepted accounting principles, general economic conditions and other factors related to the ability to collect loans in its portfolio. The provision for loan losses, primarily in the banking segment, was $12.7 million, $16.9 million and $37.2 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The decrease in the provision for loan losses during 2014, compared with 2013, was attributable to lower charge-offs related to the pooling of PCI loans acquired in the FNB Transaction, lower originations and lower historical losses used in the calculation of the required reserve. The allowance for loan losses is subject to regulatory examination and determination as to adequacy, which may take into account such factors as the methodology used to calculate the allowance and the size of the allowance. While we believe we have an appropriate allowance for our existing non-covered and covered portfolios at December 31, 2015, additional provisions for losses on existing loans may be necessary in the future. The following tables present the activity in our allowance for loan losses within our non-covered and covered loan portfolios for the periods presented (in thousands). Substantially all of the activity shown below occurred within the banking segment. Non-Covered Portfolio Balance, beginning of year Provisions charged to operations Recoveries of non-covered loans previously charged off: Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total recoveries Non-covered loans charged off: Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total charge-offs Net charge-offs Balance, end of year Non-covered allowance for loan losses as a percentage of gross non- covered loans 2015 $ 37,041 12,173 Year Ended December 31, 2014 $ 33,241 7,747 $ 2013 3,409 36,093 3,681 520 — 127 4,328 2,944 218 185 105 3,452 3,439 282 265 61 4,047 7,144 605 — 378 8,127 (3,799) $ 45,415 6,926 114 — 359 7,399 (3,947) $ 37,041 9,359 209 524 216 10,308 (6,261) $ 33,241 0.87 % 0.94 % 0.95 % Covered Portfolio Balance, beginning of year Provisions charged to operations Recoveries of covered loans previously charged off: Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total recoveries Covered loans charged off: $ Year Ended December 31, 2014 1,061 9,186 2015 4,611 542 $ $ 222 120 — — 342 — — — — — 2013 — 1,065 — — — — — Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total charge-offs Net charge-offs Balance, end of year Covered allowance for loan losses as a percentage of gross covered loans 915 2,869 179 — 3,963 (3,621) 1,532 0.40 % $ 90 5,399 147 — 5,636 (5,636) 4,611 0.72 % $ 4 — — — 4 (4) 1,061 0.11 % $ 89 The distribution of the allowance for loan losses among loan types and the percentage of the loans for that type to gross loans, excluding unearned income, within our non-covered and covered loan portfolios are presented in the table below (dollars in thousands). 2015 % of Gross Non-Covered Loans December 31, 2014 % of Gross Non-Covered Loans Reserve 2013 % of Gross Non-Covered Loans Reserve 41.30 % $ 18,999 44.86 % $ 16,865 46.58 % Reserve $ 20,054 25,047 314 $ 45,415 57.83 % 17,581 461 0.87 % 100.00 % $ 37,041 53.78 % 16,288 88 1.36 % 100.00 % $ 33,241 51.84 % 1.58 % 100.00 % 2015 % of Gross Covered December 31, 2014 % of Gross 2013 % of Gross Covered Loans Reserve $ 758 loans Reserve Covered Loans Reserve 2.31 % $ 1,193 4.79 % $ 1,053 6.65 % 774 — 1,532 97.69 % — % 100.00 % $ 3,418 — 4,611 95.21 % — % 100.00 % $ 8 — 1,061 93.35 % — % 100.00 % $ Non-Covered Portfolio Commercial and industrial Real estate (including construction and land development) Consumer Total Covered Portfolio Commercial and industrial Real estate (including construction and land development) Consumer Total Potential Problem Loans Potential problem loans consist of loans that are performing in accordance with contractual terms but for which management has concerns about the ability of an obligor to continue to comply with repayment terms because of the obligor’s potential operating or financial difficulties. Management monitors these loans and reviews their performance on a regular basis. Potential problem loans contain potential weaknesses that could improve, persist or further deteriorate. If such potential weaknesses persist without improving, the loan is subject to downgrade, typically to substandard, in three to six months. Potential problem loans are assigned a grade of special mention within our risk grading matrix. Potential problem loans do not include PCI loans because PCI loans exhibited evidence of credit deterioration at acquisition that made it probable that all contractually required principal payments would not be collected. Within our non-covered loan portfolio, we had two credit relationships totaling $1.6 million of potential problem loans at December 31, 2015, compared with three credit relationships totaling $1.8 million of potential problem loans at December 31, 2014 and ten credit relationships totaling $24.7 million of potential problem loans at December 31, 2013. Within our covered loan portfolio, we had one credit relationship totaling $0.5 million of potential problem loans at December 31, 2015, compared with no credit relationships with potential problem loans at December 31, 2014 and two credit relationships totaling $3.3 million of potential problem loans at December 31, 2013. 90 Non-Performing Assets The following table presents components of our non-covered non-performing assets (dollars in thousands). Non-covered loans accounted for on a non-accrual basis: Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 $ $ 17,764 7,160 114 7 25,045 $ $ 16,648 4,707 703 — 22,058 $ $ 16,730 6,511 112 — 23,353 Non-covered non-performing loans as a percentage of total non-covered loans 0.37 % 0.42 % 0.51 % Non-covered other real estate owned Other repossessed assets $ 394 $ — $ $ 808 361 $ $ 4,805 13 Non-covered non-performing assets $ 25,439 $ 23,227 $ 28,171 Non-covered non-performing assets as a percentage of total assets 0.21 % 0.25 % 0.32 % Non-covered loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing $ 50,776 $ 19,237 Troubled debt restructurings included in accruing non-covered loans $ 1,418 $ 2,901 $ $ 7,301 1,055 At December 31, 2015, total non-covered non-performing assets increased $2.2 million to $25.4 million, compared with $23.2 million at December 31, 2014. Total non-covered non-performing assets decreased $5.0 million to $23.2 million at December 31, 2014, compared with $28.2 million at December 31, 2013, primarily due to a decrease in non-covered other real estate owned of $4.0 million. Non-covered non-performing loans totaled $25.0 million, $22.1 million and $23.4 million at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. At December 31, 2015, non-covered non-accrual loans included 20 commercial and industrial relationships with loans of $17.4 million secured by accounts receivable, inventory, life insurance, livestock, and oil and gas, and a total of $0.3 million in lease financing receivables. Non- covered non-accrual loans at December 31, 2015 also included $7.2 million of real estate loans, including four commercial real estate loan relationships of $4.6 million and loans secured by residential real estate of $2.6 million, $1.6 million of which were classified as loans held for sale, as well as construction and land development loans of $0.1 million. At December 31, 2014, non-covered non-accrual loans included twelve commercial and industrial relationships with loans of $15.0 million secured by accounts receivable, inventory, equipment and life insurance, and a total of $1.6 million in lease financing receivables. Non-covered non-accrual loans at December 31, 2014 also included $4.7 million characterized as real estate loans, including two commercial real estate loan relationships of $0.4 million and loans secured by residential real estate of $1.3 million, $3.0 million of which were classified as loans held for sale, as well as construction and land development loans of $0.7 million. At December 31, 2013, non-covered non-accrual loans included five commercial and industrial relationships with loans of $14.0 million secured by accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, aircraft and life insurance, and a total of $1.0 million in lease financing receivables. Non-covered non-accrual loans at December 31, 2013 also included $6.5 million characterized as real estate loans, including three commercial real estate loan relationships of $2.5 million and loans secured by residential real estate of $3.5 million, substantially all of which were classified as loans held for sale, as well as construction and land development loans of $0.1 million. Non-covered OREO decreased $0.4 million to $0.4 million at December 31, 2015, compared with $0.8 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in non-covered OREO included the disposal of ten properties totaling $6.5 million, nine of which were acquired in the SWS Merger. At December 31, 2015, non-covered OREO included commercial properties of $0.4 million. At December 31, 2014, non-covered OREO included commercial properties of $0.4 million and commercial real estate property consisting of parcels of unimproved land of $0.4 million. Non-covered OREO decreased $4.0 million to $0.8 million at December 31, 2014, compared with $4.8 million at December 31, 2013. Changes in non- covered OREO included the disposal of twelve properties totaling $5.8 million and the addition of seven properties totaling $2.6 million. 91 Non-covered non-PCI loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing were $50.8 million, $19.2 million and $7.3 million at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Included in those amounts were $50.8 million, $19.2 million and $6.8 million, respectively, of loans held for sale and guaranteed by U.S. Government agencies that are subject to repurchase, or have been repurchased, by PrimeLending. The remaining amounts of loans past due and still accruing at December 31, 2013 included secured commercial and industrial loans, and a real estate loan. At December 31, 2015, troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”) on non-covered loans totaled $9.3 million. These TDRs were comprised of $1.4 million of non-covered loans that are considered to be performing and non-covered non- performing loans of $7.9 million reported in non-accrual loans. At December 31, 2014, TDRs on non-covered loans totaled $10.3 million, of which $2.9 million relate to non-covered loans that are considered to be performing and non- covered non-performing loans of $7.4 million reported in non-accrual loans. At December 31, 2013, TDRs on non- covered loans totaled $11.4 million, of which $1.1 million relate to non-covered loans that are considered to be performing and non-covered non-performing loans of $10.3 million reported in non-accrual loans. The following table presents components of our covered non-performing assets (dollars in thousands). Covered loans accounted for on a non-accrual basis: Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Covered non-performing loans as a percentage of total covered loans Covered other real estate owned: Real estate - residential Real estate - commercial Construction and land development - residential Construction and land development - commercial Other repossessed assets Covered non-performing assets 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 68 2,958 5,952 — 8,978 $ $ 1,325 31,869 1,029 — 34,223 $ $ 973 249 575 — 1,797 2.36 % 5.33 % 0.18 % 17,718 33,425 9,190 38,757 99,090 $ 15,711 40,889 21,719 58,626 $ 136,945 — $ — $ $ $ 11,634 51,897 36,866 42,436 142,833 — $ $ $ $ $ $ 108,068 $ 171,168 $ 144,630 Covered non-performing assets as a percentage of total assets 0.91 % 1.85 % 1.62 % Covered loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing Troubled debt restructurings included in accruing covered loans $ $ — $ 67 $ 515 $ 326 $ — — At December 31, 2015, covered non-performing assets decreased by $63.1 million to $108.1 million, compared with $171.2 million at December 31, 2014, due to decreases in covered non-accrual loans of $25.3 million and covered other real estate owned of $37.8 million. At December 31, 2014, covered non-performing assets increased by $26.6 million to $171.2 million, compared with $144.6 million at December 31, 2013, primarily due to an increase in covered non- accrual loans of $32.4 million. Covered non-performing loans totaled $9.0 million, $34.2 million and $1.8 million at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. At December 31, 2015, covered non-performing loans included four commercial and industrial relationships with loans of $0.1 million secured by accounts receivable and inventory, two commercial real estate loan relationships of $0.4 million, 25 residential real estate loan relationships of $2.5 million, as well as construction and land development loans of $6.0 million. At December 31, 2014, covered non-performing loans included two commercial and industrial relationships with loans of $1.2 million secured by accounts receivable and inventory, four commercial real estate loan relationships of $30.8 million, nine residential real estate loan relationships of $1.1 million, as well as construction and land development loans of $1.0 million. At December 31, 2013, covered non-performing loans of $1.8 million included one commercial and industrial relationship with loans of $1.0 million secured by accounts receivable, inventory and equipment. Covered non-accrual loans at December 31, 2013 also 92 included one commercial real estate loan relationship of $0.2 million, as well as construction and land development loans of $0.6 million. OREO acquired in the FNB Transaction that is subject to the FDIC loss-share agreements is referred to as “covered OREO” and reported separately in our consolidated balance sheets. Covered OREO decreased $37.8 million to $99.1 million at December 31, 2015, compared with $136.9 million at December 31, 2014. The decrease was primarily due to the disposal of 251 properties totaling $71.7 million and fair value valuation decreases of $16.6 million, partially offset by the addition of 150 properties totaling $50.5 million. Covered OREO decreased $5.9 million to $136.9 million at December 31, 2014, compared with $142.8 million at December 31, 2013. The decrease was primarily due to the disposal of 252 properties totaling $51.1 million and fair value valuation decreases of $19.7 million, partially offset by the addition of 210 properties totaling $64.9 million. There were no covered non-PCI loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing at December 31, 2015 and 2013. Covered non-PCI loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing totaled $0.1 million at December 31, 2014 and included a secured commercial and industrial loan, a construction and land development loan, and a residential real estate loan. At December 31, 2015, TDRs on covered loans totaled $1.5 million, of which $0.5 million relate to covered loans that are considered to be performing and covered non-performing loans of $1.0 million included in non-accrual loans. At December 31, 2014, TDRs on covered loans totaled $0.7 million, of which $0.3 million relate to covered loans that are considered to be performing and covered non-performing loans of $0.4 million included in non-accrual loans. There were no TDRs on covered loans at December 31, 2013. Insurance Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses At December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, our gross reserves for unpaid losses and LAE were $44.4 million, $29.7 million and $25.4 million, respectively, including estimated recoveries from reinsurance of $13.5 million, $4.3 million and $4.5 million, respectively. The increase in the gross reserves for unpaid losses and LAE was primarily due to increased reserves attributable to prior period adverse development associated with litigation emerging from a series of hail storms within the 2012 through 2014 accident years and significant losses experienced from severe weather events. The liability for insurance losses and LAE represents estimates of the ultimate unpaid cost of all losses incurred, including losses for claims that have not yet been reported, less a reduction for reinsurance recoverables related to those liabilities. Separately for each of NLIC and ASIC and each line of business, our actuaries estimate the liability for unpaid losses and LAE by first estimating ultimate losses and LAE amounts for each year, prior to recognizing the impact of reinsurance. The amount of liabilities for reported claims is based primarily on a claim-by-claim evaluation of coverage, liability, injury severity or scope of property damage, and any other information considered relevant to estimating exposure presented by the claim. The methods that our actuaries utilize to estimate ultimate loss and LAE amounts are the paid and reported loss development method and the paid and reported Bornhuetter-Ferguson method (the “BF method”). Significant periods of time can elapse between the occurrence of an insured loss, the reporting of the loss to the insurer and the insurer’s payment of that loss. NLC’s liabilities for unpaid losses represent the best estimate at a given point in time of what it expects to pay claimants, based on facts, circumstances and historical trends then known. During the loss settlement period, additional facts regarding individual claims may become known and, consequently, it often becomes necessary to refine and adjust the estimates of liability. This process is commonly referred to as loss development. To project ultimate losses and LAE, our actuaries examine the paid and reported losses and LAE for each accident year and multiply these values by a loss development factor. The selected loss development factors are based upon a review of the loss development patterns indicated in the companies’ historical loss triangles (which utilize historical trends, adjusted for changes in loss costs, underwriting standards, policy provisions, product mix and other factors) and applicable insurance industry loss development factors. Estimating the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is inherently judgmental and is influenced by factors that are subject to significant variation. Liabilities for LAE are intended to cover the ultimate cost of settling claims, including investigation and defense of lawsuits resulting from such claims. The BF method is a procedure that weights an expected ultimate loss and LAE amount, and the result of the loss development method. This method is useful when loss data is immature or sparse because it is not as sensitive as the loss development method to unusual variations in the paid or reported amounts. The BF method requires an initial estimate of expected ultimate losses and LAE. For each year, the expected ultimate losses and LAE is based on a review of the ultimate loss ratios indicated in the companies’ historical data and applicable insurance industry ultimate loss ratios. 93 Each loss development factor, paid or reported, implies a certain percent of the ultimate losses and LAE is still unpaid or unreported. The amounts of unpaid or unreported losses and LAE by year are estimated as the percentage unpaid or unreported, times the expected ultimate loss and LAE amounts. To project ultimate losses and LAE, the actual paid or reported losses and LAE to date are added to the estimated unpaid or unreported amounts. The results of each actuarial method performed by year are reviewed to select an ultimate loss and LAE amount for each accident year. In general, more weight is given to the loss development projections for more mature accident periods and more weight is given to the BF methods for less mature accident periods. The reserve analysis performed by our actuaries provides preliminary central estimates of the unpaid losses and LAE. At each quarter-end, the results of the reserve analysis are summarized and discussed with our senior management. The senior management group considers many factors in determining the amount of reserves to record for financial statement purposes. These factors include the extent and timing of any recent catastrophic events, historical pattern and volatility of the actuarial indications, the sensitivity of the actuarial indications to changes in paid and reported loss patterns, the consistency of claims handling processes, the consistency of case reserving practices, changes in our pricing and underwriting, and overall pricing and underwriting trends in the insurance market. We would consider reasonably likely changes in the key assumptions to have an impact on our best estimate by plus or minus 10%. At December 31, 2015, this equates to approximately plus or minus $3.1 million, or 2.02% of insurance segment equity, and 3.1% of calendar year 2015 insurance losses. Deposits The banking segment’s major source of funds and liquidity is its deposit base. Deposits provide funding for its investments in loans and securities. Interest paid for deposits must be managed carefully to control the level of interest expense and overall net interest margin. The composition of the deposit base (time deposits versus interest-bearing demand deposits and savings), as discussed in more detail within the section entitled “Liquidity and Capital Resources — Banking Segment” below, is constantly changing due to the banking segment’s needs and market conditions. Average deposits totaled $7.0 billion during 2015, an increase from average deposits of $6.4 billion during 2014 and $5.3 million during 2013. The significant year-over-year increases in average deposits were primarily due to the assumption of deposits in each of the Bank Transactions. For the periods presented in the table below, the average rates paid associated with time deposits include the effects of amortization of the deposit premiums booked as a part of the Bank Transactions. The table below presents the average balance of, and rate paid on, consolidated deposits (dollars in thousands). 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 Average Balance Average Rate Paid Average Balance Average Rate Paid Average Balance Average Rate Paid Noninterest-bearing demand deposits $ 2,187,336 3,011,647 Interest-bearing demand deposits 297,857 Savings deposits 1,494,573 Time deposits $ 6,991,413 0.00 % $ 1,862,277 0.13 % 2,249,527 0.15 % 304,774 0.74 % 1,936,447 0.22 % $ 6,353,025 0.00 % $ 1,370,029 0.22 % 1,930,622 0.19 % 247,789 0.53 % 1,745,483 0.25 % $ 5,293,923 0.00 % 0.24 % 0.32 % 0.54 % 0.28 % The maturity of consolidated interest-bearing time deposits of $100,000 or more at December 31, 2015 is set forth in the table below (in thousands). Months to maturity: 3 months or less 3 months to 6 months 6 months to 12 months Over 12 months $ $ 229,827 130,973 232,273 430,512 1,023,585 The banking segment experienced decreases of $186.2 million in interest-bearing time deposits of $100,000 or more at December 31, 2015, compared with December 31, 2014, and $464.6 million at December 31, 2014, compared to December 31, 2013, primarily due our strategic decisions to both not renew any “listing service” time deposits and offer lower renewal rates on certain time deposits acquired in the FNB Transaction to conform to the Bank’s interest rate structure. At December 31, 2015, there were $799.2 million in interest-bearing time deposits scheduled to mature within one year. 94 Borrowings Our borrowings are shown in the table below (dollars in thousands). 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 Short-term borrowings Notes payable Junior subordinated debentures $ Balance 947,373 238,716 67,012 $ 1,253,101 Average Rate Paid Balance Average Rate Paid Balance Average Rate Paid 0.56 % $ 762,696 56,684 3.93 % 3.58 % 67,012 1.38 % $ 886,392 0.32 % $ 342,087 56,327 4.27 % 3.52 % 67,012 0.88 % $ 465,426 0.36 % 6.33 % 3.59 % 2.10 % Short-term borrowings consisted of federal funds purchased, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, borrowings at the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and short-term bank loans. The $184.7 million increase in short-term borrowings at December 31, 2015 compared with December 31, 2014 was primarily due to an increase in borrowings of $167.4 million in our banking segment to fund an increase in borrowings under the mortgage origination segment’s warehouse line of credit with the Bank and an increase of $17.3 million in borrowings by the Hilltop Broker-Dealers to finance their activities. The increase in Hilltop Broker-Dealer borrowings was primarily due to the inclusion of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger. The $420.6 million increase in short-term borrowings at December 31, 2014 compared with December 31, 2013 was primarily due to an increase of $375.0 million in borrowings at the FHLB that had an original maturity of one year. This increase was the result of a strategic decision to lengthen the weighted-average duration of the Bank’s funding in an effort to manage interest rate risk, higher funding requirements associated with the increase in our mortgage origination segment’s balance on its warehouse line of credit with the Bank and a decrease in deposits acquired in the FNB Transaction. Notes payable at December 31, 2015 of $238.7 million was comprised of $148.2 million related to Senior Notes, net of loan origination fees, associated with our debt offering in April 2015, insurance segment term notes of $54.5 million and FHLB borrowings with an original maturity greater than one year held by the former SWS FSB within the banking segment of $36.0 million. For the 2015 period above, the average rate paid associated with notes payable includes the effect of amortization of the premiums on FHLB borrowings booked as a part of the SWS Merger. Notes payable at December 31, 2014 of $56.7 million was comprised of insurance segment term notes and nonrecourse notes owed by First Southwest. The First Southwest nonrecourse notes of $4.2 million at December 31, 2014 were paid off in January 2015. Liquidity and Capital Resources Hilltop is a financial holding company whose assets primarily consist of the stock of its subsidiaries and invested assets. Hilltop’s primary investment objectives, as a holding company, are to preserve capital and have cash resources available to make acquisitions. At December 31, 2015, Hilltop had $55.5 million in freely available cash and cash equivalents, a decrease of $90.5 million from $146.0 million at December 31, 2014. This decrease in available cash was primarily due to the uses of $117.6 million to repurchase and pay dividends on our Series B Preferred Stock, $78.2 million to settle the cash portion of the merger consideration associated with the SWS Merger and $30.0 million to repurchase shares of our common stock, which were partially offset by net proceeds of $148.1 million received from our issuance of Senior Unsecured Notes. If necessary or appropriate, we may also finance acquisitions with the proceeds from equity or debt issuances. Subject to regulatory restrictions, Hilltop may also receive dividends from its subsidiaries. The current short- term liquidity needs of Hilltop include operating expenses and interest on debt obligations. Senior Notes due 2025 On April 9, 2015, we completed an offering of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of our Senior Unregistered Notes in a private offering that was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. The Senior Unregistered Notes were offered within the United States only to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act, and to persons outside of the United States under Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Senior Unregistered Notes were issued pursuant to an indenture, dated as of April 9, 2015 (the “indenture”), by and between Hilltop and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. The net proceeds from the offering, after deducting estimated fees and expenses and the initial purchasers’ discounts, were approximately $148 million. We used the net proceeds of the offering to redeem all of our outstanding Series B Preferred Stock at an aggregate liquidation value of $114.1 million, plus accrued but unpaid dividends of $0.4 million and Hilltop utilized the remainder for general corporate purposes. 95 In connection with the issuance of the Senior Unregistered Notes, on April 9, 2015, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the Senior Unregistered Notes. Under the terms of the registration rights agreement, we agreed to offer to exchange the Senior Unregistered Notes for the Senior Registered Notes, which were registered under the Securities Act. The terms of the Senior Registered Notes are substantially identical to the Senior Unregistered Notes for which they were exchanged (including principal amount, interest rate, maturity and redemption rights), except that the Senior Registered Notes generally are not subject to transfer restrictions. On May 22, 2015, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Senior Registered Notes prospectus, we commenced an offer to exchange the outstanding Senior Unregistered Notes for Senior Registered Notes. Substantially all of the Senior Unregistered Notes were tendered for exchange, and on June 22, 2015, we fulfilled all of the requirements of the registration rights agreement for the Senior Unregistered Notes by issuing Senior Registered Notes in exchange for the tendered Senior Unregistered Notes. We refer to the Senior Registered Notes and the Senior Unregistered Notes that remain outstanding collectively as the “Senior Notes.” The Senior Notes bear interest at a rate of 5% per year, payable semi-annually in arrears in cash on April 15 and October 15 of each year, commencing on October 15, 2015. The Senior Notes will mature on April 15, 2025, unless we redeem the Senior Notes, in whole at any time or in part from time to time, on or after January 15, 2025 (three months prior to the maturity date of the Senior Notes) at our election at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Senior Notes to be redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the redemption date. The indenture contains covenants that limit our ability to, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions: (i) dispose of or issue voting stock of certain of our bank subsidiaries or subsidiaries that own voting stock of our bank subsidiaries, (ii) incur or permit to exist any mortgage, pledge, encumbrance or lien or charge on the capital stock of certain of our bank subsidiaries or subsidiaries that own capital stock of our bank subsidiaries and (iii) sell all or substantially all of our assets or merge or consolidate with or into other companies. The indenture also provides for certain events of default, which, if any of them occurs, would permit or require the principal amount, premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest on the then outstanding Senior Notes to be declared immediately due and payable. Stock Repurchase Program During the second quarter of 2015, our Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program under which it authorized us to repurchase, in the aggregate, up to $30.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Under the stock repurchase program authorized, we could repurchase shares in open-market purchases or privately negotiated transactions as permitted under Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The purchases were funded from available cash balances. During 2015, we paid $30.0 million to repurchase and retire an aggregate of 1,390,977 shares of common stock at an average price of $21.56 per share. The extent to which we repurchased our shares and the timing of such repurchases depended upon market conditions and other corporate considerations, as determined by Hilltop’s management team. The retired shares were returned to our pool of authorized but unissued shares of common stock. The stock repurchase program terminated effective December 31, 2015. SWS On January 1, 2015, we completed our acquisition of SWS in a stock and cash transaction, whereby SWS’s broker- dealer subsidiaries became subsidiaries of Securities Holdings and SWS’s banking subsidiary, SWS FSB, was merged into the Bank. As a result of the SWS Merger, each outstanding share of SWS common stock was converted into the right to receive 0.2496 shares of Hilltop common stock and $1.94 in cash, equating to $6.92 per share based on Hilltop’s closing price on December 31, 2014 and resulting in an aggregate purchase price of $349.1 million, consisting of 10.1 million shares of common stock, $78.2 million in cash and $70.3 million associated with our existing investment in SWS common stock. On October 22, 2015, FINRA granted approval to combine FSC and Hilltop Securities, subject to customary conditions. Since this approval, we have completed the integration of the back-office systems of FSC and Hilltop Securities and, effective as of the close of business on January 22, 2016, merged FSC and Hilltop Securities into a combined firm operating under the “Hilltop Securities” name. Concurrent with this merger, Hilltop contributed $20.0 million of its freely usable cash to Securities Holdings to provide additional capital. 96 Loss-Share Agreements In connection with the FNB Transaction, the Bank entered into two loss-share agreements with the FDIC that collectively cover $1.2 billion of loans and OREO acquired in the FNB Transaction, which we refer to as “covered assets”. Pursuant to the loss-share agreements, the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Bank the following amounts with respect to the covered assets: (i) 80% of net losses on the first $240.4 million of net losses incurred; (ii) 0% of net losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of net losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of net losses in excess of $365.7 million of net losses incurred. Net losses are defined as book value losses plus certain defined expenses incurred in the resolution of assets, less subsequent recoveries. Under the loss-share agreement for commercial assets, the amount of subsequent recoveries that are reimbursable to the FDIC for a particular asset is limited to book value losses and expenses actually billed plus any book value charge-offs incurred prior to the Bank Closing Date. There is no limit on the amount of subsequent recoveries reimbursable to the FDIC under the loss-share agreement for single family assets. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential loans are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if our actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. While the ultimate amount of any “true-up” payment is unknown at this time and will vary based upon the amount of future losses or recoveries within our covered loan portfolio, the Bank has recorded a related “true-up” payment accrual of $5.5 million at December 31, 2015 based on the current estimate of aggregate realized losses on covered assets over the life of the loss-share agreements. Regulatory Capital We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements may prompt certain actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Under capital adequacy and regulatory requirements, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off- balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Our capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. In January 2015, the new comprehensive capital framework (“Basel III”) for U.S. banking organizations became effective for the Bank and Hilltop for reporting periods beginning after January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period through January 2019). Under Basel III, total capital consists of two tiers of capital, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 capital is further composed of common equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. In addition, under the final rules, bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in assets as of December 31, 2009 are allowed to continue to include junior subordinated debentures in Tier 1 capital, subject to certain restrictions. However, if an institution grows to above $15 billion in assets as a result of an acquisition, or organically grows to above $15 billion in assets and then makes an acquisition, the combined trust preferred issuances must be phased out of Tier 1 and into Tier 2 capital (75% in 2015 and 100% in 2016). All of the debentures issued to the PCC Statutory Trusts I, II, III and IV (the “Trusts”), less the common stock of the Trusts, qualified as Tier 1 capital as of December 31, 2015, under guidance issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The final rules also provide for a number of adjustments to and deductions from the new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio, as well as changes to the calculation of risk weighted assets which is expected to increase the absolute level. Under current capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive items included in capital are excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under Basel III, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded; however, non-advanced approaches banking organizations, including Hilltop and the Bank, made a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. Hilltop and the Bank made this election in order to avoid significant variations in the level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of our securities portfolio. In addition, deductions include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from the common equity Tier 1 capital ratio to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of the common equity Tier 1 capital ratio or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% 97 of the common equity Tier 1 capital ratio. Further, deferred tax assets which are related to operating losses and tax credit carryforward are excluded from the common equity Tier 1 capital ratio. At December 31, 2015, Hilltop exceeded all regulatory capital requirements in accordance with Basel III with a total capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 18.89%, Tier 1 capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 18.48%, common equity Tier 1 capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 17.87% and a Tier 1 capital to average assets, or leverage, ratio of 12.65%. The Bank’s consolidated actual capital amounts and ratios at December 31, 2015 resulted in it being considered “well- capitalized” under regulatory requirements in accordance with Basel III, and included a total capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 16.99%, Tier 1 capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 16.25%, common equity Tier 1 capital to risk weighted assets ratio of 16.23%, and a Tier 1 capital to average assets, or leverage, ratio of 13.22%. We discuss regulatory capital requirements in more detail in Note 21 to our consolidated financial statements, as well as under the caption “Government Supervision and Regulation — Banking — Capital Adequacy Requirements and BASEL III” set forth in Part I, Item I. of our Annual Report on Form 10-K. Banking Segment Within our banking segment, our primary uses of cash are for customer withdrawals and extensions of credit as well as our borrowing costs and other operating expenses. Our asset and liability group is responsible for continuously monitoring our liquidity position to ensure that our assets and liabilities are managed in a manner that will meet our short-term and long-term cash requirements. Our goal is to manage our liquidity position in a manner such that we can meet our customers’ short-term and long-term deposit withdrawals and anticipated and unanticipated increases in loan demand without penalizing earnings. Funds invested in short-term marketable instruments, the continuous maturing of other interest-earning assets, cash flows from self-liquidating investments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations, the possible sale of available for sale securities, and the ability to securitize certain types of loans provide sources of liquidity from an asset perspective. The liability base provides sources of liquidity through deposits and the maturity structure of short-term borrowed funds. For short-term liquidity needs, we utilize federal fund lines of credit with correspondent banks, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, borrowings from the Federal Reserve and borrowings under lines of credit with other financial institutions. For intermediate liquidity needs, we utilize advances from the FHLB. To supply liquidity over the longer term, we have access to brokered time deposits, term loans at the FHLB and borrowings under lines of credit with other financial institutions. We had deposits of $7.0 billion at December 31, 2015, an increase of $582.8 million from $6.4 billion at December 31, 2014. This increase is primarily due to the inclusion of deposits assumed in the SWS Merger. Deposit flows are affected by the level of market interest rates, the interest rates and products offered by competitors, the volatility of equity markets and other factors. At December 31, 2015, money market deposits, including brokered deposits, were $1.6 billion; time deposits, including brokered deposits, were $1.4 billion; and noninterest bearing demand deposits were $2.2 billion. Money market deposits, including brokered deposits, increased by $692.4 million from $941.8 million and time deposits, including brokered deposits, decreased $321.8 million from $1.7 billion at December 31, 2014. The Bank’s 15 largest depositors, excluding Hilltop Securities, accounted for 11.24% of the Bank’s total deposits, and the Bank’s five largest depositors, excluding Hilltop Securities, accounted for 5.71% of the Bank’s total deposits at December 31, 2015. The loss of one or more of our largest Bank customers, or a significant decline in our deposit balances due to ordinary course fluctuations related to these customers’ businesses, could adversely affect our liquidity and might require us to raise deposit rates to attract new deposits, purchase federal funds or borrow funds on a short-term basis to replace such deposits. Broker-Dealer Segment The Hilltop Broker-Dealers rely on their equity capital, short-term bank borrowings, interest-bearing and non-interest- bearing client credit balances, correspondent deposits, securities lending arrangements, repurchase agreement financings and other payables to finance their assets and operations, subject to their respective compliance with broker-dealer net capital and customer protection rules. At December 31, 2015, FSC had credit arrangements with three unaffiliated banks of up to $255.0 million and Hilltop Securities had credit arrangements with six unaffiliated banks of up to $650.0 million. These credit arrangements are used to finance securities owned, securities held for correspondent accounts, receivables in customer margin accounts and underwriting activities. These credit arrangements are provided on an “as offered” basis and are not committed lines of credit. At December 31, 2015, FSC had borrowed $70.7 million under 98 these credit arrangements. In addition, Hilltop Securities has a committed revolving credit facility with an unaffiliated bank of up to $45.0 million. At December 31, 2015, Hilltop Securities had no outstanding borrowings under its credit arrangements or the credit facility. Mortgage Origination Segment PrimeLending funds the mortgage loans it originates through a warehouse line of credit of up to $1.5 billion maintained with the Bank. At December 31, 2015, PrimeLending had outstanding borrowings of $1.4 billion against the warehouse line of credit. PrimeLending sells substantially all mortgage loans it originates to various investors in the secondary market, the majority with servicing released. As these mortgage loans are sold in the secondary market, PrimeLending pays down its warehouse line of credit with the Bank. In addition, PrimeLending has an available line of credit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (“JPMorgan Chase”) of up to $1.0 million, and PrimeLending Ventures, LLC (“Ventures”) has an available line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) of up to $20.0 million. At December 31, 2015, PrimeLending and Ventures had no borrowings under the JPMorgan Chase or Wells Fargo lines of credit. Insurance Segment Our insurance operating subsidiary’s primary investment objectives are to preserve capital and manage for a total rate of return. NLC’s strategy is to purchase securities in sectors that represent the most attractive relative value. Bonds, cash and short-term investments of $220.9 million, or 90.0%, equity investments of $17.4 million and other investments of $7.2 million comprised NLC’s $245.5 million in total cash and investments at December 31, 2015. NLC does not currently have any significant concentration in both direct and indirect guarantor exposure or any investments in subprime mortgages. NLC has custodial agreements with Wells Fargo and an investment management agreement with DTF Holdings, LLC. Contractual Obligations The following table presents information regarding our contractual obligations at December 31, 2015 (in thousands). Our reserve for losses and LAE does not have a contractual maturity date. However, based on historical payment patterns, the amounts presented are management’s estimate of the expected timing of these payments. The timing of payments is subject to significant uncertainty. NLC maintains a portfolio of investments with varying maturities to provide adequate cash flows for such payments. Payments related to leases are based on actual payments specified in the underlying contracts. Payments related to short-term borrowings and long-term debt obligations include the estimated contractual interest payments under the respective agreements. Payments Due by Period (1) More than 1 3 Years or 1 year or Less Year but Less More but Less than 3 Years than 5 Years 5 Years or More Reserve for losses and LAE Short-term borrowings Long-term debt obligations Capital lease obligations Operating lease obligations Total $ 30,074 $ 951,078 19,867 1,103 33,231 12,598 $ — 45,259 2,296 50,243 $ 1,035,353 $ 110,396 $ Total 44,357 132 $ 1,553 $ 951,078 — — 459,723 361,231 33,366 12,911 7,127 2,385 28,099 143,008 31,435 65,403 $ 399,925 $ 1,611,077 (1) In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if our actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. The ultimate amount of any “true-up” payment is unknown at this time and will vary based upon the amount of future losses or recoveries within our covered loan portfolio. 99 Impact of Inflation and Changing Prices Our consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared in accordance with GAAP, which presently require us to measure financial position and operating results primarily in terms of historic dollars. Changes in the relative value of money due to inflation or recession are generally not considered. The primary effect of inflation on our operations is reflected in increased operating costs. In management’s opinion, changes in interest rates affect the financial condition of a financial institution to a far greater degree than changes in the inflation rate. While interest rates are greatly influenced by changes in the inflation rate, they do not necessarily change at the same rate or in the same magnitude as the inflation rate. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including changes in the expected rate of inflation, the influence of general and local economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, its agencies and various other governmental regulatory authorities. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements; Commitments; Guarantees In the normal course of business, we enter into various transactions, which, in accordance with GAAP, are not included in our consolidated balance sheets. We enter into these transactions to meet the financing needs of our customers. These transactions include commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit, which involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized in our consolidated balance sheets. We enter into contractual loan commitments to extend credit, normally with fixed expiration dates or termination clauses, at specified rates and for specific purposes. Substantially all of our commitments to extend credit are contingent upon customers maintaining specific credit standards until the time of loan funding. We minimize our exposure to loss under these commitments by subjecting them to credit approval and monitoring procedures. We assess the credit risk associated with certain commitments to extend credit and have recorded a liability related to such credit risk in our consolidated financial statements. Standby letters of credit are written conditional commitments issued by us to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. In the event the customer does not perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement with the third party, we would be required to fund the commitment. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make is represented by the contractual amount of the commitment. If the commitment is funded, we would be entitled to seek recovery from the customer. Our policies generally require that standby letter of credit arrangements contain security and debt covenants similar to those contained in loan agreements. In the aggregate, the Bank had outstanding unused commitments to extend credit of $1.7 billion at December 31, 2015 and outstanding financial and performance standby letters of credit of $38.9 million at December 31, 2015. In the normal course of business, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers execute, settle and finance various securities transactions that may expose the Hilltop Broker-Dealers to off-balance sheet risk in the event that a customer or counterparty does not fulfill its contractual obligations. Examples of such transactions include the sale of securities not yet purchased by customers or for the account of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers, use of derivatives to support certain non-profit housing organization clients, clearing agreements between the Hilltop Broker-Dealers and various clearinghouses and broker- dealers, secured financing arrangements that involve pledged securities, and when-issued underwriting and purchase commitments. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our management’s discussion and analysis of our results of operations and financial condition. Our significant accounting policies are presented in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements, which are included in this Annual Report. We have identified certain significant accounting policies which involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity in making certain estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements. The significant accounting policies which we believe to be the most critical in preparing our consolidated financial statements relate to allowance for loan losses, FDIC Indemnification Asset, reserve for losses and LAE, goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, mortgage loan indemnification liability, mortgage servicing rights asset and acquisition accounting. 100 Allowance for Loan Losses The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Loans are charged to the allowance when the loss is confirmed or when a determination is made that a probable loss has occurred on a specific loan. Recoveries are credited to the allowance at the time of recovery. Throughout the year, management estimates the probable level of losses to determine whether the allowance for credit losses is appropriate to absorb losses in the existing portfolio. Based on these estimates, an amount is charged to the provision for loan losses and credited to the allowance for loan losses in order to adjust the allowance to a level determined to be appropriate to absorb losses. Management’s judgment regarding the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses involves the consideration of current economic conditions and their estimated effects on specific borrowers; an evaluation of the existing relationships among loans, potential loan losses and the present level of the allowance; results of examinations of the loan portfolio by regulatory agencies; and management’s internal review of the loan portfolio. In determining the ability to collect certain loans, management also considers the fair value of any underlying collateral. The amount ultimately realized may differ from the carrying value of these assets because of economic, operating or other conditions beyond our control. For additional discussion of allowance for loan losses and provisions for loan losses, see the section entitled “Allowance for Loan Losses” earlier in this Item 7. FDIC Indemnification Asset The FDIC Indemnification Asset is initially recorded at fair value, based on the discounted value of expected future cash flows under the loss-share agreements. The difference between the present value and the undiscounted cash flows we expect to collect from the FDIC will be accreted into noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations over the life of the FDIC Indemnification Asset. The FDIC Indemnification Asset is reviewed quarterly and the accretion rate is adjusted for changes in the timing of cash flows expected to be collected from the FDIC. Cumulative net losses over the life of the loss-share agreements of less than $240.4 million will reduce the value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset. Any amortization of changes in value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset is limited to the contractual terms of the loss-share agreements. Increases and decreases to the FDIC Indemnification Asset are recorded as adjustments to noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations over the life of the loss-share agreements. Reserve for Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses The reserve for losses and LAE represents our best estimate of our ultimate liability for losses and LAE relating to events that occurred prior to the end of any given accounting period but have not been paid, less a reduction for reinsurance recoverables related to those liabilities. Months and potentially years may elapse between the occurrence of a loss covered by one of our insurance policies, the reporting of the loss and the payment of the claim. We record a liability for estimates of losses that will be paid for claims that have been reported, which is referred to as case reserves. As claims are not always reported when they occur, we estimate liabilities for claims that have occurred but have not been reported (“IBNR”). Each of our insurance company subsidiaries establishes a reserve for all of its unpaid losses, including case reserves and IBNR reserves, and estimates for the cost to settle the claims. We estimate our IBNR reserves by estimating our ultimate liability for loss and LAE reserves first, and then reducing that amount by the amount of cumulative paid claims and by the amount of our case reserves. The reserve analysis performed by our actuaries provides preliminary central estimates of the unpaid losses and LAE. At each quarter-end, the results of the reserve analysis are summarized and discussed with our senior management. The senior management group considers many factors in determining the amount of reserves to record for financial statement purposes. These factors include the extent and timing of any recent catastrophic events, historical pattern and volatility of the actuarial indications, the sensitivity of the actuarial indications to changes in paid and reported loss patterns, the consistency of claims handling processes, the consistency of case reserving practices, changes in our pricing and underwriting, and overall pricing and underwriting trends in the insurance market. As experience develops or new information becomes known, we increase or decrease the level of our reserves in the period in which changes to the estimates are determined. Accordingly, the actual losses and LAE may differ materially from the estimates we have recorded. See “Insurance Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses” earlier in this Item 7 for additional discussion. 101 Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets Goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets were initially recorded at their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition. Goodwill and other intangible assets having an indefinite useful life are not amortized for financial statement purposes. In the event that facts and circumstances indicate that the goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets may be impaired, an interim impairment test would be required. Intangible assets with finite lives have been fully amortized over their useful lives. We perform required annual impairment tests of our goodwill and other intangible assets as of October 1st for our reporting units. The goodwill impairment test is a two-step process that requires us to make judgments in determining what assumptions to use in the calculation. The first step of the process consists of estimating the fair value of each reporting unit based on valuation techniques, including a discounted cash flow model using revenue and profit forecasts and recent industry transaction and trading multiples of our peers, and comparing those estimated fair values with the carrying values of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit, which includes the allocated goodwill. If the estimated fair value is less than the carrying value, a second step is performed to compute the amount of the impairment, if any, by determining an “implied fair value” of goodwill. The determination of the “implied fair value” of goodwill of a reporting unit requires us to allocate the estimated fair value of the reporting unit to the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. Any unallocated fair value represents the “implied fair value” of goodwill, which is compared to its corresponding carrying value. Our evaluation includes multiple assumptions, including estimated discounted cash flows and other estimates that may change over time. If future discounted cash flows become less than those projected by us, future impairment charges may become necessary that could have a materially adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition in the period in which the write-off occurs. Mortgage Loan Indemnification Liability The mortgage origination segment may be responsible for errors or omissions relating to its representations and warranties that the mortgage loans sold meet certain requirements, including representations as to underwriting standards and the validity of certain borrower representations in connection with the mortgage loan. If determined to be at fault, the mortgage origination segment either repurchases the mortgage loans from the investors or reimburses the investors’ losses (a “make-whole” payment). The mortgage origination segment has established an indemnification liability for such probable losses based upon, among other things, the level of current unresolved repurchase requests, the volume of estimated probable future repurchase requests, our ability to cure the defects identified in the repurchase requests, and the severity of the estimated loss upon repurchase. Although we consider this reserve to be appropriate, there can be no assurance that the reserve will prove to be appropriate over time to cover ultimate losses, due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy and historical loss patterns, discrete events adversely affecting specific borrowers or industries, and/or actions taken by institutions or investors. The impact of such matters will be considered in the reserving process when known. Mortgage Servicing Rights Asset The Company measures its residential mortgage servicing rights asset using the fair value method. Under the fair value method, the retained MSR assets are carried in the balance sheet at fair value and the changes in fair value are reported in earnings within other noninterest income in the period in which the change occurs. Retained MSR assets are measured at fair value as of the date of sale of the related mortgage loan. Subsequent fair value measurements are determined using a discounted cash flow model. In order to determine the fair value of the MSR asset, the present value of expected future cash flows is estimated. Assumptions used include market discount rates, anticipated prepayment speeds, delinquency and foreclosure rates, and ancillary fee income. The model assumptions and the MSR asset fair value estimates are compared to observable trades of similar portfolios as well as to MSR asset broker valuations and industry surveys, as available. The expected life of the loan can vary from management’s estimates due to prepayments by borrowers, especially when rates fall. Prepayments in excess of management’s estimates would negatively impact the recorded value of the MSR asset. The value of the MSR asset is also dependent upon the discount rate used in the model, which is based on current market rates. Management reviews this rate on an ongoing basis based on current market rates. A significant increase in the discount rate would reduce the value of the MSR asset. 102 Acquisition Accounting We account for business combinations using the acquisition method, which requires an allocation of the purchase price of an acquired entity to the assets acquired, including identifiable intangibles, and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition. Management applies various valuation methodologies to these acquired assets and assumed liabilities which often involve a significant degree of judgment, particularly when liquid markets do not exist for the particular item being valued. Examples of such items include loans, deposits, identifiable intangible assets and certain other assets and liabilities acquired or assumed in business combinations. Management uses significant estimates and assumptions to value such items, including, among others, projected cash flows, prepayment and default assumptions, discount rates, and realizable collateral values. Purchase date valuations, which are subject to change for up to one year after the acquisition date, determine the amount of goodwill or bargain purchase gain recognized in connection with the business combination. Changes to provisional amounts identified during this measurement period are recognized in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined. Certain assumptions and estimates must be updated regularly in connection with the ongoing accounting for purchased loans. Valuation assumptions and estimates may also have to be revisited in connection with periodic assessments of possible value impairment, including impairment of goodwill, intangible assets and certain other long-lived assets. The use of different assumptions could produce significantly different valuation results, which could have material positive or negative effects on the Company’s results of operations. Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. The primary objective of the following information is to provide forward-looking quantitative and qualitative information about our potential exposure to market risks. Market risk represents the risk of loss that may result from changes in value of a financial instrument as a result of changes in interest rates, market prices and the credit perception of an issuer. The disclosure is not meant to be a precise indicator of expected future losses, but rather an indicator of reasonably possible losses, and therefore our actual results may differ from any of the following projections. This forward-looking information provides an indicator of how we view and manage our ongoing market risk exposures. At December 31, 2015, total long-term debt obligations on our consolidated balance sheet, excluding unamortized debt issuance costs, was $306.6 million, and was comprised of $186.0 million in debt obligations subject to fixed interest rates, with the remainder of indebtedness subject to variable interest rates. If LIBOR and the prime rate were to increase by one eighth of one percent (0.125%), the increase in interest expense on the variable rate debt would not have a significant impact on our future consolidated earnings or cash flows. Banking Segment The banking segment is engaged primarily in the business of investing funds obtained from deposits and borrowings in interest-earning loans and investments, and our primary component of market risk is sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Consequently, our earnings depend to a significant extent on our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on loans and investments and our interest expense on deposits and borrowings. To the extent that our interest-bearing liabilities do not reprice or mature at the same time as our interest-bearing assets, we are subject to interest rate risk and corresponding fluctuations in net interest income. There are several common sources of interest rate risk that must be effectively managed if there is to be minimal impact on our earnings and capital. Repricing risk arises largely from timing differences in the pricing of assets and liabilities. Reinvestment risk refers to the reinvestment of cash flows from interest payments and maturing assets at lower or higher rates. Basis risk exists when different yield curves or pricing indices do not change at precisely the same time or in the same magnitude such that assets and liabilities with the same maturity are not all affected equally. Yield curve risk refers to unequal movements in interest rates across a full range of maturities. We have employed asset/liability management policies that attempt to manage our interest-earning assets and interest- bearing liabilities, thereby attempting to control the volatility of net interest income, without having to incur unacceptable levels of risk. We employ procedures which include interest rate shock analysis, repricing gap analysis and balance sheet decomposition techniques to help mitigate interest rate risk in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the asset/liability management policies permit the use of various derivative instruments to manage interest rate risk or hedge specified assets and liabilities. 103 An interest rate sensitive asset or liability is one that, within a defined time period, either matures or experiences an interest rate change in line with general market interest rates. The management of interest rate risk is performed by analyzing the maturity and repricing relationships between interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities at specific points in time (“GAP”) and by analyzing the effects of interest rate changes on net interest income over specific periods of time by projecting the performance of the mix of assets and liabilities in varied interest rate environments. Interest rate sensitivity reflects the potential effect on net interest income resulting from a movement in interest rates. A company is considered to be asset sensitive, or have a positive GAP, when the amount of its interest-earning assets maturing or repricing within a given period exceeds the amount of its interest-bearing liabilities also maturing or repricing within that time period. Conversely, a company is considered to be liability sensitive, or have a negative GAP, when the amount of its interest-bearing liabilities maturing or repricing within a given period exceeds the amount of its interest-earning assets also maturing or repricing within that time period. During a period of rising interest rates, a negative GAP would tend to affect net interest income adversely, while a positive GAP would tend to result in an increase in net interest income. During a period of falling interest rates, a negative GAP would tend to result in an increase in net interest income, while a positive GAP would tend to affect net interest income adversely. However, it is our intent to remain relatively balanced so that changes in rates do not have a significant impact on earnings. As illustrated in the table below, the banking segment is asset sensitive overall. Loans that adjust daily or monthly to the Wall Street Journal Prime rate comprise a large percentage of interest sensitive assets and are the primary cause of the banking segment’s asset sensitivity. To help neutralize interest rate sensitivity, the banking segment has kept the terms of most of its borrowings under one year as shown in the following table (dollars in thousands). Interest sensitive assets: Loans Securities Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell Other interest sensitive assets Total interest sensitive assets Interest sensitive liabilities: Interest bearing checking Savings Time deposits Notes payable and other borrowings Total interest sensitive liabilities 3 Months or > 3 Months to > 1 Year to > 3 Years to Less 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years > 5 Years Total December 31, 2015 $ 3,647,074 207,223 $ 661,040 238,518 $ 875,764 184,758 $ 335,840 55,298 $ 804,272 260,260 $ 6,323,990 946,057 17,409 339,891 4,211,597 — — 899,558 — — 1,060,522 — — 391,138 — — 1,064,532 17,409 339,891 7,627,347 $ $ 2,733,614 273,390 406,694 733,019 4,146,717 $ $ — — 449,957 76,026 525,983 — — 423,216 22,422 445,638 — — 40,136 6,001 46,137 $ — — 31,904 12,968 44,872 $ 2,733,614 273,390 1,351,907 850,436 5,209,347 Interest sensitivity gap $ 64,880 $ 373,575 $ 614,884 $ 345,001 $ 1,019,660 $ 2,418,000 Cumulative interest sensitivity gap $ 64,880 $ 438,455 $ 1,053,339 $ 1,398,340 $ 2,418,000 Percentage of cumulative gap to total interest sensitive assets 0.85 % 5.75 % 13.81 % 18.33 % 31.70 % The positive GAP in the interest rate analysis indicates that banking segment net interest income would generally rise if rates increase. Because of inherent limitations in interest rate GAP analysis, the banking segment uses multiple interest rate risk measurement techniques. Simulation analysis is used to subject the current repricing conditions to rising and falling interest rates in increments and decrements of 1%, 2% and 3% to determine the effect on net interest income changes for the next twelve months. The banking segment also measures the effects of changes in interest rates on economic value of equity by discounting projected cash flows of deposits and loans. Economic value changes in the investment portfolio are estimated by discounting future cash flows and using duration analysis. Investment security prepayments are estimated using current market information. We believe the simulation analysis presents a more accurate picture than the GAP analysis. Simulation analysis recognizes that deposit products may not react to changes in interest rates as quickly or with the same magnitude as earning assets contractually tied to a market rate index. The sensitivity to changes in market rates varies across deposit products. Also, unlike GAP analysis, simulation analysis takes into account the effect of embedded options in the securities and loan portfolios as well as any off-balance-sheet derivatives. 104 The table below shows the estimated impact of increases of 1%, 2% and 3% and a decrease of 0.5% in interest rates on net interest income and on economic value of equity for the banking segment at December 31, 2015 (dollars in thousands). Change in Interest Rates (basis points) +300 +200 +100 -50 Changes in Net Interest Income Amount Percent Changes in Economic Value of Equity Amount Percent $ $ $ $ 20,701 8,555 (2,878) 633 7.62 % 3.15 % (1.06)% 0.23 % $ $ $ $ 77,754 58,749 32,975 (12,946) 5.47 % 4.13 % 2.32 % (0.91) % The projected changes in net interest income and economic value of equity to changes in interest rates at December 31, 2015 were in compliance with established internal policy guidelines. These projected changes are based on numerous assumptions of growth and changes in the mix of assets or liabilities. The historically low level of interest rates, combined with the existence of rate floors that are in effect for a significant portion of the loan portfolio, are projected to cause yields on our earning assets to rise more slowly than increases in market interest rates. As a result, in a rising interest rate environment, our interest rate margins are projected to compress until the rise in market interest rates is sufficient to allow our loan portfolio to reprice above applicable rate floors. Broker-Dealer Segment Our broker-dealer segment is exposed to market risk primarily due to its role as a financial intermediary in customer transactions, which may include purchases and sales of securities, use of derivatives and securities lending activities, and in our trading activities, which are used to support sales, underwriting and other customer activities. We are subject to the risk of loss that may result from the potential change in value of a financial instrument as a result of fluctuations in interest rates, market prices, investor expectations and changes in credit ratings of the issuer. Our broker-dealer segment is exposed to interest rate risk as a result of maintaining inventories of interest rate sensitive financial instruments and other interest earning assets including customer and correspondent margin loans and securities borrowing activities. Our exposure to interest rate risk is also from our funding sources including customer and correspondent cash balances, bank borrowings, repurchase agreements and securities lending activities. Interest rates on customer and correspondent balances and securities produce a positive spread with rates generally fluctuating in parallel. With respect to securities held, our interest rate risk is managed by setting and monitoring limits on the size and duration of positions and on the length of time securities can be held. Much of the interest rates on customer and correspondent margin loans are indexed and can vary daily. Our funding sources are generally short term with interest rates that can vary daily. Derivatives are used to support certain customer programs and hedge our related exposure to interest rate risks. Our broker-dealer segment is engaged in various brokerage and trading activities that expose us to credit risk arising from potential non-performance from counterparties, customers or issuers of securities. This risk is managed by setting and monitoring position limits for each counterparty, conducting periodic credit reviews of counterparties, reviewing concentrations of securities and conducting business through central clearing organizations. Collateral underlying margin loans to customers and correspondents and with respect to securities lending activities is marked to market daily and additional collateral is required as necessary. 105 Mortgage Origination Segment Within our mortgage origination segment, our principal market exposure is to interest rate risk due to the impact on our mortgage-related assets and commitments, including mortgage loans held for sale, IRLCs and MSR. Changes in interest rates could also materially and adversely affect our volume of mortgage loan originations. IRLCs represent an agreement to extend credit to a mortgage loan applicant, whereby the interest rate on the loan is set prior to funding. Our mortgage loans held for sale, which we hold in inventory while awaiting sale into the secondary market, and our IRLCs are subject to the effects of changes in mortgage interest rates from the date of the commitment through the sale of the loan into the secondary market. As a result, we are exposed to interest rate risk and related price risk during the period from the date of the lock commitment until (i) the lock commitment cancellation or expiration date or (ii) the date of sale into the secondary mortgage market. Loan commitments generally range from 20 to 60 days, and our average holding period of the mortgage loan from funding to sale is approximately 30 days. An integral component of our interest rate risk management strategy is our execution of forward commitments to sell MBSs to minimize the impact on earnings resulting from significant fluctuations in the fair value of mortgage loans held for sale and IRLCs caused by changes in interest rates. We have recently expanded, and may continue to expand, our residential mortgage servicing operations within our mortgage origination segment. As a result of our mortgage servicing business, we have a portfolio of retained MSR. One of the principal risks associated with MSR is that in a declining interest rate environment, they will likely lose a substantial portion of their value as a result of higher than anticipated prepayments. Moreover, if prepayments are greater than expected, the cash we receive over the life of the mortgage loans would be reduced. The mortgage origination segment uses derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swaps, swaptions, and forward MBS commitments, as a means to mitigate market risk associated with MSR assets. No hedging strategy can protect us completely, and hedging strategies may fail because they are improperly designed, improperly executed and documented or based on inaccurate assumptions and, as a result, could actually increase our risks and losses. The increasing size of our MSR portfolio may increase our interest rate risk and, correspondingly, the volatility of our earnings, especially if we cannot adequately hedge the interest rate risk relating to our MSR. The goal of our interest rate risk management strategy within our mortgage origination segment is not to eliminate interest rate risk, but to manage it within appropriate limits. To mitigate the risk of loss, we have established policies and procedures, which include guidelines on the amount of exposure to interest rate changes we are willing to accept. Insurance Segment Within our insurance segment, our exposures to market risk relate primarily to our investment portfolio, which is exposed primarily to interest rate risk and credit risk. The fair value of our investment portfolio is directly impacted by changes in market interest rates; generally, the fair value of fixed-income investments moves inversely with movements in market interest rates. Our fixed maturity portfolio is comprised of substantially all fixed rate investments with primarily short-term and intermediate-term maturities. This portfolio composition allows flexibility in reacting to fluctuations of interest rates. The portfolios of our insurance company subsidiaries are managed to achieve an adequate risk-adjusted return while maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet policyholder obligations. Additionally, the fair values of interest rate sensitive instruments may be affected by the creditworthiness of the issuer, prepayment options, relative values of alternative investments, the liquidity of the instrument and other general market conditions. Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. Our financial statements required by this item are submitted as a separate section of this Annual Report. See “Financial Statements,” commencing on page F-1 hereof. Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure. None. 106 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures. Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures Our management, with the supervision and participation of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Based upon that evaluation, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that, as of the end of such period, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective in recording, processing, summarizing and reporting, on a timely basis, information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act and are effective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2015 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting, other than as it relates to the incorporation of the acquired systems and processes associated with the SWS Merger into our internal control environment. Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act, as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and effected by our board of directors, management and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that: (cid:120) (cid:120) (cid:120) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets; provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorization of our management and directors; and provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2015. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or COSO. Based on our assessment, management concluded that, at December 31, 2015, our internal control over financial reporting is effective. Item 9B. Other Information. None. 107 Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance. PART III The information called for by this Item is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and is incorporated herein by reference. Item 11. Executive Compensation. The information called for by this Item is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and is incorporated herein by reference. Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters. The information called for by this Item is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or in Item 5 of this Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2015, and is incorporated herein by reference. Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. The information called for by this Item is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and is incorporated herein by reference. Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services. The information called for by this Item is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and is incorporated herein by reference. 108 Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules. (a) The following documents are filed herewith as part of this Form 10-K. PART IV 1. Financial Statements. Hilltop Holdings Inc. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Consolidated Balance Sheets Consolidated Statements of Operations Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 2. Financial Statement Schedules. Page F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 All financial statement schedules have been omitted because they are not required, not applicable or the information has been included in our consolidated financial statements. 3. Exhibits. See the Exhibit Index following the signature page hereto. 109 Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. SIGNATURES Date: February 24, 2016 HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. By: /s/ Jeremy B. Ford Jeremy B. Ford President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and duly authorized officer) 110 Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. Signature Capacity in which Signed Date /s/ Jeremy B. Ford Jeremy B. Ford /s/ Darren Parmenter Darren Parmenter Charlotte Jones Anderson /s/ Rhodes Bobbitt Rhodes Bobbitt /s/ Tracy A. Bolt Tracy A. Bolt /s/ W. Joris Brinkerhoff W. Joris Brinkerhoff J. Taylor Crandall /s/ Charles R. Cummings Charles R. Cummings /s/ Hill A. Feinberg Hill A. Feinberg /s/ Gerald J. Ford Gerald J. Ford /s/ J. Markham Green J. Markham Green William T. Hill, Jr. /s/ James R. Huffines James R. Huffines /s/ Lee Lewis Lee Lewis /s/ Andrew J. Littlefair Andrew J. Littlefair /s/ W. Robert Nichols, III W. Robert Nichols, III /s/ C. Clifton Robinson C. Clifton Robinson /s/ Kenneth D. Russell Kenneth D. Russell /s/ A. Haag Sherman A. Haag Sherman /s/ Robert Taylor, Jr. Robert Taylor, Jr. /s/ Carl B. Webb Carl B. Webb /s/ Alan B. White Alan B. White President, Chief Executive Officer and Director February 24, 2016 (Principal Executive Officer) Executive Vice President — Principal Financial Officer February 24, 2016 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Director Director February 24, 2016 Director and Audit Committee Member February 24, 2016 Director Director February 24, 2016 Director and Chairman of Audit Committee February 24, 2016 Director Director February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 Director and Audit Committee Member February 24, 2016 Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director 111 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 February 24, 2016 Exhibit Number 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 Description of Exhibit Purchase and Assumption Agreement — Whole Bank, All Deposits, dated as of September 13, 2013, by and among the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, receiver of First National Bank, Edinburg, Texas, PlainsCapital Bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 19, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among SWS Group, Inc., Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Peruna LLC, dated as of March 31, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Articles of Amendment and Restatement of Affordable Residential Communities Inc., dated February 16, 2004, as amended or supplemented by: Articles Supplementary, dated February 16, 2004; Corporate Charter Certificate of Notice, dated June 6, 2005; Articles of Amendment, dated January 23, 2007; Articles of Amendment, dated July 31, 2007; Corporate Charter Certificate of Notice, dated September 23, 2008; Articles Supplementary, dated December 15, 2010; Articles Supplementary, dated as of November 29, 2012 relating to Subtitle 8 election; Articles Supplementary, dated November 29, 2012 relating to Non- Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B, of Hilltop Holdings Inc.; and Articles of Amendment, dated March 31, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 16, 2009 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Form of Certificate of Common Stock of Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Corporate Charter Certificate of Notice, dated June 6, 2005 (filed as Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-125854) and incorporated herein by reference). Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of July 31, 2001, by and among U.S. Bank National Association (successor in interest to State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut, National Association), as Institutional Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation, and the Administrators party thereto from time to time (filed as Exhibit 4.2 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of August 7, 2006, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.3 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Indenture, dated as of July 31, 2001, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association (successor in interest to State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut, National Association), as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.4 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of August 7, 2006, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.5 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). 112 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 30, 2012, by and among U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) and PlainsCapital Corporation (filed as Exhibit 4.5.5 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Amended and Restated Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debenture of Plains Capital Corporation, dated as of August 7, 2006, by PlainsCapital Corporation in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee for PCC Statutory Trust I (filed as Exhibit 4.6 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of July 31, 2001, by and between PlainsCapital and U.S. Bank National Association (successor in interest to State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut, National Association), as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.7 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). First Amendment to Guarantee Agreement, dated as of August 7, 2006, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Guarantee Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.8 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000- 53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of March 26, 2003, by and among U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation, and the Administrators party thereto from time to time (filed as Exhibit 4.9 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Indenture, dated as of March 26, 2003, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.10 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 30, 2012, by and among U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) and PlainsCapital Corporation (filed as Exhibit 4.6.3 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debenture of Plains Capital Corporation, dated as of March 26, 2003, by PlainsCapital Corporation in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee for PCC Statutory Trust II (filed as Exhibit 4.11 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of March 26, 2003, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Guarantee Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.12 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of September 17, 2003, by and among U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation, and the Administrators party thereto from time to time (filed as Exhibit 4.13 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Indenture, dated as of September 17, 2003, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.14 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). 113 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.6.5 4.7 10.1.1† 10.1.2† 10.2 First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 30, 2012, by and among U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) and PlainsCapital Corporation. (filed as Exhibit 4.7.3 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debenture of Plains Capital Corporation, dated as of September 17, 2003, by PlainsCapital Corporation in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee for PCC Statutory Trust III (filed as Exhibit 4.15 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of September 17, 2003, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as Guarantee Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.16 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2008, by and among PlainsCapital Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Property Trustee, Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, and the Administrators party thereto from time to time (filed as Exhibit 4.17 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000- 53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of February 22, 2008, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.18 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 30, 2012, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee. (filed as Exhibit 4.8.3 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Plains Capital Corporation Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Note due 2038, dated as of February 22, 2008, by PlainsCapital Corporation in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Property Trustee of PCC Statutory Trust IV (filed as Exhibit 4.19 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2008, by and between PlainsCapital Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Guarantee Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.20 to the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by PlainsCapital Corporation on April 17, 2009 (File No. 000-53629) and incorporated herein by reference). Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2015, by and between Hilltop Holdings, Inc. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, including form of notes (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 9, 2015 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Affordable Residential Communities Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-11 (File No. 333-109816) and incorporated herein by reference). Form of Affordable Residential Communities Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10.2.3 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 9, 2015, by and among Hilltop Holdings, Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 9, 2015 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). 114 10.3† 10.4† 10.5† 10.6† 10.7† 10.8† 10.9† 10.10† 10.11† 10.12† 10.13† 10.14† 10.15† Retention Agreement, dated May 8, 2012, but effective as of November 30, 2012, by and among Alan B. White, Hilltop Holdings Inc. and PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 11, 2012 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Retention Agreement, dated May 8, 2012, but effective as of November 30, 2012, by and among Jerry L. Schaffner, Hilltop Holdings Inc. and PlainsCapital Corporation (f/k/a Meadow Corporation) (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 11, 2012 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Employment Agreement, dated as of December 4, 2014, by and between James R. Huffines and Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 9, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Employment Agreement, dated as of December 4, 2014, by and between Todd Salmans and Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.8 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Compensation arrangement of Jeremy B. Ford (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2015 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Compensation arrangement with Darren Parmenter (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2015 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, effective September 20, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.18 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Hilltop Holdings Inc. Annual Incentive Plan, effective September 20, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.19 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed on March 15, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 filed on May 6, 2013 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (Time-Based Vesting) (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 28, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (Performance-Based Vesting) (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 28, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). Sublease, dated December 1, 2012, by and between Hunter’s Glen/Ford, LTD and Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.19 to the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on March 3, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). First Amendment to Sublease, dated February 28, 2014, by and between Hunter’s Glen/Ford, LTD and Hilltop Holdings Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.20 to the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed on March 3, 2014 (File No. 001-31987) and incorporated herein by reference). 21.1* List of subsidiaries of the Registrant. 23.1* Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. 115 31.1* 31.2* 32.1* Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 101.INS* XBRL Instance Document 101.SCH* XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema 101.CAL* XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase 101.DEF* XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase 101.LAB* XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase 101.PRE* XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase * Filed herewith. † Exhibit is a management contract or compensatory plan. 116 Index to Consolidated Financial Statements Hilltop Holdings Inc. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Consolidated Balance Sheets Consolidated Statements of Operations Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Hilltop Holdings Inc. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index appearing under Item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Hilltop Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) at December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Dallas, Texas February 24, 2016 F-2 HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in thousands, except share and per share data) Assets Cash and due from banks Federal funds sold Securities purchased under agreements to resell Assets segregated for regulatory purposes Securities: Trading, at fair value Available for sale, at fair value (amortized cost of $670,003 and $924,755, respectively) Held to maturity, at amortized cost (fair value of $331,468 and $118,345, respectively) Loans held for sale Non-covered loans, net of unearned income Allowance for non-covered loan losses Non-covered loans, net Covered loans, net of allowance of $1,532 and $4,611, respectively Broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables Premises and equipment, net FDIC indemnification asset Covered other real estate owned Other assets Goodwill Other intangible assets, net Total assets Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Deposits: Noninterest-bearing Interest-bearing Total deposits Broker-dealer and clearing organization payables Short-term borrowings Securities sold, not yet purchased, at fair value Notes payable Junior subordinated debentures Other liabilities Total liabilities Commitments and contingencies (see Notes 18 and 19) Stockholders' equity: Hilltop stockholders' equity: Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 10,000,000 shares authorized; Series B, liquidation value per share of $1,000; 114,068 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2014 Common stock, $0.01 par value, 125,000,000 shares authorized; 98,896,184 and 90,181,888 shares issued and outstanding, respectively Additional paid-in capital Accumulated other comprehensive income Retained earnings (accumulated deficit) Deferred compensation employee stock trust, net Employee stock trust (22,196 shares, at cost) Total Hilltop stockholders' equity Noncontrolling interests Total stockholders' equity Total liabilities and stockholders' equity December 31, 2015 2014 $ 652,036 17,409 105,660 158,613 214,146 673,706 332,022 1,219,874 1,533,678 5,220,040 (45,415) 5,174,625 378,762 1,362,499 200,618 91,648 99,090 565,813 251,808 54,868 11,867,001 2,235,436 4,717,247 6,952,683 1,338,305 947,373 130,044 238,716 67,012 454,743 10,128,876 $ $ 782,473 30,602 — 76,013 65,717 925,535 118,209 1,109,461 1,309,693 3,920,476 (37,041) 3,883,435 638,029 167,884 206,991 130,437 136,945 458,862 251,808 59,783 9,242,416 2,076,385 4,293,507 6,369,892 179,042 762,696 48 56,684 67,012 345,803 7,781,177 — 114,068 989 1,577,270 2,629 155,475 1,034 (443) 1,736,954 1,171 1,738,125 11,867,001 $ 902 1,390,788 651 (45,957) — — 1,460,452 787 1,461,239 9,242,416 $ $ $ $ See accompanying notes. F-3 HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (in thousands, except per share data) 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 Interest income: Loans, including fees Securities borrowed Securities: Taxable Tax-exempt Other Total interest income Interest expense: Deposits Securities loaned Short-term borrowings Notes payable Junior subordinated debentures Other Total interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan losses Net interest income after provision for loan losses Noninterest income: Net realized gains on securities Net gains from sale of loans and other mortgage production income Mortgage loan origination fees Net insurance premiums earned Securities commissions and fees Investment and securities advisory fees and commissions Bargain purchase gain Other Total noninterest income Noninterest expense: Employees' compensation and benefits Loss and loss adjustment expenses Policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses Occupancy and equipment, net Other Total noninterest expense Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest Income attributable to Hilltop Dividends on preferred stock Income applicable to Hilltop common stockholders Earnings per common share: Basic Diluted Weighted average share information: Basic Diluted $ 390,359 41,051 $ 341,458 7,257 $ 26,584 6,628 5,216 469,838 15,523 29,893 4,574 8,143 2,401 721 61,255 408,583 12,715 395,868 4,403 519,103 77,708 162,082 160,660 115,932 81,289 106,465 1,227,642 765,887 99,066 47,126 119,653 308,284 1,340,016 283,494 70,915 212,579 1,606 210,973 1,854 209,119 2.10 2.09 99,074 99,962 $ $ $ 29,206 4,681 6,167 388,769 15,742 3,981 2,214 2,532 2,360 799 27,628 361,141 16,933 344,208 — 390,361 63,011 164,524 27,321 74,553 — 79,541 799,311 490,706 94,429 46,942 101,697 231,579 965,353 178,166 65,608 112,558 908 111,650 5,703 105,947 1.18 1.17 89,710 90,573 $ $ $ $ $ $ See accompanying notes. F-4 284,782 5,901 27,078 4,775 6,539 329,075 14,877 2,501 1,826 10,512 2,409 749 32,874 296,201 37,158 259,043 4,937 457,531 79,736 157,533 29,370 63,723 12,585 44,670 850,085 480,496 110,755 46,289 86,248 187,947 911,735 197,393 70,684 126,709 1,367 125,342 4,327 121,015 1.43 1.40 84,382 90,331 HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (in thousands) Net income Other comprehensive income (loss): Net unrealized gains (losses) on securities available for sale, net of tax of $2,761, $22,268 and $(21,972), respectively Reclassification adjustment for gains included in net income, net of tax of $(1,589), $(2,582) and $(1,793), respectively Comprehensive income Less: comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest 2015 212,579 $ Year Ended December 31, 2014 112,558 $ 2013 126,709 $ 4,792 40,090 (39,709) (2,814) 214,557 1,606 (4,576) 148,072 908 (3,248) 83,752 1,367 Comprehensive income applicable to Hilltop $ 212,951 $ 147,164 $ 82,385 See accompanying notes. F-5 l a t o T l a t o T p o t l l i H ’ s r e d l o h k c o t S g n i l l o r t n o c n o N ’ s r e d l o h k c o t S e e y o l p m E t s u r T k c o t S k c o t S e e y o l p m E d e t a l u m u c c A ( e v i s n e h e r p m o C d e r r e f e D n o i t a s n e p m o C d e n i a t e R s g n i n r a E d e t a l u m u c c A r e h t O l a n o i t i d d A t s e r e t n I y t i u q E t n u o m A s e r a h S t e N , t s u r T ) t i c i f e D ) s s o L ( e m o c n I $ ) 9 4 9 , 2 8 2 ( $ 4 9 0 , 8 $ 8 4 4 , 4 0 3 , 1 $ 5 3 8 $ n i - d i a P l a t i p a C t n u o m A k c o t S n o m m o C 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 $ 4 1 1 k c o t S d e r r e f e r P t n u o m A s e r a h S S E I R A I D I S B U S D N A . C N I S G N I D L O H P O T L L I H Y T I U Q E ’ S R E D L O H K C O T S F O S T N E M E T A T S D E T A D I L O S N O C ) s d n a s u o h t n i ( ) 7 5 9 , 2 4 ( 9 0 7 , 6 2 1 9 4 1 1 7 6 , 1 7 6 7 , 6 8 — ) 7 2 3 , 4 ( — — y t i u q E 0 5 5 , 6 4 1 , 1 $ ) 0 4 6 , 2 ( 2 2 9 , 1 1 3 , 1 $ 8 0 2 3 5 6 , 4 4 1 5 , 5 3 8 5 5 , 2 1 1 ) 2 1 ( ) 3 0 7 , 5 ( 1 0 0 , 3 ) 2 0 9 ( 8 7 9 , 1 9 7 5 , 2 1 2 3 3 0 , 0 0 2 1 8 2 0 5 2 , 8 1 9 5 6 4 3 ) 4 5 8 , 1 ( ) 8 2 0 , 0 3 ( ) 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 ( 9 3 2 , 1 6 4 , 1 $ — — — — — — — — 4 5 0 , 2 7 6 3 , 1 1 8 7 8 0 9 ) 0 4 6 , 2 ( — — — — — — ) 2 0 9 ( 7 8 7 6 0 6 , 1 — — — — — — — — — ) 2 2 2 , 1 ( 5 2 1 , 8 3 7 , 1 $ ) 2 2 2 , 1 ( 1 7 1 , 1 $ 6 9 4 , 4 4 1 , 1 $ ) 7 5 9 , 2 4 ( 2 4 3 , 5 2 1 9 4 1 1 7 6 , 1 7 6 7 , 6 8 — ) 7 2 3 , 4 ( — — — $ 1 4 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 $ 8 0 2 3 5 6 , 4 4 1 5 , 5 3 0 5 6 , 1 1 1 ) 2 1 ( ) 3 0 7 , 5 ( 1 0 0 , 3 — $ 2 5 4 , 0 6 4 , 1 $ 8 7 9 , 1 3 7 9 , 0 1 2 3 3 0 , 0 0 2 1 8 2 0 5 2 , 8 1 9 5 — 6 4 3 ) 4 5 8 , 1 ( ) 8 2 0 , 0 3 ( ) 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 ( — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ) 3 4 4 ( — $ $ $ $ 4 5 9 , 6 3 7 , 1 $ ) 3 4 4 ( $ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 2 — 2 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 3 0 , 1 — 4 3 0 , 1 — — — — — — — — — 2 4 3 , 5 2 1 — — — — — — — — — ) 7 5 9 , 2 4 ( — — 9 4 1 1 7 6 , 1 5 0 7 , 6 8 ) 5 ( ) 7 2 3 , 4 ( — — — $ ) 7 0 6 , 7 5 1 ( $ ) 3 6 8 , 4 3 ( $ 1 4 6 , 8 8 3 , 1 $ — — — — — — — 0 5 6 , 1 1 1 3 7 9 , 0 1 2 $ ) 7 5 9 , 5 4 ( $ — — — — — — — — ) 4 5 8 , 1 ( ) 7 8 6 , 7 ( — 4 1 5 , 5 3 — — — — — — 1 5 6 — 8 7 9 , 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 8 0 2 3 5 6 , 4 ) 2 1 ( ) 3 0 7 , 5 ( 1 0 0 , 3 — $ 8 8 7 , 0 9 3 , 1 $ — — 1 8 2 0 5 2 , 8 2 3 9 , 9 9 1 — — 6 4 3 ) 7 2 3 , 2 2 ( — — $ 5 7 4 , 5 5 1 $ 9 2 6 , 2 $ 0 7 2 , 7 7 5 , 1 $ — — 2 6 — — 5 — — — — 2 0 9 — — — — — — — — 2 0 9 — — — — 1 0 1 — — — ) 4 1 ( — — 9 8 9 . s e t o n g n i y n a p m o c c a e e S 6 - F s e r a h S 7 8 4 , 3 8 — — — 0 1 8 0 2 , 6 — 1 7 4 — — — — 4 1 ) 2 2 ( — — — — 3 1 1 , 0 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $ 6 7 1 , 0 9 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 $ — — — 9 ) 3 ( — — — — — — — — — — — $ 2 8 1 , 0 9 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 $ — — — — — — — — — — 4 1 1 — — — — — — — — 4 1 1 — — — — — — — — — ) 1 9 3 , 1 ( $ 6 9 8 , 8 9 — — — — $ — — — — ) 8 6 0 , 4 1 1 ( ) 4 1 1 ( s r e b m e m d r a o b o t d e u s s i k c o t s n o m m o C o t d e t a l e r k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I e s n e p x e n o i t a s n e p m o c d e s a b - k c o t S g n i l l o r t n o c n o n o t d e t u b i r t s i d h s a c t e N t e n , s d r a w a d e s a b - e r a h s k c o t s d e r r e f e r p n o s d n e d i v i D g n i l l o r t n o c n o n o t d e t u b i r t s i d h s a c t e N t s e r e t n i g n i l l o r t n o c n o n d e r i u q c A t s e r e t n i s r e b m e m d r a o b o t d e u s s i k c o t s n o m m o C o t d e t a l e r k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I e s n e p x e n o i t a s n e p m o c d e s a b - k c o t S e m o c n i e v i s n e h e r p m o c r e h t O g n i l l o r t n o c n o n o t d e t u b i r t s i d h s a c t e N t e n , s d r a w a d e s a b - e r a h s k c o t s d e r r e f e r p n o s d n e d i v i D k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I s r e b m e m d r a o b o t d e u s s i k c o t s n o m m o C o t d e t a l e r k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I e s n e p x e n o i t a s n e p m o c d e s a b - k c o t S k c o t s d e r r e f e r p f o n o i t p m e d e R k c o t s n o m m o c f o e s a h c r u p e R k c o t s d e r r e f e r p n o s d n e d i v i D n a l p n o i t a s n e p m o c d e r r e f e D t e n , s d r a w a d e s a b - e r a h s g n i l l o r t n o c n o n o t d e t u b i r t s i d h s a c t e N 5 1 0 2 , 1 3 r e b m e c e D , e c n a l a B t s e r e t n i e m o c n i e v i s n e h e r p m o c r e h t O k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I e m o c n i t e N 4 1 0 2 , 1 3 r e b m e c e D , e c n a l a B t s e r e t n i 3 1 0 2 , 1 3 r e b m e c e D , e c n a l a B t s e r e t n i e m o c n i t e N s s o l e v i s n e h e r p m o c r e h t O k c o t s n o m m o c f o e c n a u s s I e m o c n i t e N 2 1 0 2 , 1 3 r e b m e c e D , e c n a l a B HILLTOP HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in thousands) Operating Activities Net income Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 $ 212,579 $ 112,558 $ 126,709 Provision for loan losses Depreciation, amortization and accretion, net Net realized gains on securities Bargain purchase gain Net gain on investment in SWS common stock Deferred income taxes Other, net Net change in securities purchased under agreements to resell Net change in assets segregated for regulatory purposes Net change in trading securities Net change in broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables Net change in FDIC indemnification asset Net change in other assets Net change in broker-dealer and clearing organization payables Net change in other liabilities Net gains from sales of loans Loans originated for sale Proceeds from loans sold Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities Investing Activities Proceeds from maturities and principal reductions of securities held to maturity Proceeds from sales, maturities and principal reductions of securities available for sale Purchases of securities held to maturity Purchases of securities available for sale Net change in loans Purchases of premises and equipment and other assets Proceeds from sales of premises and equipment and other real estate owned Proceeds from redemption of bank owned life insurance Net cash paid for Federal Home Loan Bank and Federal Reserve Bank stock Net cash from acquisitions Net cash provided by investing activities Financing Activities Net change in deposits Net change in short-term borrowings Proceeds from notes payable Payments on notes payable Redemption of preferred stock Payments to repurchase common stock Dividends paid on preferred stock Net cash distributed to noncontrolling interest Other, net Net cash used in financing activities Net change in cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year Cash and cash equivalents, end of year Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information Cash paid for interest Cash paid for income taxes, net of refunds Supplemental Schedule of Non-Cash Activities Conversion of available for sale investment to SWS common stock Redemption of senior exchangeable notes for common stock Conversion of loans to other real estate owned Common stock issued in acquisition 12,715 (83,360) (4,403) (81,289) — 17,376 7,995 (60,919) 99,010 117,639 71,992 39,936 (57,790) (54,048) 25,099 (519,103) (13,871,473) 14,163,781 35,737 88,070 673,950 (230,404) (48,121) (150,605) (31,270) 110,922 822 (12,172) 41,097 442,289 (601,386) 20,437 150,078 (42,571) (114,068) (30,028) (3,539) (1,222) 643 (621,656) 16,933 (83,279) — — (5,985) (22,782) 19,000 — (76,011) (6,871) (145,283) 61,299 (21,455) 214,755 59,331 (390,361) (10,839,905) 11,016,636 (91,420) 5,203 315,166 (123,520) (49,156) 103,031 (43,186) 69,400 — (17,114) — 259,824 (518,417) 420,609 3,000 (2,643) — — (5,619) (902) 2,620 (101,352) (143,630) 813,075 669,445 $ 67,052 746,023 813,075 $ 59,700 $ 112,459 $ — $ — $ 57,838 $ 200,626 $ 28,846 $ 26,859 $ 71,502 $ — $ 67,542 $ — $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 37,158 (53,794) (4,937) (12,585) — 15,829 6,249 — 18,998 31,267 21,219 (912) (10,621) (55,247) (35,260) (457,531) (11,752,800) 12,522,963 396,705 — 381,890 — (372,998) (140,437) (33,066) 21,233 — 4,600 362,695 223,917 (210,491) (386,163) 2,000 (3,262) — — (2,985) (2,640) 2,482 (601,059) 19,563 726,460 746,023 31,805 73,802 — 83,950 25,639 — See accompanying notes. F-7 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 1. Summary of Significant Accounting and Reporting Policies Nature of Operations Hilltop Holdings Inc. (“Hilltop” and, collectively with its subsidiaries, the “Company”) is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Company’s primary line of business is to provide business and consumer banking services from offices located throughout Texas through PlainsCapital Bank (the “Bank”). In addition, the Company provides an array of financial products and services through its broker-dealer, mortgage origination and insurance subsidiaries. The Company provides its products and services through three primary operating subsidiaries, PlainsCapital Corporation (“PlainsCapital”), Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC (“Securities Holdings”) and National Lloyds Corporation (“NLC”). PlainsCapital is a financial holding company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that provides, through its subsidiaries, traditional banking and wealth, investment management and treasury management services primarily in Texas and residential mortgage lending throughout the United States. Securities Holdings is a holding company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that provides, through its subsidiaries, investment banking and other related financial services, including municipal advisory, sales, trading and underwriting of taxable and tax-exempt fixed income securities, equity trading, clearing, securities lending, structured finance and retail brokerage services throughout the United States. NLC is a property and casualty insurance holding company, headquartered in Waco, Texas, that provides, through its subsidiaries, fire and homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States. On January 1, 2015, Hilltop completed its acquisition of SWS Group, Inc. (“SWS”) in a stock and cash transaction (the "SWS Merger"), whereby SWS’s broker-dealer subsidiaries, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc., became subsidiaries of Securities Holdings, and SWS’s banking subsidiary, Southwest Securities, FSB (“SWS FSB”), was merged into the Bank. As a result of the SWS Merger, each outstanding share of SWS common stock was converted into the right to receive 0.2496 shares of Hilltop common stock and $1.94 in cash, equating to $6.92 per share based on Hilltop’s closing price on December 31, 2014 and resulting in an aggregate purchase price of $349.1 million, consisting of 10.1 million shares of common stock, $78.2 million in cash and $70.3 million associated with Hilltop’s existing investment in SWS common stock. On October 5, 2015, Southwest Securities, Inc. and SWS Financial Services, Inc. were renamed “Hilltop Securities Inc.” (“Hilltop Securities”) and “Hilltop Securities Independent Network Inc.” (“HTS Independent Network”), respectively. Basis of Presentation The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Estimates regarding the allowance for loan losses, the fair values of financial instruments, the amounts receivable from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) under the loss-share agreements (“FDIC Indemnification Asset”), reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”), the mortgage loan indemnification liability, and the potential impairment of assets are particularly subject to change. The Company has applied its critical accounting policies and estimation methods consistently in all periods presented in these consolidated financial statements. Hilltop owns 100% of the outstanding stock of PlainsCapital. PlainsCapital owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the Bank and 100% of the membership interest in PlainsCapital Equity, LLC. The Bank owns 100% of the outstanding stock of PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company (“PrimeLending”) and has a 100% membership interest in PlainsCapital Securities, LLC. PrimeLending owns a 100% membership interest in PrimeLending Ventures Management, LLC, the controlling and sole managing member of PrimeLending Ventures, LLC (“Ventures”). PlainsCapital also owns 100% of the outstanding common securities of PCC Statutory Trusts I, II, III and IV (the “Trusts”), which are not included in the consolidated financial statements under the requirements of the Variable Interest Entities Subsections of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”), because the primary beneficiaries of the Trusts are not within the consolidated group. F-8 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Hilltop has a 100% membership interest in Securities Holdings, which operates through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, First Southwest Holdings, LLC (“First Southwest”), Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network. The principal subsidiaries of First Southwest as of December 31, 2015 were First Southwest Company, LLC (“FSC”), a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and a member of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), and First Southwest Asset Management, LLC, a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. Hilltop Securities is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and FINRA and a member of the NYSE, and HTS Independent Network is an introducing broker-dealer that is also registered with the SEC and FINRA. Hilltop also owns 100% of NLC, which operates through its wholly owned subsidiaries, National Lloyds Insurance Company (“NLIC”) and American Summit Insurance Company (“ASIC”). The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the above-named entities. Intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. Noncontrolling interests have been recorded for minority ownership in entities that are not wholly owned and are presented in compliance with the provisions of Noncontrolling Interest in Subsidiary Subsections of the ASC. The operations acquired in the SWS Merger were included in the Company’s operating results beginning January 1, 2015 and such operations included a preliminary bargain purchase gain of $82.8 million as disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015. In accordance with the Business Combinations Topic of the ASC, during the quarter ended June 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of the customer relationship intangible asset acquired as of January 1, 2015 was adjusted downward as a result of management’s review and approval of certain key assumptions that existed as of January 1, 2015. Additionally, during the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of deferred tax assets acquired as of January 1, 2015 was adjusted upward as a result of management’s review and filing of SWS’s consolidated federal tax return for the year ended December 31, 2014. These changes are reflected in the consolidated statements of operations within noninterest income during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. In the aggregate, these adjustments to the preliminary bargain purchase gain decreased net income for the three months ended March 31, 2015 by $1.5 million as compared with amounts previously reported in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015. Additionally, certain amounts previously reported in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 within the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015, and the related statements of comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2015, as well as the notes to the consolidated financial statements, will be revised in future filings. Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior period consolidated financial statements to conform with the current period presentation. Acquisition Accounting Acquisitions are accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting. Purchased assets, including identifiable intangible assets, and assumed liabilities are recorded at their respective acquisition date fair values. If the fair value of net assets purchased exceeds the consideration given, a “bargain purchase gain” is recognized. If the consideration given exceeds the fair value of the net assets received, goodwill is recognized. Securities Purchased Under Agreements to Resell Securities purchased under agreements to resell (reverse repurchase agreements or reverse repos) are treated as collateralized financings and are carried at the amounts at which the securities will subsequently be resold as specified in the agreements. The Company is in possession of collateral with a fair value equal to or in excess of the contract amounts. F-9 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Securities Management classifies securities at the time of purchase and reassesses such designation at each balance sheet date. Transfers between categories from these reassessments are rare. Securities held for resale to facilitate principal transactions with customers are classified as trading, and are carried at fair value, with changes in fair value reflected in the consolidated statements of operations. Hilltop reports interest income on trading securities as interest income on securities and other changes in fair value as other noninterest income. Securities held but not intended to be held to maturity or on a long-term basis are classified as available for sale. Securities included in this category are those that management intends to use as part of its asset/liability management strategy and that may be sold in response to changes in interest rates, resultant prepayment risk, and other factors related to interest rate and resultant prepayment risk changes. Securities available for sale are carried at fair value. Unrealized holding gains and losses on securities available for sale, net of taxes, are reported in other comprehensive income (loss) until realized. Premiums and discounts are recognized in interest income using the effective interest method and consider any optionality that may be embedded in the security. Purchases and sales (and related gain or loss) of securities are recorded on the trade date, based on specific identification. Declines in the fair value of available-for-sale securities below their cost that are deemed to be other than temporary are reflected in earnings as realized losses to the extent the other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) is related to credit losses. The amount of the OTTI related to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income (loss). In estimating OTTI, management considers in developing its best estimate of cash flows, among other things, (i) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (ii) the financial condition and near- term prospects of the issuer, (iii) the historic and implied volatility of the security, (iv) failure of the issuer to make scheduled interest payments and (v) changes to the rating of the security by a rating agency. Loans Held for Sale Loans held for sale consist primarily of single-family residential mortgages funded through PrimeLending. These loans are generally on the consolidated balance sheet for no more than 30 days. Substantially all mortgage loans originated by PrimeLending are sold to various investors in the secondary market, the majority with servicing released. Mortgage loans held for sale are carried at fair value in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Value Option Subsections of the ASC (the “Fair Value Option”). Changes in the fair value of the loans held for sale are recognized in earnings and fees and costs associated with origination are recognized as incurred. The specific identification method is used to determine realized gains and losses on sales of loans, which are reported as net gains (losses) in noninterest income. Loans sold are subject to certain indemnification provisions with investors, including the repurchase of loans sold and repayment of certain sales proceeds to investors under certain conditions. In addition, certain mortgage loans guaranteed by U.S. Government agencies and sold into Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”) pools may, under certain conditions specified in the government programs, become subject to repurchase by PrimeLending. Such loans subject to repurchase no longer qualify for sale accounting and are reported as loans held for sale in the consolidated balance sheets. Loans Loans that management has the intent and ability to hold for the foreseeable future or until maturity or payoff are stated at the amount of unpaid principal reduced by unearned income, net unamortized deferred fees and an allowance for loan losses. Unearned income on installment loans and interest on other loans is recognized using the effective interest method. Net fees received for providing loan commitments and letters of credit that result in loans are deferred and amortized to interest income over the life of the related loan, beginning with the initial borrowing. Net fees on commitments and letters of credit that are not expected to be funded are amortized to noninterest income over the commitment period. Income on direct financing leases is recognized on a basis that achieves a constant periodic rate of return on the outstanding investment. Impaired loans include non-accrual loans, troubled debt restructurings, purchased credit impaired (“PCI”) loans and partially charged-off loans. The accrual of interest on impaired loans is discontinued when, in management’s opinion, there is a clear indication that the borrower’s cash flow may not be sufficient to meet principal and interest payments, F-10 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) which is generally when a loan is 90 days past due unless the asset is both well secured and in the process of collection. When a loan is placed on non-accrual status, all previously accrued and unpaid interest is charged against income. If the ultimate collectability of principal, wholly or partially, is in doubt, any payment received on a loan on which the accrual of interest has been suspended is applied to reduce principal to the extent necessary to eliminate such doubt. Once the collection of the remaining recorded loan balance is fully expected, interest income is recognized on a cash basis. The Bank originates loans to customers primarily in Texas. Although the Bank has diversified loan and leasing portfolios and, generally, holds collateral against amounts advanced to customers, its debtors’ ability to honor their contracts is substantially dependent upon the general economic conditions of the region and of the industries in which its debtors operate, which consist primarily of agribusiness, construction, energy, real estate and wholesale/retail trade. PrimeLending originates mortgage loans to customers in its offices, which are located throughout the United States. Substantially all mortgage loans originated by PrimeLending are sold to various investors in the secondary market, the majority with servicing released, although PrimeLending does retain servicing in certain circumstances. FSC, Hilltop Securities and HTS Independent Network (collectively, the “Hilltop Broker-Dealers”) make loans to customers and correspondents through margin transactions originated by both employees and independent retail representatives throughout the United States. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers control or controlled risk by requiring customers to maintain margin collateral in compliance with various regulatory and internal guidelines, which may vary based upon market conditions. Securities owned by customers and held as collateral for margin loans are not included in the consolidated financial statements. Management has defined the loans acquired in a business combination as acquired loans. Acquired loans are recorded at estimated fair value on their purchase date with no carryover of the related allowance for loan losses. Acquired loans were segregated between those considered to be credit impaired and those without credit impairment at acquisition. To make this determination, management considered such factors as past due status, nonaccrual status and credit risk ratings. The fair value of acquired performing loans was determined by discounting expected cash flows, both principal and interest, at prevailing market interest rates. The difference between the fair value and principal balances due at acquisition date, the fair value discount, is accreted into income over the estimated life of each loan. PCI loans acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger are accounted for on an individual loan basis, while PCI loans acquired in each of the FNB Transaction (defined hereinafter) and SWS Merger are accounted for in pools as well as on an individual loan basis. The Company has established under its PCI accounting policy a framework to aggregate certain acquired loans into various loan pools based on a minimum of two layers of common risk characteristics for the purpose of determining their respective fair values as of their acquisition dates, and for applying the subsequent recognition and measurement provisions for income accretion and impairment testing. The common risk characteristics used for the pooling of the First National Bank (“FNB”) and SWS PCI loans are risk grade and loan collateral type. PCI loans showed evidence of credit deterioration that makes it probable that all contractually required principal and interest payments will not be collected. Their fair value was initially based on an estimate of cash flows, both principal and interest, expected to be collected, discounted at prevailing market rates of interest. Management estimated cash flows using key assumptions such as default rates, loss severity rates assuming default, prepayment speeds and estimated collateral values. The excess of cash flows expected to be collected from a loan or pool over its estimated fair value at acquisition is referred to as the accretable yield and is recognized in interest income using an effective yield method over the remaining life of the loan or pool. Subsequent to acquisition, management must update these estimates of cash flows expected to be collected at each reporting date. These updates require the continued use of key assumptions and estimates, similar to those used in the initial estimate of fair value. The Bank accretes the discount for PCI loans for which it can predict the timing and amount of cash flows. PCI loans for which a discount is accreted are considered performing. F-11 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Allowance for Loan Losses The allowance for loan losses is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense, which represents management’s best estimate of probable losses inherent in the existing portfolio of loans at the balance sheet date. The allowance for loan losses includes allowance allocations calculated in accordance with the Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses and the Receivables and Contingencies Topics of the ASC. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations, specific credit risks, loan loss experience, current loan portfolio quality, present economic, political and regulatory conditions, and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. Portions of the allowance may be allocated for specific credits; however, the entire allowance is available for any credit that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off. While management utilizes its best judgment and information available, the ultimate adequacy of the allowance is dependent upon a variety of factors beyond the Bank’s control, including the performance of the Bank’s loan portfolio, the economy and changes in interest rates. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses consists of three elements: (i) specific valuation allowances established for probable losses on impaired loans; (ii) general historical valuation allowances calculated based on historical loan loss experience for homogenous loans with similar collateral; and (iii) valuation allowances to adjust general reserves based on recent economic conditions and other qualitative risk factors both internal and external to the Bank. The Bank’s methodology regarding the calculation of the allowance for loan losses is discussed in more detail within Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. Broker-Dealer and Clearing Organization Transactions Amounts recorded in broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables and payables include securities lending activities, as well as amounts related to securities transactions for either customers of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers or for the account of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers. Securities-borrowed and securities-loaned transactions are generally reported as collateralized financings. Securities-borrowed transactions require the Hilltop Broker-Dealers to deposit cash, letters of credit, or other collateral with the lender. With respect to securities loaned, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers receive collateral in the form of cash or other assets in an amount generally in excess of the market value of securities loaned. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers monitor the market value of securities borrowed and loaned on a daily basis, with additional collateral obtained or refunded as necessary. Interest income and interest expense associated with collateralized financings is included in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Insurance Premiums Receivable Insurance premiums receivable include premiums written and not yet collected. NLC routinely evaluates the receivable balance to determine if an allowance for uncollectible amounts is necessary. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, NLC determined that no valuation allowance was necessary. Deferred Policy Acquisition Costs Costs of acquiring insurance vary with, and are primarily related to, the successful acquisition of new and renewal business, primarily consisting of commissions, premium taxes and underwriting expenses, and are deferred and amortized over the terms of the policies or reinsurance treaties to which they relate. Proceeds from reinsurance transactions that represent recovery of acquisition costs reduce applicable unamortized acquisition costs in such a manner that net acquisition costs are capitalized and charged to expense in proportion to net revenue recognized. Future investment income is considered in determining the recoverability of deferred policy acquisition costs. NLC regularly reviews the categories of acquisition costs that are deferred and assesses the recoverability of this asset. A premium deficiency and a corresponding charge to income is recognized if the sum of the expected loss and LAE, unamortized policy acquisition costs, and maintenance costs exceed related unearned insurance premiums and anticipated investment income. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, there was no premium deficiency. F-12 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Reinsurance In the normal course of business, NLC seeks to reduce the loss that may arise from catastrophes or other events that could cause unfavorable underwriting results by reinsuring certain levels of risk in various areas of exposure with other insurance enterprises or reinsurers. Amounts recoverable from reinsurers are estimated in a manner consistent with the reinsured policy. NLC routinely evaluates the receivable balance to determine if any uncollectible balances exist. Net insurance premiums earned, losses and LAE, and policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses are reported net of the amounts related to reinsurance ceded to other companies. Amounts recoverable from reinsurers related to the portions of the liability for losses and LAE and unearned insurance premiums ceded to them are included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheets. Reinsurance assumed from other companies, including assumed premiums written and earned, and losses and LAE, is accounted for in the same manner as direct insurance written. Premises and Equipment Premises and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization computed principally on the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which range between 3 and 40 years. Gains or losses on disposals of premises and equipment are included in results of operations. Other Real Estate Owned Real estate acquired through foreclosure (“OREO”) is included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheets and is carried at management’s estimate of fair value, less estimated cost to sell. Any excess of recorded investment over fair value, less cost to sell, is charged against either the allowance for loan losses or the related PCI pool discount when property is initially transferred to OREO. Subsequent to the initial transfer to OREO, downward valuation adjustments are charged against earnings. Valuation adjustments, revenue and expenses from operations of the properties and resulting gains or losses on sale are included in other noninterest expense within the consolidated statements of operations. Acquired OREO subject to FDIC loss-share agreements is referred to as “covered OREO” and reported separately in the consolidated balance sheets. Covered OREO is reported exclusive of expected reimbursement cash flows from the FDIC. Foreclosed covered loan collateral is transferred into covered OREO at the collateral’s fair value, less selling costs. Covered OREO was initially recorded at its estimated fair value based on similar market comparable valuations, less estimated selling costs. Subsequently, loan collateral transferred to OREO is recorded at its net realizable value. Any subsequent valuation adjustments due to declines in fair value of the covered OREO will be charged to noninterest expense, while any recoveries of previous valuation decreases will be credited to noninterest expense. FDIC Indemnification Asset The Company has elected to account for the FDIC Indemnification Asset in accordance with FASB ASC 805. The FDIC Indemnification Asset is initially recorded at fair value, based on the discounted value of expected future cash flows under the loss-share agreements. The difference between the present value and the undiscounted cash flows the Company expects to collect from the FDIC will be accreted into noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations over the life of the FDIC Indemnification Asset. The FDIC Indemnification Asset is reviewed quarterly and the accretion rate is adjusted for changes in the timing of cash flows expected to be collected from the FDIC. Cumulative net losses over the life of the loss-share agreements of less than $240.4 million will reduce the value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset. Any amortization of changes in value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset is limited to the contractual term of the loss-share agreements. Increases and decreases to the FDIC Indemnification Asset are recorded as adjustments to noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations over the life of the loss-share agreements. F-13 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Debt Issuance Costs The Company capitalizes debt issuance costs associated with financing of debt. These costs are amortized using the effective interest method over the repayment term of the debt. Unamortized debt issuance costs are presented in the consolidated balance sheets as a reduction from the associated debt liability. Debt issuance costs of $0.4 million and $2.3 million during 2015 and 2013 were amortized and included in interest expense within the consolidated statements of operations. In April 2015, debt issuance costs of $1.9 million were capitalized in connection with Hilltop’s issuance of the 5% senior notes due 2025. In November 2013, the total remaining unamortized balance of $2.1 million related to the 7.5% Senior Exchangeable Notes due 2025 (the “Exchangeable Notes”) was expensed as a result of the redemption of all outstanding Exchangeable Notes. Goodwill Goodwill, which represents the excess of cost over the fair value of the net assets acquired, is allocated to reporting units and tested for impairment annually, or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount should be assessed. The Company performs required annual impairment tests of its goodwill as of October 1st for each of its reporting units, which is one level below an operating segment. Goodwill is assigned to reporting units at the date the goodwill is initially recorded. Once goodwill has been assigned to reporting units, it no longer retains its association with a particular acquisition, and all of the activities within a reporting unit, whether acquired or internally generated, are available to support the value of the goodwill. Prior to testing goodwill for impairment, the Company has the option to assess on a qualitative basis whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If determined, based on its assessment of qualitative factors that it is more likely than not that fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the Company will proceed to test goodwill for impairment as a part of a two-step process. The first step, used to identify potential impairment, involves comparing each reporting unit’s estimated fair value to its carrying value, including goodwill. If the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value, there is an indication of potential impairment and the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment. The second step involves calculating an implied fair value of goodwill for each reporting unit for which the first step indicated impairment. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded for the excess. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined by allocating the fair value of the reporting unit in a manner similar to a purchase price allocation. The residual fair value after this allocation is the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill. Intangibles and Other Long-Lived Assets Intangible assets are acquired assets that lack physical substance but can be distinguished from goodwill because of contractual or other legal rights or because the asset is capable of being sold or exchanged either on its own or in combination with a related contract, asset or liability. The Company’s intangible assets primarily consist of core deposits, trade names and customer relationships. Intangible assets with definite useful lives are generally amortized on the straight-line method over their estimated lives, although certain intangibles, including core deposits, and customer and agent relationships, are amortized on an accelerated basis. Amortization of intangible assets is recorded in other noninterest expense within the consolidated statements of operations. Intangible assets with indefinite useful lives are tested for impairment annually as of October 1st, or more often if events or circumstances indicate there may be impairment, and not amortized until their lives are determined to be definite. Intangible assets with definite useful lives, premises and equipment, and other long-lived assets are tested for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable from future undiscounted cash flows. If impaired, the assets are recorded at fair value. Mortgage Servicing Rights The Company determines its classes of residential mortgage servicing assets based on the asset type being serviced along with the methods used to manage the risk inherent in the servicing assets, which includes the market inputs used to value the servicing assets. The Company measures its servicing assets at fair value and reports changes in fair value through earnings. F-14 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The retained mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”) asset is measured at fair value as of the date of sale of the related mortgage loan. Subsequent fair value measurements of the MSR asset are determined by valuing the projected net servicing cash flows, which are then discounted to estimate fair value using a discounted cash flow model. Assumptions used include market discount rates, anticipated prepayment speeds, delinquency and foreclosure rates, and ancillary fee income. The model assumptions and the MSR asset fair value estimates are compared to observable trades of similar portfolios as well as to MSR asset broker valuations and industry surveys, as available. The expected life of the loan can vary from management’s estimates due to prepayments by borrowers, especially when rates fall. Prepayments in excess of management’s estimates would negatively impact the recorded value of the MSR asset. The value of the MSR asset is also dependent upon the discount rate used in the model, which is based on current market rates that are reviewed by management on an ongoing basis. A significant increase in the discount rate would reduce the value of the MSR asset. Derivative Financial Instruments The Company’s hedging policies permit the use of various derivative financial instruments, including forward commitments, and interest rate swaps and swaptions, to manage interest rate risk or to hedge specified assets and liabilities. The Company’s derivative financial instruments also include interest rate lock commitments (“IRLCs”) executed with its customers that allow those customers to obtain a mortgage loan on a future date at an agreed-upon interest rate. The IRLCs, forward commitments, and interest rate swaps and swaptions meet the definition of a derivative under the provisions of the Derivatives and Hedging Topic of the ASC. Derivatives are recorded at fair value in the consolidated balance sheets. To qualify for hedge accounting, derivatives must be highly effective at reducing the risk associated with the exposure being hedged and must be designated as a hedge at the inception of the derivative contract. If derivative instruments are designated as hedges of fair values, the change in the fair value of both the derivative instrument and the hedged item are included in current earnings. Changes in the fair value of derivatives designated as hedges of cash flows are recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). Actual cash receipts and/or payments and related accruals on derivatives related to hedges are recorded as adjustments to the line item where the hedged item’s effect on earnings is recorded. Reserve for Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses The liability for losses and LAE includes an amount determined from loss reports and individual cases and an amount, based on past experience, for losses incurred but not reported (“IBNR”). Such liabilities are based on estimates and, while management believes that the amount is adequate, the ultimate liability may be in excess of or less than the amounts provided. The methods for making such estimates and for establishing the resulting liability are continually reviewed, and any adjustments are reflected in earnings currently. The liability for losses and LAE has not been reduced for reinsurance recoverable. Loss Contingencies Loss contingencies, including claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, are recorded as liabilities when the likelihood of loss is probable and an amount or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Stock-Based Compensation Stock-based compensation expense for all share-based awards granted is based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Stock Compensation Topic of the ASC. The Company recognizes these compensation costs for only those awards expected to vest over the service period of the award. Advertising Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. Advertising expense totaled $4.6 million, $4.6 million and $5.3 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. F-15 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Income Taxes Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recorded for the estimated future tax effects of the temporary difference between the tax basis and book basis of assets and liabilities reported in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The provision for income tax expense or benefit differs from the amounts of income taxes currently payable because certain items of income and expense included in the consolidated financial statements are recognized in different time periods by taxing authorities. Interest and penalties incurred related to tax matters are charged to other interest expense or other noninterest expense, respectively. Benefits from uncertain tax positions are recognized in the consolidated financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authority having full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is measured at the largest amount of cumulative benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. Tax positions that previously failed to meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold are recognized in the reporting period in which that threshold is met. Previously recognized tax positions that no longer meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold are derecognized in the reporting period in which that threshold is no longer met. If the Company were to prevail on all uncertain tax positions, the effect would be a benefit to the Company’s effective tax rate. Due to uncertainties in any tax audit outcome, estimates of the ultimate settlement of unrecognized tax positions may change and the actual tax benefits may differ significantly from the estimate. Deferred tax assets, including net operating loss and tax credit carry forwards, are reduced by a valuation allowance when, in the opinion of management, it is more-likely-than-not that any portion of these tax attributes will not be realized. Periodic reviews of the carrying amount of deferred tax assets are made when it is more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. Cash Flow Reporting For the purpose of presentation in the consolidated statements of cash flows, cash and cash equivalents are defined as the amount included in the consolidated balance sheet captions “Cash and due from banks” and “Federal funds sold”. Cash equivalents have original maturities of three months or less. Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Share Nonvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents are participating securities and are included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method prescribed by the Earnings Per Share Topic of the ASC. The two-class method is an earnings allocation formula that determines earnings per share for each class of common stock and participating security according to dividends declared (or accumulated) and participation rights in undistributed earnings. During 2013, as discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements, Hilltop issued Restricted Stock Awards which qualify as participating securities. Net earnings, less any preferred dividends accumulated for the period (whether or not declared), is allocated between the common stock and participating securities pursuant to the two-class method. Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period, excluding participating nonvested restricted shares. Diluted earnings per common share is computed in a similar manner, except that first the denominator is increased to include the number of additional common shares that would have been outstanding if potentially dilutive common shares, excluding the participating securities, were issued using the treasury stock method. During 2015 and 2014, stock options and restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are the only potentially dilutive non-participating instruments issued by Hilltop, while potentially dilutive non-participating instruments during 2013 included stock options, RSUs and the Exchangeable Notes, which were called for redemption during the fourth quarter of 2013. Next, the Company determines and includes in the diluted earnings per common share calculation the more dilutive effect of the participating securities using the treasury stock method or the two-class method. Undistributed losses are not allocated to the nonvested share-based payment awards (the participating securities) under the two-class method as the holders are not contractually obligated to share in the losses of the Company. F-16 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 2. Acquisitions SWS Merger On January 1, 2015, Hilltop completed its acquisition of SWS in a stock and cash transaction as discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. The operations acquired in the SWS Merger are included in the Company’s operating results beginning January 1, 2015. Such operating results include a bargain purchase gain of $81.3 million and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. SWS’s results of operations prior to the acquisition date are not included in the Company’s consolidated operating results. The SWS Merger was accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting, and accordingly, purchased assets, including identifiable intangible assets, and assumed liabilities were recorded at their respective acquisition date fair values. The components of the consideration paid are shown in the following table (in thousands). Fair value of consideration paid: Common stock issued Cash Fair value of Hilltop’s existing investment in SWS Total consideration paid $ $ 200,626 78,217 70,282 349,125 The resulting fair values of the identifiable assets acquired, and liabilities assumed, acquired in the SWS Merger at January 1, 2015 are summarized in the following table (in thousands). Cash and due from banks Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell Assets segregated for regulatory purposes Securities Non-covered loans, net Broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables Other assets Total identifiable assets acquired Deposits Broker-dealer and clearing organization payables Short-term borrowings Securities sold, not yet purchased, at fair value Notes payable Other liabilities Total liabilities assumed Bargain purchase gain Less Hilltop existing investment in SWS Net identifiable assets acquired $ $ 119,314 44,741 181,610 707,476 863,819 1,221,793 159,906 3,298,659 (1,287,509) (1,109,978) (164,240) (140,409) (76,643) (89,466) (2,868,245) (81,289) 349,125 (70,282) 278,843 The bargain purchase gain represents the excess of the estimated fair value of the underlying net tangible assets and intangible assets over the merger consideration. The SWS Merger was a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, therefore no income taxes were recorded in connection with the bargain purchase gain. The Company used significant estimates and assumptions to value certain identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The bargain purchase gain was primarily driven by the Company’s ability to realize acquired deferred tax assets through its consolidated core earnings and the decline in the price of the Company’s common stock between the date the fixed conversion ratio was agreed upon and the closing date. F-17 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Included within the fair value of other assets in the table above are identifiable intangible assets recorded in connection with the SWS Merger. The allocation to intangible assets is as follows (in thousands). Customer relationships Core deposits Estimated Useful Gross Intangible Life (Years) Assets 14 $ 4 $ 7,300 160 7,460 In connection with the SWS Merger, Hilltop acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. The acquired loans were initially recorded at fair value with no carryover of any allowance for loan losses. Acquired loans were segregated between those considered to be PCI loans and those without credit impairment at acquisition. The following table presents details on acquired loans at the acquisition date (in thousands). Commercial and industrial (1) Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total $ $ Loans, excluding PCI Loans Total Loans PCI Loans 447,959 $ 9,850 $ 457,809 386,695 62,218 324,477 16,099 1,391 14,708 3,216 — 3,216 790,360 $ 73,459 $ 863,819 (1) Acquired loans include margin loans to customers and correspondents of $269.4 million associated with acquired broker-dealer operations, none of which are PCI loans. The following table presents information about the PCI loans at acquisition (in thousands). Contractually required principal and interest payments Nonaccretable difference Cash flows expected to be collected Accretable difference Fair value of loans acquired with a deterioration of credit quality $ $ 120,078 32,040 88,038 14,579 73,459 The following table presents information about the acquired loans without credit impairment at acquisition (in thousands). Contractually required principal and interest payments Contractual cash flows not expected to be collected Fair value at acquisition $ 901,672 39,721 790,360 FNB Transaction On September 13, 2013 (the “Bank Closing Date”), the Bank assumed substantially all of the liabilities, including all of the deposits, and acquired substantially all of the assets of Edinburg, Texas-based FNB from the FDIC, as receiver, and reopened former FNB branches acquired from the FDIC under the “PlainsCapital Bank” name (the “FNB Transaction”). Pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (the “P&A Agreement”), the Bank and the FDIC entered into loss- share agreements whereby the FDIC agreed to share in the losses of certain covered loans and covered OREO that the Bank acquired. On the Bank Closing Date, the Bank assumed substantially all of the liabilities, including all of the deposits, and acquired substantially all of the assets of FNB from the FDIC in an FDIC-assisted transaction. As part of the P&A Agreement, the Bank and the FDIC entered into loss-share agreements covering future losses incurred on certain F-18 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) acquired loans and OREO. The Company refers to acquired commercial and single family residential loan portfolios and OREO that are subject to the loss-share agreements as “covered loans” and “covered OREO”, respectively, and these assets are presented as separate line items in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Collectively, covered loans and covered OREO are referred to as “covered assets”. Pursuant to the loss-share agreements, the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Bank the following amounts with respect to the covered assets: (i) 80% of losses on the first $240.4 million of losses incurred; (ii) 0% of losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of losses in excess of $365.7 million of losses incurred. The Bank has also agreed to reimburse the FDIC for any subsequent recoveries. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential loans are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date, and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. The asset arising from the loss- share agreements, referred to as the “FDIC Indemnification Asset,” is measured separately from the covered loan portfolio because the agreements are not contractually embedded in the covered loans and are not transferable should the Bank choose to dispose of the covered loans. In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if our actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. The operations of FNB are included in the Company’s operating results beginning September 14, 2013. For the period from September 14, 2013 through December 31, 2013, FNB’s operations included net interest income of $32.0 million, other revenues of $20.4 million and net income of $18.5 million. Such operating results included a bargain purchase gain of $12.6 million, before taxes of $4.5 million, and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. FNB’s results of operations prior to the Bank Closing Date are not included in the Company’s consolidated operating results. The FNB Transaction was accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting and, accordingly, purchased assets, including identifiable intangible assets and assumed liabilities, were recorded at their respective fair values as of the Bank Closing Date using significant estimates and assumptions to value certain identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The amounts are subject to adjustments based upon final settlement with the FDIC. The terms of the P&A Agreement provide for the FDIC to indemnify the Bank against claims with respect to liabilities and assets of FNB or any of its affiliates not assumed or otherwise purchased by the Bank and with respect to certain other claims by third parties. A summary of the net assets received from the FDIC in the FNB Transaction and the estimated fair value adjustments resulting in the bargain purchase gain are presented below (in thousands). Cost basis net assets on September 13, 2013 Cash payment received from the FDIC Fair value adjustments: Securities Loans Premises and equipment Other real estate owned FDIC indemnification asset Other intangible assets Deposits Other Bargain purchase gain $ 215,000 45,000 (3,341) (343,068) 3,565 (79,273) 185,680 4,270 (8,282) (6,966) 12,585 $ F-19 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) In FDIC-assisted transactions, only certain assets and liabilities are transferred to the acquirer and, depending on the nature and amount of the acquirer’s bid, the FDIC may be required to make a cash payment to the acquirer or the acquirer may be required to make a payment to the FDIC. In the FNB Transaction, cost basis net assets of $215.0 million and an initial cash payment received from the FDIC of $45.0 million were transferred to the Bank. The bargain purchase gain represents the excess of the estimated fair value of the assets acquired over the estimated fair value of the liabilities assumed. The FDIC bid form provided a list of properties (branches and support facilities) owned by FNB for sale at fixed prices. The Bank purchased 44 properties owned by FNB in connection with its bid for an aggregate purchase price of $59.5 million. For those properties owned by FNB that the Bank declined to purchase in its bid, the Bank had exclusive options to purchase those properties following the Bank Closing Date. In connection with those options, the Bank purchased an additional seven properties owned by FNB during 2013, for an aggregate purchase price of $4.9 million. The Bank also had an option to assume the leases of properties leased by FNB. The Bank was required to purchase all data management equipment and, other certain special assets, furniture, fixtures and equipment, in each case at an appraised value for any properties purchased or leased by the Bank. The Bank paid $10.3 million to the FDIC during 2013 for furniture, fixtures and data management equipment. The Bank was required to pay rent to the FDIC on properties owned or leased by FNB and furniture and equipment at such properties until it surrendered such properties to the FDIC. The resulting fair values of the identifiable assets acquired, and liabilities assumed, of FNB at September 13, 2013 are summarized in the following table (in thousands). $ Cash and due from banks Securities Non-covered loans Covered loans Premises and equipment FDIC indemnification asset Covered other real estate owned Other assets Other intangible assets Total identifiable assets acquired Deposits Other liabilities Total liabilities assumed Net identifiable assets acquired/bargain purchase gain $ 362,695 286,214 42,884 1,116,583 78,399 185,680 135,187 26,300 4,270 2,238,212 (2,211,740) (13,887) (2,225,627) 12,585 The Bank acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. Based on purchase date valuations, the Bank’s portfolio of acquired loans had a fair value of $1.2 billion as of the Bank Closing Date, with no carryover of any allowance for loan losses. Acquired loans were segregated between those considered to be PCI loans and those without credit impairment at acquisition. The following table presents details on acquired loans at the Bank Closing Date (in thousands). Loans, excluding PCI Loans PCI Loans Total Loans 95,625 854,217 611,219 184,916 158,247 24,709 5,614 336,636 $ 822,831 $ 1,159,467 47,874 $ 47,751 $ 242,998 26,669 19,095 Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Total $ $ F-20 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following table presents information about the acquired PCI loans at the Bank Closing Date (in thousands). Contractually required principal and interest payments Nonaccretable difference Cash flows expected to be collected Accretable difference Fair value of loans acquired with a deterioration of credit quality $ $ 1,533,667 542,241 991,426 168,595 822,831 The following table presents information about the acquired loans without credit impairment at the Bank Closing Date (in thousands). Contractually required principal and interest payments Contractual cash flows not expected to be collected Fair value at acquisition $ 466,754 43,783 336,636 Unaudited Pro Forma Results of Operations The operations acquired in the FNB Transaction are included in the Company’s operating results beginning September 14, 2013. The purchase of assets and assumption of certain liabilities of FNB from the FDIC, as receiver, was sufficiently significant to require disclosure of historical financial statements and related pro forma financial disclosure. Due to the nature and magnitude of the FNB Transaction, coupled with the federal assistance and protection resulting from the FDIC loss-share agreements, historical financial information of FNB is not relevant to future operations. The Company has omitted certain historical financial information and the related pro forma financial information of FNB pursuant to the guidance provided in Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 1.K, Financial Statements of Acquired Troubled Financial Institutions (“SAB 1:K”), and a request for relief granted by the SEC. SAB 1:K provides relief from the requirements of Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X in certain instances, such as the FNB Transaction, where a registrant engages in an acquisition of a significant amount of assets of a troubled financial institution for which audited financial statements are not reasonably available and in which federal assistance is so pervasive as to substantially reduce the relevance of such information to an assessment of future operations. Therefore, no additional historical pro forma information regarding FNB is provided below. The results of operations acquired in the SWS Merger have been included in the Company’s consolidated financial results since January 1, 2015. The following table discloses the impact of the operations acquired in the SWS Merger on the Company’s results of operations. The table presents pro forma results had the SWS Merger taken place on January 1, 2014 and includes the estimated impact of purchase accounting adjustments (in thousands). The purchase accounting adjustments reflect the impact of recording the acquired loans at fair value, including the estimated accretion of the purchase discount on the loan portfolio. Accretion estimates were based on the acquisition date purchase discount on the loan portfolio, as it was not practicable to determine the amount of discount that would have been recorded based on economic conditions that existed on January 1, 2014. The pro forma results do not include any potential operating cost savings as a result of the SWS Merger. Further, certain costs associated with any integration activities are not reflected in the pro forma results. The pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of what would have occurred had the SWS Merger taken place on the indicated date. Net interest income Other revenues Net income Year Ended December 31, 2014 $ 429,264 1,005,701 118,421 F-21 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 3. Fair Value Measurements Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures The Company determines fair values in compliance with The Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures Topic of the ASC (the “Fair Value Topic”). The Fair Value Topic defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The Fair Value Topic defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. The Fair Value Topic assumes that transactions upon which fair value measurements are based occur in the principal market for the asset or liability being measured. Further, fair value measurements made under the Fair Value Topic exclude transaction costs and are not the result of forced transactions. The Fair Value Topic creates a fair value hierarchy that classifies fair value measurements based upon the inputs used in valuing the assets or liabilities that are the subject of fair value measurements. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs, as indicated below. (cid:120) Level 1 Inputs: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company can access at the measurement date. (cid:120) Level 2 Inputs: Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (such as interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, default rates, credit risks and loss severities), and inputs that are derived from or corroborated by market data, among others. (cid:120) Level 3 Inputs: Unobservable inputs that reflect an entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the assets or liabilities. Level 3 inputs include pricing models and discounted cash flow techniques, among others. Fair Value Option The Company has elected to measure substantially all of PrimeLending’s mortgage loans held for sale and the MSR asset at fair value, under the provisions of the Fair Value Option. The Company elected to apply the provisions of the Fair Value Option to these items so that it would have the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the aggregate fair value of PrimeLending’s mortgage loans held for sale accounted for under the Fair Value Option was $1.46 billion and $1.27 billion, respectively, and the unpaid principal balance of those loans was $1.41 billion and $1.22 billion, respectively. The interest component of fair value is reported as interest income on loans in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. On October 2, 2014, Hilltop exercised its warrant to purchase 8,695,652 shares of SWS common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share (the “SWS Warrant”) and paid the aggregate exercise price by the automatic elimination of the $50.0 million aggregate principal amount note due to Hilltop under its credit agreement with SWS. Following the exercise of the SWS Warrant, Hilltop owned approximately 21% of the outstanding shares of SWS common stock as of October 2, 2014. Contemporaneous with the exercise of the SWS Warrant, Hilltop changed the accounting method for its investment in SWS common stock and elected to account for its investment in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Value Option as permitted by GAAP. Hilltop had previously accounted for its investment in SWS common stock as an available for sale security. Under the Fair Value Option, Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock is recorded at fair value effective October 2, 2014, with changes in fair value being recorded in other noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations rather than as a component of other comprehensive income. Hilltop’s election to apply the provisions of the Fair Value Option resulted in Hilltop recording those unrealized gains previously associated with its investment in SWS common stock of $7.2 million. For the period from October 3, 2014 through December 31, 2014, the change in fair value of Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock resulted in a loss of $1.2 million. In the aggregate, Hilltop recorded a $6.0 million net gain in other noninterest income within the consolidated statement of F-22 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) operations during 2014. At December 31, 2014, the fair value of Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock was $70.3 million and was included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheet. The Company holds a number of financial instruments that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, either by the application of the Fair Value Option or other authoritative pronouncements. The fair values of those instruments are determined primarily using Level 2 inputs, as further described below. Trading Securities — Trading securities are reported at fair value primarily using either Level 1 or Level 2 inputs in the same manner as discussed below for available for sale securities. Trading securities include corporate debt securities that are valued using a discounted cash flow model with observable market data; however, due to the distressed nature of these bonds, the Company has determined that these securities should be valued as a Level 3 financial instrument. Available For Sale Securities — Most securities available for sale are reported at fair value using Level 2 inputs. The Company obtains fair value measurements from independent pricing services. As the Company is responsible for the determination of fair value, control processes are designed to ensure that the fair values received from independent pricing services are reasonable and the valuation techniques and assumptions used appear reasonable and consistent with prevailing market conditions. The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows, the U.S. Treasury yield curve, live trading levels, trade execution data, market consensus prepayment speeds, credit information and the financial instruments’ terms and conditions, among other things. For public common and preferred equity stocks, the determination of fair value uses Level 1 inputs based on observable market transactions. Loans Held for Sale — Mortgage loans held for sale are reported at fair value, as discussed above, using Level 2 inputs that consist of commitments on hand from investors or prevailing market prices. These instruments are held for relatively short periods, typically no more than 30 days. As a result, changes in instrument-specific credit risk are not a significant component of the change in fair value. The fair value of certain loans held for sale that cannot be sold through normal sale channels or are non-performing is measured using Level 3, or unobservable, inputs. The fair value of such loans is generally based upon estimates of expected cash flows using unobservable inputs, including listing prices of comparable assets, uncorroborated expert opinions, and/or management’s knowledge of underlying collateral. Derivatives – Derivatives are reported at fair value using either Level 2 or Level 3 inputs. PrimeLending and the Hilltop Broker-Dealers use dealer quotes to value forward purchase commitments and forward sale commitments, respectively, executed for both hedging and non-hedging purposes. PrimeLending also issues IRLCs to its customers and the Hilltop Broker-Dealers issue forward purchase commitments to its clients that are valued based on the change in the fair value of the underlying mortgage loan from inception of the IRLC or purchase commitment to the balance sheet date, adjusted for projected loan closing rates. PrimeLending determines the value of the underlying mortgage loan as discussed in “Loans Held for Sale”, above. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers determine the value of the underlying mortgage loan from prices of comparable securities used to value forward sale commitments. Additionally, PrimeLending uses dealer quotes to value interest rate swaps and swaptions executed to hedge its MSR asset and First Southwest entered into a derivative option agreement (“Fee Award Option”) valued using discounted cash flow and probability of exercise. The Fee Award Option was exercised during the fourth quarter of 2014. MSR Asset – The MSR asset is reported at fair value using Level 3 inputs. Fair value is determined by projecting net servicing cash flows, which are then discounted to estimate the fair value. The fair value of the MSR asset is impacted by a variety of factors. Prepayment rates and discount rates, the most significant unobservable inputs, are discussed further in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements. Securities Sold, Not Yet Purchased – Securities sold, not yet purchased are reported at fair value primarily using either Level 1 or Level 2 inputs in the same manner as discussed above for trading and available for sale securities. Investment in SWS Common Stock – The investment in SWS common stock was reported at fair value at December 31, 2014 using quoted market prices for SWS’s common stock as traded on the NYSE, a Level 1 input. This investment in SWS Common Stock was reflected in the aggregate purchase price associated with the SWS Merger and reclassified as an investment in subsidiaries, which is eliminated in consolidation. F-23 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following tables present information regarding financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Trading securities Available for sale securities Loans held for sale Derivative assets MSR asset Securities sold, not yet purchased Derivative liabilities December 31, 2014 Trading securities Available for sale securities Loans held for sale Derivative assets MSR asset Investment in SWS common stock Securities sold, not yet purchased Derivative liabilities Level 1 Inputs $ 21,807 $ 17,409 — — — 27,648 — Level 2 Inputs 192,338 $ 656,297 1,434,955 35,676 — 102,396 5,426 Level 3 Inputs Total Fair Value 1 $ — 25,880 — 52,285 — — 214,146 673,706 1,460,835 35,676 52,285 130,044 5,426 Level 1 Inputs $ 39 $ Level 2 Inputs 65,678 $ Level 3 Inputs 13,762 — — — 70,282 — — 911,773 1,263,135 23,805 — — 48 12,849 Total Fair Value 65,717 925,535 1,272,152 23,805 36,155 70,282 48 12,849 — $ — 9,017 — 36,155 — — — The following table includes a rollforward for those financial instruments measured at fair value using Level 3 inputs (in thousands). Balance at Beginning of Purchases/ Year ended December 31, 2015 Year Additions Total Gains or Losses (Realized or Unrealized) Included in Other Sales/ Reductions Transfers into Included in Comprehensive Income (Loss) Net Income Level 3 Balance at End of Year Trading securities Loans held for sale MSR asset Total $ $ — $ 9,017 36,155 45,172 $ 7,301 $ 52,800 24,974 85,075 $ (3,397) $ (25,514) — (28,911) $ — $ — — — $ (3,903) $ (10,423) (8,844) (23,170) $ — $ — — — $ 1 25,880 52,285 78,166 Year ended December 31, 2014 Available for sale securities Loans held for sale MSR asset Derivative liabilities $ Total $ Year ended December 31, 2013 Available for sale securities Loans held for sale MSR asset Derivative liabilities $ Total $ 60,053 $ 27,729 20,149 (5,600) 102,331 $ — $ 24,851 35,056 (177) (61,283) $ (44,597) (11,387) 6,827 59,730 $ (110,440) $ — $ — — — — $ 1,848 $ 1,034 (7,663) (1,050) (5,831) $ (618) $ — — — (618) $ — 9,017 36,155 — 45,172 56,277 $ — 2,080 (4,490) 53,867 $ — $ — 13,886 — 13,886 $ — $ — — — — $ — $ 27,729 — — 27,729 $ 2,166 $ — 4,183 (1,110) 5,239 $ 1,610 $ — — — 1,610 $ 60,053 27,729 20,149 (5,600) 102,331 All net realized and unrealized gains (losses) in the table above are reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The available for sale securities noted in the table above reflect Hilltop’s note receivable from SWS and the SWS Warrant, which, as previously discussed, Hilltop exercised in full on October 2, 2014. Excluding these available for sale securities and derivative liabilities representing the Fee Award Option entered into by First Southwest, the unrealized gains (losses) relate to financial instruments still held at December 31, 2015. F-24 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) For Level 3 financial instruments measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2015, the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurements were as follows. Financial instrument Trading securities Valuation Technique Unobservable Input Discounted cash flow Discount rate Loans held for sale Discounted cash flow / Market comparable Projected price Range (Weighted-Average) 8 - 17 % 93 - 95 % ( ( 10 %) 95 %) MSR asset Discounted cash flow Constant prepayment rate Discount rate 11.51 % 10.92 % The Company had no transfers between Levels 1 and 2 during the periods presented. The following table presents the changes in fair value for instruments that are reported at fair value under the Fair Value Option (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 Other Total Year Ended December 31, 2014 Other Total Year Ended December 31, 2013 Other Total Loans held for sale Investment in SWS common stock MSR asset Time deposits Net Gains (Losses) $ (2,970) $ Noninterest Changes in Net Noninterest Changes in Net Income Fair Value Gains (Losses) Income Fair Value Gains (Losses) — $ (2,970) $ 31,805 $ — $ 31,805 $ (19,353) $ Noninterest Changes in Fair Value — $ (19,353) Income — (8,844) — — — — — (8,844) — — (7,663) — 5,985 — — 5,985 (7,663) — — 4,183 — — — 12 — 4,183 12 The Company also determines the fair value of certain assets and liabilities on a non-recurring basis. In particular, the fair value of all of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the PlainsCapital Merger and SWS Merger were determined at the respective acquisition date, while fair value of all assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the FNB Transaction was determined at the Bank Closing Date. In addition, facts and circumstances may dictate a fair value measurement when there is evidence of impairment. Assets and liabilities measured on a non-recurring basis include the items discussed below. Impaired Loans — The Company reports impaired loans based on the underlying fair value of the collateral through specific allowances within the allowance for loan losses. PCI loans with a fair value of $172.9 million, $822.8 million and $73.5 million were acquired by the Company upon completion of the PlainsCapital Merger, the FNB Transaction and the SWS Merger, respectively (collectively, the “Bank Transactions”). Substantially all PCI loans acquired in the FNB Transaction are covered by FDIC loss-share agreements. The fair value of PCI loans was determined using Level 3 inputs, including estimates of expected cash flows that incorporated significant unobservable inputs regarding default rates, loss severity rates assuming default, prepayment speeds on acquired loans accounted for in pools (“Pooled Loans”), and estimated collateral values. At December 31, 2015, estimates for these significant unobservable inputs were as follows. Weighted average default rate Weighted average loss severity rate Weighted average prepayment speed PlainsCapital Merger PCI Loans FNB SWS Transaction Merger 56 % 35 % 6 % 57 % 49 % 0 % 48 % 31 % 0 % At December 31, 2015, the resulting weighted average expected loss on PCI loans associated with the PlainsCapital Merger, FNB Transaction and SWS Merger was 28%, 20% and 15%, respectively. The Company obtains updated appraisals of the fair value of collateral securing impaired collateral dependent loans at least annually, in accordance with regulatory guidelines. The Company also reviews the fair value of such collateral on a quarterly basis. If the quarterly review indicates that the fair value of the collateral may have deteriorated, the Company orders an updated appraisal of the fair value of the collateral. Because the Company obtains updated appraisals when evidence of a decline in the fair value of collateral exists, it typically does not adjust appraised values. F-25 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Other Real Estate Owned —The Company determines fair value primarily using independent appraisals of OREO properties. The resulting fair value measurements are classified as Level 2 or Level 3 inputs, depending upon the extent to which unobservable inputs determine the fair value measurement. The Company considers a number of factors in determining the extent to which specific fair value measurements utilize unobservable inputs, including, but not limited to, the inherent subjectivity in appraisals, the length of time elapsed since the receipt of independent market price or appraised value, and current market conditions. At December 31, 2015, the most significant unobservable input used in the determination of fair value of OREO was a discount to independent appraisals for estimated holding periods of OREO properties. Level 3 inputs were used to determine the initial fair value at acquisition of a large group of smaller balance properties that were acquired in the FNB Transaction. In the FNB Transaction, the Bank acquired OREO of $135.2 million, all of which is covered by FDIC loss-share agreements. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the estimated fair value of covered OREO was $99.1 million and $136.9 million, respectively, and the underlying fair value measurements utilize Level 2 and Level 3 inputs. The fair value of non-covered OREO at December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $0.4 million and $0.8 million, respectively, and is included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheets. Level 3 inputs were used to determine the initial fair value at acquisition of properties totaling $5.6 million that were acquired in the SWS Merger. During the reported periods, all fair value measurements for non-covered OREO subsequent to initial recognition utilized Level 2 inputs. The following table presents information regarding certain assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis for which a change in fair value has been recorded during reporting periods subsequent to initial recognition (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Non-covered impaired loans Covered impaired loans Non-covered other real estate owned Covered other real estate owned $ Level 1 Inputs Level 2 Inputs Level 3 Inputs Total Fair Value 2015 Total Gains (Losses) for the Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 — $ — — — — $ — — 36,024 49,277 $ 58,135 — — 49,277 $ 58,135 — 36,024 (126) $ 3,034 (28) (16,555) (2,182) $ (3,652) (372) (19,672) (3,558) — 430 — The Fair Value of Financial Instruments Subsection of the ASC requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and liabilities, including the financial assets and liabilities previously discussed. The methods for determining estimated fair value for financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis are discussed above. For other financial assets and liabilities, the Company utilizes quoted market prices, if available, to estimate the fair value of financial instruments. Because no quoted market prices exist for a significant portion of the Company’s financial instruments, the fair value of such instruments has been derived based on management’s assumptions with respect to future economic conditions, the amount and timing of future cash flows, and estimated discount rates. Different assumptions could significantly affect these estimates. Accordingly, the estimates provided herein do not necessarily indicate amounts which could be realized in a current transaction. Further, as it is management’s intent to hold a significant portion of its financial instruments to maturity, it is not probable that the fair values shown below will be realized in a current transaction. Because of the wide range of permissible valuation techniques and the numerous estimates which must be made, it may be difficult to make reasonable comparisons of the Company’s fair value information to that of other financial institutions. The aggregate estimated fair value amount should in no way be construed as representative of the underlying value of Hilltop and its subsidiaries. The following methods and assumptions are typically used in estimating the fair value disclosures for financial instruments: Cash and Cash Equivalents – For cash and due from banks and federal funds sold, the carrying amount is a reasonable estimate of fair value. Securities Purchased Under Agreements to Resell – Securities purchased under agreements to resell are carried at the amounts at which the securities will subsequently be resold as specified in the agreements. The carrying amounts approximate fair value due to their short-term nature. Assets Segregated for Regulatory Purposes – Assets segregated for regulatory purposes may consist of cash and securities with carrying amounts that approximate fair value. F-26 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Held to Maturity Securities – For securities held to maturity, estimated fair value equals quoted market price, if available. If a quoted market price is not available, fair value is estimated using quoted market prices for similar securities. Loans Held for Sale – Loans held for sale consist primarily of certain mortgage loans held for sale that are subject to purchase by related parties. Such loans are reported at fair value, as discussed above, using Level 2 inputs that consist of commitments on hand from investors or prevailing market prices. Loans – The fair value of non-covered and covered loans is estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the current rates at which similar loans would be made to borrowers with similar credit ratings and for the same remaining maturities. Broker-Dealer and Clearing Organization Receivables – The carrying amount approximates their fair value. FDIC Indemnification Asset – The fair value of the FDIC Indemnification Asset is based on Level 3 inputs, including the discounted value of expected future cash flows under the loss-share agreements. The discount rate contemplates the credit worthiness of the FDIC as counterparty to this asset, and considers an incremental discount rate risk premium reflective of the inherent uncertainty associated with the timing of the cash flows. Deposits – The estimated fair value of demand deposits, savings accounts and NOW accounts is the amount payable on demand at the reporting date. The fair value of fixed-maturity certificates of deposit is estimated using the rates currently offered for deposits of similar remaining maturities. The carrying amount for variable-rate certificates of deposit approximates their fair values. Broker-Dealer and Clearing Organization Payables – The carrying amount approximates their fair value. Short-Term Borrowings – The carrying amounts of federal funds purchased, borrowings under repurchase agreements, Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and other short-term borrowings approximate their fair values. Debt – The fair values are estimated using discounted cash flow analysis based on current incremental borrowing rates for similar types of borrowing arrangements. Other Assets and Liabilities – Other assets and liabilities primarily consists of cash surrender value of life insurance policies and accrued interest receivable and payable with carrying amounts that approximate their fair values using Level 2 inputs. The fair value of certain other receivables and investments is based on Level 3 inputs. F-27 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following tables present the carrying values and estimated fair values of financial instruments not measured at fair value on either a recurring or non-recurring basis (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Financial assets: Cash and cash equivalents Securities purchased under agreements to resell Assets segregated for regulatory purposes Held to maturity securities Loans held for sale Non-covered loans, net Covered loans, net Broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables FDIC indemnification asset Other assets Financial liabilities: Deposits Broker-dealer and clearing organization payables Short-term borrowings Debt Other liabilities December 31, 2014 Financial assets: Cash and cash equivalents Assets segregated for regulatory purposes Held to maturity securities Loans held for sale Non-covered loans, net Covered loans, net Broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables FDIC indemnification asset Other assets Financial liabilities: Deposits Broker-dealer and clearing organization payables Short-term borrowings Debt Other liabilities Carrying Amount Level 1 Inputs Estimated Fair Value Level 3 Inputs Level 2 Inputs Total $ 669,445 $ 669,445 $ — $ — $ 669,445 105,660 158,613 332,022 72,843 5,174,625 378,762 1,362,499 91,648 68,786 — 158,613 — — — — 105,660 — 331,468 72,843 602,968 — — — — — 4,600,406 527,201 105,660 158,613 331,468 72,843 5,203,374 527,201 — — — 1,362,499 — 53,214 — 91,648 15,572 1,362,499 91,648 68,786 6,952,683 — 6,955,919 — 6,955,919 1,338,305 947,373 305,728 3,699 — — — — 1,338,305 947,373 299,257 3,699 — — — — 1,338,305 947,373 299,257 3,699 Carrying Amount Level 1 Inputs Estimated Fair Value Level 3 Inputs Level 2 Inputs Total $ 813,075 $ 813,075 $ 76,013 118,209 37,541 3,883,435 638,029 167,884 130,437 59,432 76,013 — — — — — $ — 118,345 37,541 378,425 — — $ — — — 3,528,769 767,751 813,075 76,013 118,345 37,541 3,907,194 767,751 — — — 167,884 — 43,937 — 130,437 15,495 167,884 130,437 59,432 6,369,892 — 6,365,555 — 6,365,555 179,042 762,696 123,696 2,144 — — — — 179,042 762,696 117,028 2,144 — — — — 179,042 762,696 117,028 2,144 F-28 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 4. Securities The fair value of trading securities are summarized as follows (in thousands). U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Corporate debt securities States and political subdivisions Unit investment trusts Private-label securitized product Other Totals December 31, 2015 20,481 $ $ 2014 — 36,244 12,505 19,280 264 34,735 58,588 18,400 12,324 1,325 214,146 $ — 5,126 19,932 — 4 40,616 — — 39 65,717 $ The Hilltop Broker-Dealers enter into transactions that represent commitments to purchase and deliver securities at prevailing future market prices to facilitate customer transactions and satisfy such commitments. Accordingly, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers’ ultimate obligation may exceed the amount recognized in the financial statements. These securities, which are carried at fair value and reported as securities sold, not yet purchased in the consolidated balance sheet, had a value of $130.0 million at December 31, 2015. The amortized cost and fair value of available for sale and held to maturity securities are summarized as follows (in thousands). December 31, 2015 U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Corporate debt securities States and political subdivisions Commercial mortgage-backed securities Equity securities Totals Available for Sale Gross Gross Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Cost 44,430 $ $ Gains Losses Fair Value 206 $ (33) $ 44,603 297,448 34,864 9,174 54,297 94,877 116,246 498 18,169 $ 670,003 $ 1,135 1,008 35 48 3,399 2,581 33 574 9,019 $ 296,636 (1,947) 35,853 (19) 9,207 (2) 52,701 (1,644) 97,950 (326) 118,725 (102) 531 — (1,243) 17,500 (5,316) $ 673,706 F-29 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) December 31, 2014 U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Corporate debt securities States and political subdivisions Commercial mortgage-backed securities Equity securities Totals December 31, 2015 U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Bonds Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations States and political subdivisions Totals December 31, 2014 U.S. Treasury securities U.S. government agencies: Residential mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations States and political subdivisions Totals Available for Sale Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Cost 19,382 $ $ Gains Losses Fair Value 264 $ (33) $ 19,613 522,008 40,171 11,192 89,291 93,406 135,419 593 13,293 $ 924,755 $ 1,749 1,672 — 133 5,125 2,083 47 469 11,542 $ (7,516) — (137) (2,300) (59) (717) — — 516,241 41,843 11,055 87,124 98,472 136,785 640 13,762 (10,762) $ 925,535 Held to Maturity Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Cost 25,146 $ $ Gains Losses Fair Value — $ (30) $ 25,116 69,379 23,735 18,658 167,541 27,563 $ 332,022 $ 145 311 27 302 168 953 $ (372) — (92) (970) (43) 69,152 24,046 18,593 166,873 27,688 (1,507) $ 331,468 Held to Maturity Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Cost 25,008 $ $ Gains Losses Fair Value — $ (6) $ 25,002 29,782 57,328 6,091 $ 118,209 $ 528 — 47 575 $ — (430) (3) 30,310 56,898 6,135 (439) $ 118,345 F-30 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Information regarding available for sale and held to maturities securities that were in an unrealized loss position is shown in the following tables (dollars in thousands). December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014 Number of Securities Fair Value Losses Unrealized Number of Securities Fair Value Unrealized Losses Available for sale U.S. treasury securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer U.S. government agencies: Bonds: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Residential mortgage-backed securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Commercial mortgage-backed securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Collateralized mortgage obligations: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Corporate debt securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer States and political subdivisions: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Equity securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Total available for sale: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer 8 $ — 8 33,791 $ — 33,791 33 — 33 4 $ 1 5 7,703 $ 1,706 9,409 27 6 33 7 3 10 148,327 44,321 192,648 896 1,051 1,947 3 1 4 1 — 1 2 8 10 16 1 17 2 35 37 2 1 3 3,407 982 4,389 1,611 — 1,611 1,590 42,399 43,989 16,635 1,949 18,584 3,018 24,423 27,441 5 14 19 2 — 2 4 1,640 1,644 277 49 326 9 93 102 8,949 1,927 10,876 909 334 1,243 3 22 25 — — — — 4 4 3 8 11 — 1 1 7 81 88 — — — 34,847 373,035 407,882 153 7,363 7,516 — — — — 11,056 11,056 7,141 61,108 68,249 — 1,939 1,939 4,432 54,178 58,610 — — — — — — — 137 137 40 2,260 2,300 — 59 59 7 710 717 — — — 217,328 116,001 41 49 90 $ 333,329 $ 2,135 3,181 5,316 17 117 134 $ 54,123 503,022 557,145 $ 227 10,535 10,762 F-31 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014 Number of Securities Fair Value Losses Unrealized Number of Unrealized Securities Fair Value Losses Held to Maturity U.S. treasury securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer U.S. government agencies: Bonds: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Commercial mortgage-backed securities: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Collateralized mortgage obligations: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer States and political subdivisions: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer Total held to maturity: Unrealized loss for less than twelve months Unrealized loss for twelve months or longer 1 $ — 1 25,115 $ — 25,115 30 — 30 1 $ — 1 25,002 $ — 25,002 6 — 6 7 — 7 10 — 10 18 1 19 46,607 — 46,607 16,098 — 16,098 127,393 — 127,393 7,900 2,664 10,564 372 — 372 92 — 92 970 — 970 35 8 43 — — — — — — 2 — 2 4 — 4 — — — — — — 56,898 — 56,898 1,899 — 1,899 223,113 2,664 42 1 43 $ 225,777 $ 1,499 8 1,507 7 — 7 $ 83,799 — 83,799 $ 6 — 6 — — — — — — 430 — 430 3 — 3 439 — 439 During 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company did not record any OTTI. Factors considered in the Company’s analysis include the reasons for the unrealized loss position, the severity and duration of the unrealized loss position, credit worthiness, and forecasted performance of the investee. While some of the securities held in the investment portfolio have decreased in value since the date of acquisition, the severity of loss and the duration of the loss position are not believed to be significant enough to warrant OTTI of the securities. The Company does not intend, nor is it likely that the Company will be required, to sell these securities before the recovery of the cost basis. Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because certain borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without penalties. The amortized cost and fair value of securities, excluding trading and available for sale equity securities, at December 31, 2015 are shown by contractual maturity below (in thousands). Available for Sale Held to Maturity Due in one year or less Due after one year through five years Due after five years through ten years Due after ten years Residential mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Commercial mortgage-backed securities Amortized Cost Amortized Cost Fair Value Fair Value $ 50,723 $ 50,940 $ 26,668 $ 26,639 20,611 4,097 70,609 121,956 71,159 72,187 358,932 553,001 20,457 4,066 70,897 122,088 73,540 74,461 358,973 557,914 34,864 54,297 9,672 24,046 166,873 18,593 $ 651,834 $ 656,206 $ 332,022 $ 331,468 23,735 167,541 18,658 35,853 52,701 9,738 The Company realized net gains of $13.1 million and $2.1 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, and a net loss of $2.8 million from its trading securities portfolio during 2013, which are recorded as a component of other noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations. F-32 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Securities with a carrying amount of $789.9 million and $895.5 million (with a fair value of $790.2 million and $890.3 million, respectively) at December 31, 2015 and 2014, were pledged to secure public and trust deposits, federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase, and for other purposes as required or permitted by law. Substantially all of these pledged securities were included in our available for sale and held to maturity securities portfolios at December 31, 2015 and 2014. Mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations consist principally of GNMA, Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) pass-through and participation certificates. GNMA securities are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States, while FNMA and FHLMC securities are fully guaranteed by those respective United States government-sponsored agencies, and conditionally guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. At both December 31, 2015 and 2014, NLC had investments on deposit in custody for various state insurance departments with carrying values of $9.2 million. 5. Non-Covered Loans and Allowance for Non-Covered Loan Losses Non-covered loans refer to loans not covered by the FDIC loss-share agreements. Covered loans are discussed in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements. Non-covered loans summarized by portfolio segment are as follows (in thousands). Commercial and industrial (1) Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Allowance for non-covered loan losses Total non-covered loans, net of allowance December 31, 2015 2014 $ 2,155,773 $ 1,758,851 1,694,835 2,313,239 413,643 705,356 45,672 53,147 3,920,476 5,220,040 (37,041) (45,415) $ 5,174,625 $ 3,883,435 (1) Includes margin loans to customers and correspondents of $602.8 million and $378.4 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Bank has lending policies in place with the goal of establishing an asset portfolio that will provide a return on stockholders’ equity sufficient to maintain capital to assets ratios that meet or exceed established regulations. Loans are underwritten with careful consideration of the borrower’s financial condition, the specific purpose of the loan, the primary sources of repayment and any collateral pledged to secure the loan. Underwriting procedures address financial components based on the size and complexity of the credit. The financial components include, but are not limited to, current and projected cash flows, shock analysis and/or stress testing, and trends in appropriate balance sheet and statement of operations ratios. The Bank’s loan policy provides specific underwriting guidelines by portfolio segment, including commercial and industrial, real estate, construction and land development, and consumer loans. The guidelines for each individual portfolio segment set forth permissible and impermissible loan types. With respect to each loan type, the guidelines within the Bank’s loan policy provide minimum requirements for the underwriting factors listed above. The Bank’s underwriting procedures also include an analysis of any collateral and guarantor. Collateral analysis includes a complete description of the collateral, as well as determined values, monitoring requirements, loan to value ratios, concentration risk, appraisal requirements and other information relevant to the collateral being pledged. Guarantor analysis includes liquidity and cash flow evaluation based on the significance with which the guarantors are expected to serve as secondary repayment sources. The Bank maintains a loan review department that reviews credit risk in response to both external and internal factors that potentially impact the performance of either individual loans or the overall loan portfolio. The loan review process reviews the creditworthiness of borrowers and determines compliance with the loan policy. The loan review process F-33 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) complements and reinforces the risk identification and assessment decisions made by lenders and credit personnel. Results of these reviews are presented to management and the Bank’s board of directors. In connection with the Bank Transactions, the Company acquired non-covered loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. The following table presents the carrying values and the outstanding balances of the non-covered PCI loans (in thousands). Carrying amount Outstanding balance $ December 31, 2015 72,054 $ 92,682 2014 48,909 67,740 Changes in the accretable yield for the non-covered PCI loans were as follows (in thousands). Balance, beginning of year Additions Reclassifications from (to) nonaccretable difference, net(1) Disposals of loans Accretion Balance, end of year 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 12,814 $ 14,579 17,601 — $ 19,759 (2,371) (27,037) 17,744 $ 15,225 (4,927) (15,085) 12,814 $ $ $ 2013 17,553 622 18,793 (3,692) (15,675) 17,601 (1) Reclassifications from nonaccretable difference are primarily due to net increases in expected cash flows in the quarterly recasts. Reclassifications to nonaccretable difference occur when accruing loans are moved to nonaccrual and expected cash flows are no longer predictable and the accretable yield is eliminated. The remaining nonaccretable difference for non-covered PCI loans was $28.5 million and $18.4 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Impaired loans exhibit a clear indication that the borrower’s cash flow may not be sufficient to meet principal and interest payments, which is generally when a loan is 90 days past due unless the asset is both well secured and in the process of collection. Non-covered impaired loans include non-accrual loans, troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), PCI loans and partially charged-off loans. The amounts shown in following tables include loans accounted for on an individual basis, as well as acquired Pooled Loans. For Pooled Loans, the recorded investment with allowance and the related allowance consider impairment measured at the pool level. Non-covered impaired loans are summarized by class in the following tables (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Unpaid Contractual Recorded Recorded Investment with Investment with Recorded Investment Allowance Total Related Allowance Principal Balance No Allowance $ 53,819 $ 2,796 12,256 $ 47 13,847 $ 26,103 $ 2,721 — — 47 58,043 16,507 16,304 9,875 25,214 2,690 41,518 12,565 2,756 175 395 — 221 221 8 8,060 4,162 143,782 $ 3,397 735 42,614 $ $ F-34 1,646 45 174 32 43,663 $ 86,277 $ 5,866 5,043 780 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Unpaid Contractual Recorded Recorded Investment with Investment with Recorded Total Principal Balance No Allowance Allowance Related Investment Allowance $ 51,036 $ 4,120 14,096 $ 92 11,783 $ 25,879 $ 3,341 — 160 68 29,865 4,701 7,243 1,583 15,536 1,390 22,779 2,973 1,878 85 — — — — — 16,108 5,785 111,615 $ 8,062 171 31,247 $ 1,819 1,967 154 9,881 282 2,138 32,563 $ 63,810 $ 5,740 $ Average investment in non-covered impaired loans is summarized by class in the following table (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2014 2015 2013 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer $ 25,991 $ 30,626 $ 51,670 2,432 104 802 32,149 7,769 29,517 2,984 45,887 4,862 111 — 354 7,462 1,459 26,090 2,293 $ 75,045 $ 82,102 $ 133,588 14,849 3,324 Non-covered non-accrual loans, excluding those classified as held for sale, are summarized by class in the following table (in thousands). Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer December 31, December 31, 2015 2014 $ 17,717 $ 47 16,488 160 4,597 999 438 1,253 — 114 7 23,481 $ — 703 — 19,042 $ At December 31, 2015 and 2014, non-covered non-accrual loans included non-covered PCI loans of $9.3 million and $6.6 million, respectively, for which discount accretion has been suspended because the extent and timing of cash flows from these non-covered PCI loans can no longer be reasonably estimated. In addition to the non-covered non-accrual loans in the table above, $1.6 million and $3.0 million of real estate loans secured by residential properties and classified as held for sale were in non-accrual status at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. F-35 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Interest income, including recoveries and cash payments, recorded on non-covered impaired loans was $8.9 million, $3.3 million and $3.2 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Except as noted above, non-covered PCI loans are considered to be performing due to the application of the accretion method. The Bank classifies loan modifications as TDRs when it concludes that it has both granted a concession to a debtor and that the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. Loan modifications are typically structured to create affordable payments for the debtor and can be achieved in a variety of ways. The Bank modifies loans by reducing interest rates and/or lengthening loan amortization schedules. The Bank also reconfigures a single loan into two or more loans (“A/B Note”). The typical A/B Note restructure results in a “bad” loan which is charged off and a “good” loan or loans the terms of which comply with the Bank’s customary underwriting policies. The debt charged off on the “bad” loan is not forgiven to the debtor. The outstanding balance of TDRs granted during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, is shown in the following tables (in thousands). At December 31, 2015, the Bank had nominal unadvanced commitments to borrowers whose loans have been restructured in TDRs, compared with $0.5 million at December 31, 2014. Year Ended December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Year Ended December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Recorded Investment in Loans Modified by Interest Rate Payment Term Adjustment Extension Total Modification A/B Note $ — $ — — $ — 82 $ — 82 — — — — — — — — — 1,040 — 1,040 — — — — — $ — — $ — — $ — 1,122 $ — 1,122 Recorded Investment in Loans Modified by Interest Rate Payment Term Adjustment Extension Total Modification A/B Note $ — $ — — $ — 2,465 $ — 2,465 — — — — — — — $ — — — — — — $ 317 248 — 128 — 3,158 $ 317 248 — 128 — 3,158 $ F-36 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Year Ended December 31, 2013 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Recorded Investment in Loans Modified by Interest Rate Payment Term Adjustment Extension Total Modification A/B Note $ — $ — — $ — 10,390 $ — 10,390 — — — — — — — $ — — 279 777 279 777 — — — — $ — — — 11,446 $ — — — 11,446 $ The following table presents information regarding TDRs granted during the twelve months preceding December 31, 2015 for which a payment was at least 30 days past due in 2015 (dollars in thousands). There were no TDRs granted during the twelve months preceding December 31, 2014 for which a payment was at least 30 days past due in 2014. Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Number of Loans Recorded Investment — — 1 — — — — 1 $ $ — — 1,040 — — — — 1,040 An analysis of the aging of the Bank’s non-covered loan portfolio is shown in the following tables (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Loans Past Due Loans Past Due Loans Past Due 60-89 Days 30-59 Days 90 Days or More Past Due Loans Total Current Loans PCI Loans Total Loans Accruing Loans (Non-PCI) Past Due 90 Days or More $ 14,869 $ 18 3,960 $ 1 8,414 $ — 27,243 $ 2,009,505 $ 13,350 $ 2,050,098 $ 19 105,656 — 105,675 1,008 726 964 35 293 336 2,265 1,528,084 41,128 1,571,477 1,097 729,018 11,647 741,762 343 — — 343 103,819 221 104,383 733 359 18,056 $ 1,845 17 6,822 $ 114 — 9,157 $ 2,692 376 593,352 44,517 4,929 779 600,973 45,672 34,035 $ 5,113,951 $ 72,054 $ 5,220,040 $ $ 12 — — — — — — 12 F-37 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Loans Past Due Loans Past Due Loans Past Due 60-89 Days 30-59 Days 90 Days or More Past Due Loans Total Current Loans PCI Loans Total Loans Accruing Loans (Non-PCI) Past Due 90 Days or More $ 6,073 $ 35 964 $ 3 8,022 $ — 15,059 $ 1,620,000 $ 13,374 $ 1,648,433 $ 38 110,312 68 110,418 67 454 — 1,187 — — 67 1,173,504 22,341 1,195,912 1,641 495,472 1,810 498,923 175 — — 175 64,871 — 65,046 4,319 414 11,537 $ — 37 2,191 $ 575 — 8,597 $ 4,894 451 334,525 50,558 9,178 2,138 348,597 53,147 22,325 $ 3,849,242 $ 48,909 $ 3,920,476 $ $ — — — — — — — — In addition to the non-covered loans shown in the table above, $50.8 million and $19.2 million of loans included in loans held for sale (with an unpaid principal balance of $51.1 million and $19.2 million, respectively) were 90 days past due and accruing interest at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These loans are guaranteed by U.S. government agencies and include loans that are subject to repurchase, or have been repurchased, by PrimeLending. Management tracks credit quality trends on a quarterly basis related to: (i) past due levels, (ii) non-performing asset levels, (iii) classified loan levels, (iv) net charge-offs, and (v) general economic conditions in the state and local markets. The Bank utilizes a risk grading matrix to assign a risk grade to each of the loans in its portfolio. A risk rating is assigned based on an assessment of the borrower’s management, collateral position, financial capacity, and economic factors. The general characteristics of the various risk grades are described below. Pass — “Pass” loans present a range of acceptable risks to the Bank. Loans that would be considered virtually risk-free are rated Pass — low risk. Loans that exhibit sound standards based on the grading factors above and present a reasonable risk to the Bank are rated Pass — normal risk. Loans that exhibit a minor weakness in one or more of the grading criteria but still present an acceptable risk to the Bank are rated Pass — high risk. Special Mention — “Special Mention” loans have potential weaknesses that deserve management’s close attention. If left uncorrected, these potential weaknesses may result in a deterioration of the repayment prospects for the loans and weaken the Bank’s credit position at some future date. Special Mention loans are not adversely classified and do not expose the Bank to sufficient risk to require adverse classification. Substandard — “Substandard” loans are inadequately protected by the current sound worth and paying capacity of the obligor or the collateral pledged, if any. Loans so classified must have a well-defined weakness or weaknesses that jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. They are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Bank will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. Many substandard loans are considered impaired. PCI — “PCI” loans exhibited evidence of credit deterioration at acquisition that made it probable that all contractually required principal payments would not be collected. F-38 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following tables present the internal risk grades of non-covered loans, as previously described, in the portfolio by class (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Allowance for Loan Losses Pass Special Mention Substandard PCI Total $ 1,975,639 $ 105,569 — $ 61,109 $ 13,350 $ 2,050,098 105,675 — 106 — 1,517,049 724,701 1,536 — 11,764 5,414 41,128 11,647 1,571,477 741,762 104,162 — — 221 104,383 594,614 44,736 $ 5,066,470 $ — 35 600,973 45,672 1,571 $ 79,945 $ 72,054 $ 5,220,040 1,430 122 4,929 779 Pass Special Mention Substandard PCI Total $ 1,566,208 $ 110,256 1,105 $ 67,746 $ 13,374 $ 1,648,433 110,418 — 94 68 1,151,454 492,549 712 — 21,405 4,564 22,341 1,810 1,195,912 498,923 65,046 — — — 65,046 338,078 50,968 $ 3,774,559 $ — — 348,597 53,147 1,817 $ 95,191 $ 48,909 $ 3,920,476 1,341 41 9,178 2,138 It is management’s responsibility at the end of each quarter, or more frequently as deemed necessary, to analyze the level of the allowance for loan losses to ensure that it is appropriate for the estimated credit losses in the portfolio. Estimated credit losses are the probable current amount of loans that the Company will be unable to collect given facts and circumstances as of the evaluation date. When management determines that a loan or portion thereof is uncollectible, the loan, or portion thereof, is charged-off against the allowance for loan losses, or for acquired loans accounted for in pools, charged against the pool discount. Recoveries on charge-offs of loans acquired in the Bank Transactions that occurred prior to their acquisition represent contractual cash flows not expected to be collected and are recorded as accretion income. Recoveries on acquired loans charged-off subsequent to their acquisition are credited to the allowance for loan loss, except for recoveries on loans accounted for in pools, which are credited to the pool discount. The Company has developed a methodology that seeks to determine an allowance within the scope of the Receivables and Contingencies Topics of the ASC. Each of the loans that has been determined to be impaired is within the scope of the Receivables Topic. Impaired loans that are equal to or greater than $0.5 million are individually evaluated using one of three impairment measurement methods as of the evaluation date: (1) the present value of expected future discounted cash flows on the loan, (2) the loan’s observable market price, or (3) the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Specific reserves are provided in the estimate of the allowance based on the measurement of impairment under these three methods, except for collateral dependent loans, which require the fair value method. All non-impaired loans are within the scope of the Contingencies Topic. Estimates of loss for the Contingencies Topic are calculated based on historical loss, adjusted for qualitative or environmental factors. The Bank uses a rolling three year average net loss rate to calculate historical loss factors. The analysis is conducted by call report loan category, and further disaggregates commercial and industrial loans by collateral type. The analysis uses net charge-off experience by F-39 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) considering charge-offs and recoveries in determining the loss rate. The historical loss calculation for the quarter is calculated by dividing the current quarter net charge-offs for each loan category by the quarter ended loan category balance. The Bank utilizes a weighted average loss rate to better represent recent trends. The Bank weights the most recent four quarter average at 120% versus the oldest four quarters at 80%. While historical loss experience provides a reasonable starting point for the analysis, historical losses are not the sole basis upon which the Company determines the appropriate level for the allowance for loan losses. Management considers recent qualitative or environmental factors that are likely to cause estimated credit losses associated with the existing portfolio to differ from historical loss experience, including but not limited to: (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) (cid:120)(cid:3) changes in the volume and severity of past due, nonaccrual and classified loans; changes in the nature, volume and terms of loans in the portfolio; changes in lending policies and procedures; changes in economic and business conditions and developments that affect the collectability of the portfolio; changes in lending management and staff; changes in the loan review system and the degree of oversight by the Bank’s board of directors; and any concentrations of credit and changes in the level of such concentrations. Changes in the volume and severity of past due, nonaccrual and classified loans, as well as changes in the nature, volume and terms of loans in the portfolio are key indicators of changes that could indicate a necessary adjustment to the historical loss factors. The magnitude of the impact of these factors on the qualitative assessment of the allowance for loan loss changes from quarter to quarter. The loan review program is designed to identify and monitor problem loans by maintaining a credit grading process, requiring that timely and appropriate changes be made to reviewed loans and coordinating the delivery of the information necessary to assess the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses. Loans are evaluated for impaired status when: (i) payments on the loan are delayed, typically by 90 days or more (unless the loan is both well secured and in the process of collection), (ii) the loan becomes classified, (iii) the loan is being reviewed in the normal course of the loan review scope, or (iv) the loan is identified by the servicing officer as a problem. In connection with the Bank Transactions, the Bank acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. PCI loans acquired in the PlainsCapital Merger are accounted for on an individual loan basis, while PCI loans acquired in each of the FNB Transaction and SWS Merger are accounted for in pools as well as on an individual loan basis. Cash flows expected to be collected are recast quarterly for each loan or pool. These evaluations require the continued use and updating of key assumptions and estimates such as default rates, loss severity given default and prepayment speed assumptions (similar to those used for the initial fair value estimate). Management judgment must be applied in developing these assumptions. If expected cash flows for a loan or pool decreases, an increase in the allowance for loan losses is made through a charge to the provision for loan losses. If expected cash flows for a loan or pool increase, any previously established allowance for loan losses is reversed and any remaining difference increases the accretable yield. This increase in accretable yield is taken into income over the remaining life of the loan. Loans without evidence of credit impairment at acquisition are subsequently evaluated for any required allowance at each reporting date. An allowance for loan losses is calculated using a methodology similar to that described above for originated loans. The allowance as determined for each loan collateral type is compared to the remaining fair value discount for that loan collateral type. If greater, the excess is recognized as an addition to the allowance through a provision for loan losses. If less than the discount, no additional allowance is recorded. Charge-offs and losses first reduce any remaining fair value discount for the loan and once the discount is depleted, losses are applied against the allowance established for that loan. The allowance for loan losses is subject to regulatory examinations and determinations as to adequacy, which may take into account such factors as the methodology used to calculate the allowance and the size of the allowance. F-40 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Changes in the allowance for non-covered loan losses, distributed by portfolio segment, are shown below (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to (recapture from) operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Year Ended December 31, 2014 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to (recapture from) operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Year Ended December 31, 2013 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 18,999 $ 4,518 (7,144) 3,681 20,054 $ 11,131 $ 7,937 (605) 520 18,983 $ 6,450 $ (386) — — 6,064 $ 461 $ 104 (378) 127 314 $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 16,865 $ 6,116 (6,926) 2,944 18,999 $ 8,331 $ 2,696 (114) 218 11,131 $ 7,957 $ (1,692) — 185 6,450 $ 88 $ 627 (359) 105 461 $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 1,845 $ 20,940 (9,359) 3,439 16,865 $ 977 $ 7,281 (209) 282 8,331 $ 582 $ 7,634 (524) 265 7,957 $ 5 $ 238 (216) 61 88 $ Total 37,041 12,173 (8,127) 4,328 45,415 Total 33,241 7,747 (7,399) 3,452 37,041 Total 3,409 36,093 (10,308) 4,047 33,241 The non-covered loan portfolio was distributed by portfolio segment and impairment methodology as shown below (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans December 31, 2014 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ 11,354 $ 97 $ 2,131,069 13,350 2,260,367 52,775 $ 2,155,773 $ 2,313,239 $ — $ Total 11,451 5,136,535 44,893 72,054 779 705,356 $ 45,672 $ 5,220,040 700,206 5,150 — $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ 11,842 $ 1,420 $ 1,733,567 13,442 1,669,264 24,151 $ 1,758,851 $ 1,694,835 $ 703 $ Total 13,965 3,857,602 51,009 48,909 2,138 413,643 $ 53,147 $ 3,920,476 403,762 9,178 — $ The allowance for non-covered loan losses was distributed by portfolio segment and impairment methodology as shown below (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans December 31, 2014 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 1,380 $ 17,333 1,341 20,054 $ — $ 16,052 2,931 18,983 $ — $ 5,882 182 6,064 $ — $ 282 32 314 $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 421 $ 15,658 2,920 18,999 $ — $ 9,168 1,963 11,131 $ — $ 6,296 154 6,450 $ — $ 179 282 461 $ Total 1,380 39,549 4,486 45,415 Total 421 31,301 5,319 37,041 F-41 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 6. Covered Assets and Indemnification Asset As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Bank assumed substantially all of the liabilities, including all of the deposits, and acquired substantially all of the assets of FNB in an FDIC-assisted transaction on September 13, 2013. As part of the P&A Agreement, the Bank and the FDIC entered into loss-share agreements covering future losses incurred on certain acquired loans and OREO. The Company refers to acquired commercial and single family residential loan portfolios and OREO that are subject to the loss-share agreements as “covered loans” and “covered OREO”, respectively, and these assets are presented as separate line items in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Collectively, covered loans and covered OREO are referred to as “covered assets”. Pursuant to the loss- share agreements, the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Bank the following amounts with respect to the covered assets: (i) 80% of net losses on the first $240.4 million of net losses incurred; (ii) 0% of net losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of net losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of net losses in excess of $365.7 million of net losses incurred. Net losses are defined as book value losses plus certain defined expenses incurred in the resolution of assets, less subsequent recoveries. Under the loss-share agreement for commercial assets, the amount of subsequent recoveries that are reimbursable to the FDIC for a particular asset is limited to book value losses and expenses actually billed plus any book value charge-offs incurred prior to the Bank Closing Date. There is no limit on the amount of subsequent recoveries reimbursable to the FDIC under the loss-share agreement for single family residential assets. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential assets are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date, and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. The asset arising from the loss-share agreements, referred to as the “FDIC Indemnification Asset,” is measured separately from the covered loan portfolio because the agreements are not contractually embedded in the covered loans and are not transferable should the Bank choose to dispose of the covered loans. In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if its actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. At December 31, 2015, the Bank has recorded a related “true- up” payment accrual of $5.5 million based on the current estimate of aggregate realized losses on covered assets over the life of the loss-share agreements. Covered Loans and Allowance for Covered Loan Losses Loans acquired in the FNB Transaction that are subject to a loss-share agreement are referred to as “covered loans” and reported separately in the consolidated balance sheets. Covered loans are reported exclusive of the cash flow reimbursements that may be received from the FDIC. The Bank’s portfolio of acquired covered loans had a fair value of $1.1 billion as of the Bank Closing Date, with no carryover of any allowance for loan losses. Acquired covered loans were preliminarily segregated between those considered to be PCI loans and those without credit impairment at acquisition. In connection with the FNB Transaction, the Bank acquired loans both with and without evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination. The Company’s accounting policies for acquired covered loans, including covered PCI loans, are consistent with that of acquired non-covered loans, as described in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. The Company has established under its PCI accounting policy a framework to aggregate certain acquired covered loans into various loan pools based on a minimum of two layers of common risk characteristics for the purpose of determining their respective fair values as of their acquisition dates, and for applying the subsequent recognition and measurement provisions for income accretion and impairment testing. F-42 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following table presents the carrying value of the covered loans summarized by portfolio segment (in thousands). December 31, Commercial and industrial Real estate Construction and land development Consumer Allowance for covered loans Total covered loans, net of allowance $ $ 2015 8,801 $ 341,048 30,445 — 380,294 (1,532) 378,762 $ 2014 30,780 552,850 59,010 0 642,640 (4,611) 638,029 The following table presents the carrying value and the outstanding contractual balance of the covered PCI loans (in thousands). Carrying amount Outstanding balance December 31, $ 2015 221,974 $ 408,221 2014 435,388 685,393 Changes in the accretable yield for the covered PCI loans were as follows (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2014 2015 Period from September 14, 2013 through December 31, 2013 Balance, beginning of period Additions Reclassifications from (to) nonaccretable difference, net(1) Transfer of loans to covered OREO(2) Accretion Balance, end of period $ $ 193,493 $ — 156,548 — $ 70,884 (1,309) (86,349) 176,719 $ 105,470 7,703 (76,228) 193,493 $ — 167,974 3,492 4,407 (19,325) 156,548 (1) Reclassifications from nonaccretable difference are primarily due to net increases in expected cash flows in the quarterly recasts, but may also include the reclassification and immediate income recognition of nonaccretable difference due to the favorable resolution of loans accounted for individually. Reclassifications to nonaccretable difference occur when accruing loans are moved to nonaccrual and expected cash flows are no longer predictable and the accretable yield is eliminated. (2) Transfer of loans to covered OREO is the difference between the value removed from the pool and the expected cash flows for the loan. The remaining nonaccretable difference for covered PCI loans was $172.2 million and $382.5 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. During 2015 and 2014, a combination of factors affecting the inputs to the Bank’s quarterly recast process led to the reclassifications from nonaccretable difference to accretable yield. These transfers resulted from revised cash flows that reflect better-than-expected performance of the covered PCI loan portfolio as a result of the Bank’s strategic decision to dedicate resources to the liquidation of covered loans during the noted periods. Covered impaired loans include non-accrual loans, TDRs, PCI loans and partially charged-off loans. Substantially all covered impaired loans are PCI loans. The amounts shown in following tables include Pooled Loans, as well as loans accounted for on an individual basis. For Pooled Loans, the recorded investment with allowance and the related allowance consider impairment measured at the pool level. F-43 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Covered impaired loans are summarized by class in the following tables (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Unpaid Contractual Recorded Recorded Investment with Investment with Recorded Investment Allowance Total Related Allowance Principal Balance No Allowance $ 15,532 $ 9,377 3,380 $ 619 2,415 $ 1,162 5,795 $ 1,781 495 246 211,657 186,443 67,983 96,469 29,388 3,180 97,371 99,649 245 514 2,024 661 — 661 — 56,070 — 481,103 $ 20,910 — 190,022 $ $ — — — — 36,145 $ 226,167 $ 1,500 20,910 — Unpaid Contractual Recorded Recorded Investment with Investment with Recorded Investment Allowance Total Related Allowance Principal Balance No Allowance $ 26,447 $ 14,111 7,436 $ 2,107 6,636 $ 14,072 $ 4,697 6,804 265 882 387,302 235,505 193,111 129,571 35,142 12,918 228,253 142,489 2,381 937 2,749 1,018 354 1,372 69 94,949 — 761,063 $ 45,646 — 378,889 $ $ — — — — 59,747 $ 438,636 $ 4,534 45,646 — Average investment in covered impaired loans is summarized by class in the following table (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 2014 2013 $ 9,934 $ 21,296 $ 14,260 4,945 8,347 4,293 162,812 121,069 296,780 170,931 182,653 99,686 1,017 3,039 2,353 33,278 — 60,682 — $ 332,403 $ 583,898 $ 364,579 83,505 — Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer F-44 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Covered non-accrual loans are summarized by class in the following table (in thousands). Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer December 31, 2015 2014 $ 68 $ — 442 883 442 2,516 541 5,411 — 8,978 $ 30,823 1,046 1,018 11 — 34,223 $ At December 31, 2015 and 2014, covered non-accrual loans included covered PCI loans of $5.3 million and $31.2 million, respectively, for which discount accretion has been suspended because the extent and timing of cash flows from these covered PCI loans can no longer be reasonably estimated. Interest income, including recoveries and cash payments, recorded on covered impaired loans was $17.2 million during 2015. Interest income recorded on covered impaired loans during 2014 and 2013 was nominal. Except as noted above, covered PCI loans are considered to be performing due to the application of the accretion method. The Bank classifies loan modifications of covered loans as TDRs in a manner consistent with that of non-covered loans as discussed in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. The outstanding balance of TDRs granted during 2015 and 2014 is shown in the following tables (in thousands). There were no TDRs granted during the period from September 14, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Pooled Loans are not in the scope of the disclosure requirements for TDRs. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Bank had nominal unadvanced commitments to borrowers whose loans have been restructured in TDRs. Year Ended December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Recorded Investment in Loans Modified by Interest Rate Payment Term Adjustment Extension Total Modification A/B Note $ $ — — $ — — $ — — — 188 — — — 188 $ — 388 — — — 388 $ — 248 — — — 248 $ $ — — — 824 — — — 824 F-45 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Year Ended December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Recorded Investment in Loans Modified by Interest Rate Payment Term Adjustment Extension Total Modification A/B Note $ $ — — $ — — — 369 — — — 369 $ — 326 — — — 326 $ $ — — — — — — — — $ $ — — — 695 — — — 695 The following table presents information regarding TDRs granted during the twelve months preceding December 31, 2015 for which a payment was at 30 days past due in 2015 (dollars in thousands). There were no TDRs granted during the twelve months preceding December 31, 2014 for which a payment was at least 30 days past due in 2014. Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Number of Loans Recorded Investment — — 1 1 — — — 2 $ $ — — — 248 — — — 248 An analysis of the aging of the Bank’s covered loan portfolio is shown in the following tables (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Loans Past Due Loans Past Due Loans Past Due 60-89 Days Current 90 Days or More Past Due Loans Loans 30-59 Days Total PCI Loans Total Loans Accruing Loans (Non-PCI) Past Due 90 Days or More $ 51 $ — — $ — 68 $ — 119 $ — 1,175 $ — 5,727 $ 1,780 7,021 $ 1,780 — 3,399 — 418 100 100 28,957 96,928 125,985 1,104 4,921 113,524 96,618 215,063 — — 540 540 264 121 925 47 — 3,497 $ 1 — 419 $ 95 — 1,907 $ 143 — 8,577 — 20,800 — 29,520 — 5,823 $ 152,497 $ 221,974 $ 380,294 $ $ — — — — — — — — F-46 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Loans Past Due Loans Past Due Loans Past Due 60-89 Days Current 90 Days or More Past Due Loans Loans 30-59 Days Total PCI Loans Total Loans Accruing Loans (Non-PCI) Past Due 90 Days or More $ — $ 10 — $ — 454 $ — 454 $ 10 8,681 $ 13,630 $ 22,765 $ 1,200 6,805 8,015 December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer $ 876 3,089 — 39 — 4,014 $ — 493 — 25 — 518 $ 105 405 981 41,576 227,772 270,329 3,987 137,342 141,192 282,521 896 896 390 354 1,640 8 — 1,868 $ 72 — 11,663 — 45,635 — 57,370 — 6,400 $ 200,852 $ 435,388 $ 642,640 $ 11 — — 48 — 8 — 67 The Bank assigns a risk grade to each of its covered loans in a manner consistent with the existing loan review program and risk grading matrix used for non-covered loans, as described in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. The following tables present the internal risk grades of covered loans in the portfolio by class (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer December 31, 2014 Commercial and industrial: Secured Unsecured Real estate: Secured by commercial properties Secured by residential properties Construction and land development: Residential construction loans Commercial construction loans and land development Consumer Pass Special Mention Substandard PCI Total $ 758 $ — — $ — 536 $ — 5,727 $ 1,780 7,021 1,780 24,070 111,128 — 491 4,987 6,826 96,928 96,618 125,985 215,063 264 — 540 121 925 6,847 — $ 143,067 $ — — 29,520 — 491 $ 14,762 $ 221,974 $ 380,294 20,800 — 1,873 — Pass Special Mention Substandard PCI Total $ 7,712 $ 1,210 — $ — 1,423 $ 13,630 $ 22,765 8,015 6,805 — 35,973 133,756 — — 6,584 7,573 227,772 141,192 270,329 282,521 268 — 1,018 354 1,640 9,501 — $ 188,420 $ 57,370 — — — — $ 18,832 $ 435,388 $ 642,640 45,635 — 2,234 — The Bank’s impairment methodology for the covered loans is consistent with that of non-covered loans as discussed in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. To the extent there is experienced or projected credit deterioration on the acquired covered loan pools subsequent to amounts estimated at the previous quarterly recast date and expected cash flows for a loan or pool decreases, an increase in the allowance for loan losses is made through a charge to the provision for loan losses. If expected cash flows for a loan or pool increase, any previously established allowance for loan losses is reversed and any remaining difference increases the accretable yield. This increase in accretable yield is taken into F-47 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) income over the remaining life of the loan. Additionally, provision for credit losses will be recorded on advances on covered loans subsequent to the acquisition date in a manner consistent with the allowance for non-covered loan losses. Changes in the allowance for covered loan losses, distributed by portfolio segment, are shown below (in thousands). The year ended December 31, 2013 below refers to the period from September 14, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Year Ended December 31, 2015 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Year Ended December 31, 2014 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Year Ended December 31, 2013 Balance, beginning of year Provision charged to operations Loans charged off Recoveries on charged off loans Balance, end of year Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 1,193 $ 258 (915) 222 758 $ 3,334 $ 189 (2,869) 120 774 $ 84 $ 95 (179) — — $ — $ — — — — $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ 1,053 $ 230 (90) — 1,193 $ 8 $ 8,725 (5,399) — 3,334 $ — $ 231 (147) — 84 $ — $ — — — — $ Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ — $ 1,057 (4) — 1,053 $ — $ 8 — — 8 $ — $ — — — — $ — $ — — — — $ Total 4,611 542 (3,963) 342 1,532 Total 1,061 9,186 (5,636) — 4,611 Total — 1,065 (4) — 1,061 The covered loan portfolio was distributed by portfolio segment and impairment methodology as shown below (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans December 31, 2014 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer Total $ $ — $ — $ 1,294 7,507 8,801 $ 341,048 $ 147,502 193,546 540 $ 8,984 20,921 30,445 $ — $ 540 — 157,780 221,974 — — $ 380,294 Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer Total $ $ — $ — $ 10,345 20,435 30,780 $ 552,850 $ 183,886 368,964 801 $ 12,220 45,989 59,010 $ 801 — $ 206,451 — — 435,388 — $ 642,640 The allowance for covered loan losses was distributed by portfolio segment and impairment methodology as shown below (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ — $ 17 741 758 $ — $ 15 759 774 $ — $ — — — $ — $ — — — $ Total — 32 1,500 1,532 F-48 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) December 31, 2014 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment PCI Loans Covered Other Real Estate Owned Commercial and Industrial Construction and Real Estate Land Development Consumer $ $ — $ 46 1,147 1,193 $ — $ 16 3,318 3,334 $ — $ 15 69 84 $ — $ — — — $ Total — 77 4,534 4,611 A summary of the activity in covered OREO is as follows (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 2014 Balance, beginning of period Fair value of assets acquired as of Bank Closing Date Additions to covered OREO Dispositions of covered OREO Valuation adjustments in the period Balance, end of period $ 136,945 $ 142,833 $ — 50,465 (71,765) (16,555) 99,090 $ — 64,934 (51,150) (19,672) 136,945 $ $ Period from September 14, 2013 through December 31, 2013 — 135,187 19,185 (11,539) — 142,833 During 2015 and 2014, the Bank wrote down certain covered OREO assets to fair value to reflect new appraisals on certain OREO acquired in the FNB Transaction and OREO acquired from the foreclosure on certain FNB loans acquired in the FNB Transaction. Although the Bank recorded a fair value discount on the acquired assets upon acquisition, in some cases additional downward valuations were required. These additional downward valuation adjustments reflect changes to the assumptions regarding the fair value of the OREO, including in some cases the intended use of the OREO due to the availability of more information, as well as the passage of time. The process of determining fair value is subjective in nature and requires the use of significant estimates and assumptions. Although the Bank makes market-based assumptions when valuing acquired assets, new information may come to light that causes estimates to increase or decrease. When the Bank determines, based on subsequent information, that its estimates require adjustment, the Bank records the adjustment. The accounting for such adjustments requires that the decreases to fair value be recorded at the time such new information is received, while increases to fair value are recorded when the asset is subsequently sold. FDIC Indemnification Asset A summary of the activity in the FDIC Indemnification Asset is as follows (in thousands). Balance, beginning of period Fair value of assets acquired as of Bank Closing Date FDIC Indemnification Asset accretion (amortization) Transfers to due from FDIC and other Balance, end of period $ $ Period from September 14, 2013 Year Ended December 31, through December 31, 2015 2014 2013 130,437 $ — 1,147 (39,936) 91,648 $ 188,291 $ — 3,445 (61,299) 130,437 $ — 185,680 1,699 912 188,291 As of December 31, 2015, the Bank had billed and collected $100.3 million from the FDIC, which represented reimbursable covered losses and expenses through September 30, 2015. F-49 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 7. Cash and Due from Banks Cash and due from banks consisted of the following (in thousands). Cash on hand Clearings and collection items Deposits at Federal Reserve Bank Deposits at Federal Home Loan Bank Deposits in FDIC-insured institutions December 31, 2015 55,168 $ 91,466 316,605 3,514 185,283 652,036 $ 2014 47,947 76,381 425,704 1,500 230,941 782,473 $ $ The amounts above include interest-bearing deposits of $442.4 million and $628.3 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Cash on hand and deposits at the Federal Reserve Bank satisfy regulatory reserve requirements at December 31, 2015. 8. Premises and Equipment The components of premises and equipment are summarized as follows (in thousands). Land and premises Furniture and equipment Less accumulated depreciation and amortization December 31, 2015 122,221 $ 166,423 288,644 (88,026) 200,618 $ 2014 122,560 142,255 264,815 (57,824) 206,991 $ $ The amounts shown above include assets recorded under capital leases of $7.8 million and $6.6 million, net of accumulated amortization of $1.8 million and $1.2 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Occupancy expense was reduced by rental income of $2.2 million, $2.4 million and $1.8 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Depreciation and amortization expense on premises and equipment, which includes amortization of capital leases, amounted to $37.2 million, $30.7 million and $24.8 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 9. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets At both December 31, 2015 and 2014, the carrying amount of goodwill of $251.8 million was comprised of $24.0 million recorded in connection with the acquisition of NLC and $227.8 million recorded in connection with the PlainsCapital Merger. Other intangible assets of $54.9 million and $59.8 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, include an indefinite lived intangible asset with an estimated fair value of $3.0 million related to state licenses acquired as a part of the NLC acquisition in January 2007. The Company performed required annual impairment tests of its goodwill and other intangible assets having an indefinite useful life as of October 1st for each of its reporting units. At October 1, 2015, the Company determined that the estimated fair value of each of its reporting units exceeded its carrying value. The Company estimated the fair values of its reporting units based on both a market and income approach using historic, normalized actual and forecast results. Based on this evaluation, the Company concluded that the goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets were fully realizable at December 31, 2015. F-50 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The Company’s evaluation includes multiple assumptions, including estimated discounted cash flows and other estimates that may change over time. If future discounted cash flows become less than those projected by the Company, future impairment charges may become necessary that could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. As quoted market prices in active stock markets are relevant evidence of fair value, a significant decline in the Company’s common stock trading price may indicate an impairment of goodwill. The carrying value of intangible assets subject to amortization was as follows (in thousands). December 31, 2015 Core deposits Trademarks and trade names Noncompete agreements Customer contracts and relationships Agent relationships December 31, 2014 Core deposits Trademarks and trade names Noncompete agreements Customer contracts and relationships Agent relationships Estimated Gross Useful Life (Years) 4 Intangible Accumulated Intangible Assets Amortization Assets Net 4 15 - 20 - 6 12 - 14 13 - 12 $ 38,930 $ (17,497) $ 21,433 14,106 4,555 11,362 412 $ 95,580 $ (43,712) $ 51,868 (5,894) (7,095) (10,038) (3,188) 20,000 11,650 21,400 3,600 Estimated Gross Useful Life Intangible Accumulated Intangible Net Assets Amortization Assets (Years) 7 - 12 $ 38,770 $ (12,104) $ 26,666 16,277 6,856 6,371 613 $ 88,120 $ (31,337) $ 56,783 20,000 11,650 14,100 3,600 (3,723) (4,794) (7,729) (2,987) 10 - 20 4 - 6 8 - 12 13 Amortization expense related to intangible assets during 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $12.4 million, $11.1 million and $11.1 million, respectively. The estimated aggregate future amortization expense for intangible assets at December 31, 2015 is as follows (in thousands). 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter $ $ 10,174 8,262 7,235 5,192 4,356 16,649 51,868 F-51 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 10. Mortgage Servicing Rights The following tables present the changes in fair value of the Company’s MSR and other information related to the serviced portfolio (dollars in thousands). Balance, beginning of year Additions Sales Changes in fair value: Due to changes in model inputs or assumptions Due to customer payoffs (1) Balance, end of year Mortgage loans serviced for others MSR asset as a percentage of serviced mortgage loans 2015 Year Ended December 31, 2014 36,155 24,974 — (2,150) (6,694) 52,285 $ $ 20,149 35,056 (11,387) (5,267) (2,396) 36,155 $ $ 2013 2,080 13,886 — 4,782 (599) 20,149 December 31, 2015 5,051,884 $ 1.03 % 2014 3,645,220 0.99 % $ $ $ (1) Primarily represents normal customer payments, changes in discount rates and prepayment speed assumptions, which are primarily affected by changes in interest rates and the refinement of other MSR model assumptions. The key assumptions used in measuring the fair value of the Company’s MSR were as follows. Weighted average constant prepayment rate Weighted average discount rate Weighted average life (in years) December 31, 2015 2014 11.51 % 10.92 % 6.5 12.17 % 11.01 % 6.3 A sensitivity analysis of the fair value of the Company’s MSR to certain key assumptions is presented in the following table (in thousands). Constant prepayment rate: Impact of 10% adverse change Impact of 20% adverse change Discount rate: Impact of 10% adverse change Impact of 20% adverse change December 31, 2015 2014 $ (2,177) $ (4,195) (1,648) (3,169) (2,073) (3,989) (1,431) (2,753) This sensitivity analysis presents the effect of hypothetical changes in key assumptions on the fair value of the MSR. The effect of such hypothetical change in assumptions generally cannot be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in one key assumption to the change in the fair value of the MSR is not linear. In addition, in the analysis, the impact of an adverse change in one key assumption is calculated independent of any impact on other assumptions. In reality, changes in one assumption may change another assumption. Contractually specified servicing fees, late fees and ancillary fees earned of $19.6 million, $13.3 million and $3.2 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, were included in other noninterest income within the consolidated statements of operations. F-52 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 11. Deposits Deposits are summarized as follows (in thousands). Noninterest-bearing demand Interest-bearing: NOW accounts Money market Brokered - money market Demand Savings Time Brokered - time December 31, 2015 2014 $ 2,235,436 $ 2,076,385 1,077,576 1,500,780 133,380 380,214 273,390 1,325,342 26,565 1,242,110 861,851 79,937 136,886 299,051 1,575,910 97,762 $ 6,952,683 $ 6,369,892 At December 31, 2015, deposits include $622.1 million of time deposit accounts that meet or exceed the FDIC insurance limit of $250,000. Scheduled maturities of interest-bearing time deposits at December 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands). 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 and thereafter $ 799,215 386,295 83,284 51,209 31,904 $ 1,351,907 12. Short-term Borrowings Short-term borrowings are summarized as follows (in thousands). Federal funds purchased Securities sold under agreements to repurchase Federal Home Loan Bank Short-term bank loans December 31, 2015 58,925 $ 217,748 600,000 70,700 947,373 $ 2014 128,100 136,396 375,000 123,200 762,696 $ $ Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase generally mature daily, on demand, or on some other short-term basis. The Bank and the Hilltop Broker-Dealers execute transactions to sell securities under agreements to repurchase with both customers and broker-dealers. Securities involved in these transactions are held by the Bank, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers or a third-party dealer. Information concerning federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase is shown in the following tables (dollars in thousands). Average balance during the year Average interest rate during the year Maximum month-end balance during the year 2015 $ 315,904 Year Ended December 31, 2014 319,806 $ 0.17 % $ 0.33 % 2013 281,067 0.19 % 514,776 535,232 415,730 F-53 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Average interest rate at end of year Securities underlying the agreements at end of year: Carrying value Estimated fair value December 31, 2015 2014 0.26 % 0.15 % $ 250,981 $ 250,045 $ 166,734 $ 163,852 FHLB short-term borrowings mature over terms not exceeding 365 days and are collateralized by FHLB Dallas stock, nonspecified real estate loans and certain specific commercial real estate loans. At December 31, 2015, the Bank had available collateral of $1.5 billion, substantially all of which was blanket collateral. Other information regarding FHLB short-term borrowings is shown in the following tables (dollars in thousands). Average balance during the year Average interest rate during the year Maximum month-end balance during the year $ $ 2015 294,959 $ 0.27 % $ 600,000 Year Ended December 31, 2014 261,550 $ 0.18 % $ 575,000 2013 106,415 0.13 % 525,000 Average interest rate at end of year December 31, 2015 2014 0.35 % 0.16 % The Hilltop Broker-Dealers use short-term bank loans periodically to finance securities owned, margin loans to customers and correspondents, and underwriting activities. Interest on the borrowings varies with the federal funds rate. The weighted average interest rate on the borrowings at December 31, 2015 and 2014 was 1.26% and 1.07%, respectively. 13. Notes Payable Notes payable consisted of the following (in thousands). December 31, 2015 2014 NLIC note payable due May 2033, three-month LIBOR plus 4.10% (4.64% at December 31, 2015) with interest payable quarterly $ 10,000 $ 10,000 NLIC note payable due September 2033, three-month LIBOR plus 4.05% (4.59% at December 31, 2015) with interest payable quarterly ASIC note payable due April 2034, three-month LIBOR plus 4.05% (4.59% at December 31, 2015) with interest payable quarterly First Southwest nonrecourse notes, paid off in January 2015 Insurance company note payable due March 2035, three-month LIBOR plus 3.40% (3.94% at December 31, 2015) with interest payable quarterly Federal Home Loan Bank notes, maturities ranging from May 2016 to June 2030 with interest payable monthly Insurance company line of credit due December 31, 2016, 3.25% plus a calculated index rate (4.00% at December 31, 2015) with interest payable quarterly Senior Notes due April 2025, net $ 10,000 10,000 7,500 — 7,500 4,184 20,000 20,000 36,042 — 7,000 148,174 238,716 $ 5,000 — 56,684 NLIC, ASIC and Insurance Company Notes Payable The NLIC and ASIC notes payable to unaffiliated companies are each subordinated in right of payment to all policy claims and other indebtedness of NLIC and ASIC, respectively. Further, all payments of principal and interest require the prior approval of the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Texas and are only payable to the extent that the statutory surplus of NLIC exceeds $30 million and ASIC exceeds $15 million. F-54 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The NLIC, ASIC and Insurance Company loan agreements relating to the notes payable contain various covenants pertaining to limitations on additional debt, dividends, officer and director compensation, and minimum capital requirements. The Company was in compliance with the covenants at December 31, 2015. NLC has entered into an indenture relating to the NLIC, ASIC and Insurance Company notes payable which provides that (i) if a person or group becomes the beneficial owner directly or indirectly of 50% or more of its equity securities and (ii) if NLC’s ratings are downgraded by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), then each holder of the notes governed by such indenture has the right to require that NLC purchase such holder’s notes in whole or in part at a price equal to 100% of the outstanding principal amount. First Southwest Nonrecourse Notes In 2005, First Southwest participated in a monetization of future cash flows totaling $95.3 million from several tobacco companies owed to a law firm under a settlement agreement (“Fee Award”). In connection with the transaction, a special purpose entity that was consolidated with First Southwest issued $30.3 million of nonrecourse notes to finance the purchase of the Fee Award, to establish a reserve account and to fund issuance costs. Cash flows from the settlement were the sole source of payment for the nonrecourse notes. The nonrecourse notes carried an interest rate of 8.58%. The First Southwest nonrecourse notes were paid off in January 2015. Federal Home Loan Bank notes The FHLB notes, assumed by the Bank in the SWS Merger, have interest rates ranging from 0.80% to 5.83%, with a weighted average interest rate of 2.13% at December 31, 2015. The FHLB notes, as well as other borrowings from the FHLB, are collateralized by FHLB stock, a blanket lien on commercial and real estate loans, as well as by the amount of securities that are in safekeeping at the FHLB, the value of which was $2.3 billion at December 31, 2015. Insurance Company Line of Credit The Company’s insurance subsidiary has a line of credit with a financial institution which allows for borrowings by NLC of up to $7.5 million and is collateralized by substantially all of NLC’s assets. The loan agreements relating to the line of credit contain various financial and other covenants which must be maintained until all indebtedness to the financial institution is repaid. The Company was in compliance with the covenants at December 31, 2015. Senior Notes On April 9, 2015, Hilltop completed an offering of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 5% senior notes due 2025 (“Senior Unregistered Notes”) in a private offering that was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Senior Unregistered Notes were offered within the United States only to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act, and to persons outside of the United States under Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Senior Unregistered Notes were issued pursuant to an indenture, dated as of April 9, 2015, by and between Hilltop and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. The net proceeds from the offering, after deducting estimated fees and expenses and the initial purchasers’ discounts, were approximately $148 million. Hilltop used the net proceeds of the offering to redeem all of Hilltop’s outstanding Non- Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B at an aggregate liquidation value of $114.1 million, plus accrued but unpaid dividends of $0.4 million, and Hilltop utilized the remainder for general corporate purposes. Unamortized debt issuance costs presented as a reduction from the Senior Notes are discussed further in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. In connection with the issuance of the Senior Unregistered Notes, on April 9, 2015, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the Senior Unregistered Notes. Under the terms of the registration rights agreement, the Company agreed to offer to exchange the Senior Unregistered Notes for notes registered under the Securities Act (the “Senior Registered Notes”). The terms of the Senior Registered Notes are substantially identical to the Senior Unregistered Notes for which they were exchanged (including principal amount, interest rate, maturity and F-55 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) redemption rights), except that the Senior Registered Notes generally are not subject to transfer restrictions. On May 22, 2015 and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Senior Registered Notes prospectus, the Company commenced an offer to exchange the Senior Unregistered Notes for Senior Registered Notes. Substantially all of the Senior Unregistered Notes were tendered in the exchange offer, and on June 22, 2015, the Company fulfilled its requirements under the registration rights agreement for the Senior Unregistered Notes by issuing Senior Registered Notes in exchange for the tendered Senior Unregistered Notes. The Senior Registered Notes and the Senior Unregistered Notes that remain outstanding are collectively referred to as the “Senior Notes.” The Senior Notes bear interest at a rate of 5% per year, payable semi-annually in arrears in cash on April 15 and October 15 of each year, commencing on October 15, 2015. The Senior Notes will mature on April 15, 2025, unless Hilltop redeems the Senior Notes, in whole at any time or in part from time to time, on or after January 15, 2025 (three months prior to the maturity date of the Senior Notes) at its election at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Senior Notes to be redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the redemption date. The indenture contains covenants that limit the Company’s ability to, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions: (i) dispose of or issue voting stock of certain of the Company’s bank subsidiaries or subsidiaries that own voting stock of the Company’s bank subsidiaries, (ii) incur or permit to exist any mortgage, pledge, encumbrance or lien or charge on the capital stock of certain of the Company’s bank subsidiaries or subsidiaries that own capital stock of the Company’s bank subsidiaries and (iii) sell all or substantially all of the Company’s assets or merge or consolidate with or into other companies. The indenture also provides for certain events of default, which, if any of them occurs, would permit or require the principal amount, premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest on the then outstanding Senior Notes to be declared immediately due and payable. Scheduled Maturities Scheduled maturities for notes payable outstanding at December 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands). 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter $ 7,575 7,693 13,444 5,311 3,944 201,628 $ 239,595 14. Junior Subordinated Debentures and Trust Preferred Securities PlainsCapital has four statutory Trusts, three of which were formed under the laws of the state of Connecticut and one of which, PCC Statutory Trust IV, was formed under the laws of the state of Delaware. The Trusts were created for the sole purpose of issuing and selling preferred securities and common securities, using the resulting proceeds to acquire junior subordinated debentures issued by PlainsCapital (the “Debentures”). Accordingly, the Debentures are the sole assets of the Trusts, and payments under the Debentures are the sole revenue of the Trusts. All of the common securities are owned by PlainsCapital; however, PlainsCapital is not the primary beneficiary of the Trusts. Accordingly, the Trusts are not included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Trusts have issued $65,000,000 of floating rate preferred securities and $2,012,000 of common securities and have invested the proceeds from the securities in floating rate Debentures of PlainsCapital. F-56 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Information regarding the PlainsCapital Debentures is shown in the following table (in thousands). Investor PCC Statutory Trust I PCC Statutory Trust II PCC Statutory Trust III PCC Statutory Trust IV Issue Date $ July 31, 2001 March 26, 2003 $ September 17, 2003 $ $ February 22, 2008 Amount 18,042 18,042 15,464 15,464 The stated term of the Debentures is 30 years with interest payable quarterly. The rate on the Debentures, which resets quarterly, is 3-month LIBOR plus an average spread of 3.22%. The total average interest rate at December 31, 2015 was 3.65%. The term, rate and other features of the preferred securities are the same as the Debentures. PlainsCapital’s obligations under the Debentures and related documents, taken together, constitute a full and unconditional guarantee of the Trust’s obligations under the preferred securities. 15. Income Taxes The significant components of the income tax provision are as follows (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Current: Federal State Deferred: Federal State $ 49,570 $ 85,303 $ 51,441 3,414 3,087 54,855 88,390 3,969 53,539 14,573 (21,851) 17,295 1,256 (931) 81 17,376 15,829 (22,782) 70,915 $ 65,608 $ 70,684 $ The income tax provision differs from the amount that would be computed by applying the statutory Federal income tax rate of 35% to income before income taxes as a result of the following (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2014 $ 99,223 $ 62,358 $ 69,088 2013 2015 (33,426) 3,969 3,215 2,632 (2,563) (1,889) (562) 170 146 — — 2,363 3,035 (2,042) — (479) (1,141) (140) $ 70,915 $ 65,608 $ 70,684 — 102 2,201 1,401 (2,085) 1,889 (318) 360 (300) Computed tax at federal statutory rate Tax effect of: Non-taxable acquisition gain Nondeductible transaction costs Nondeductible expenses State income taxes Tax-exempt income, net Valuation allowance Minority interest Prior year return to provision adjustment Other F-57 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The components of the tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to the net deferred tax asset included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheets are as follows (in thousands). Deferred tax assets: Net operating and built-in loss carryforward Covered loans Purchase accounting adjustment - loans Allowance for loan losses Compensation and benefits Indemnification agreements Foreclosed property Capital loss carryforward Other Deferred tax liabilities: Premises and equipment FDIC Indemnification Asset Intangible assets Derivatives Net unrealized change in securities and other investments Loan servicing Other Total net deferred tax asset Less valuation allowance Net deferred tax asset December 31, 2015 2014 23,937 $ 58,236 15,689 17,462 41,702 11,269 13,219 — 21,979 203,493 26,518 35,636 20,945 9,861 1,432 19,363 16,734 130,489 73,004 (2,195) 70,809 $ 15,919 53,195 15,110 15,255 22,498 6,631 13,458 1,950 14,793 158,809 13,567 38,546 18,989 9,368 260 13,531 19,646 113,907 44,902 (1,950) 42,952 $ $ The Company’s effective tax rate was 25.0%, 36.8% and 35.8% during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The decrease in the Company’s effective tax rate during 2015 was primarily due to no income taxes being recorded in connection with the bargain purchase gain of $81.3 million associated with the SWS Merger because the acquisition was a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $2.1 million as a result of the SWS Merger to reverse the deferred tax liability for the difference between book and tax basis on Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock and reversed a previously established valuation allowance of $1.9 million on a deferred tax asset associated with a capital loss carryforward. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had net operating loss carryforwards for Federal income tax purposes of $46.5 million and $45.5 million, respectively. This increase in net operating loss carryforwards was a result of the SWS Merger, significantly offset by the utilization of $44.0 million of net operating loss carryforwards during 2015. The net operating loss carryforwards are subject to either separate return year limitations or annual Section 382 limitations on their usage. These net operating loss carryforwards expire in 2025 and later years. The Company expects to realize its current deferred tax asset for these net operating loss carryforwards through the implementation of certain tax planning strategies, core earnings, and reversal of timing differences. At December 31, 2015, the Company also had a recognized built-in loss (“RBIL”) carryover of $21.0 million from the ownership change resulting from the SWS Merger. These RBILs are subject to the annual Section 382 limitation rules similar to the Company’s net operating loss carryforwards. The Company’s remaining net unrealized built-in loss of $16.1 million, if recognized during a five year recognition period before January 1, 2020, would also be subject to the annual Section 382 limitation. The RBIL’s are expected to be fully realized prior to any expiration. Based on the Company’s evaluation of its deferred tax assets, management has recorded a valuation allowance of $2.2 million at December 31, 2015 against its gross deferred tax asset for an investment that may result in a capital loss. This increase in the valuation allowance of $0.3 million from December 31, 2014 was a result of an increase in the valuation allowance of $2.2 million from the SWS Merger, significantly offset by a decrease of $1.9 million associated with the F-58 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) unexpected capital gain recognition on a capital loss carryforward. The Company has no valuation allowance on the remainder of its deferred tax assets at December 31, 2015 or 2014. GAAP requires the measurement of uncertain tax positions. Uncertain tax positions are the difference between a tax position taken, or expected to be taken in a tax return, and the benefit recognized for accounting purposes. At both December 31, 2015 and 2014, the total amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits was $0.6 million, of which $0.4 million if recognized, would favorably impact the Company’s effective tax rate. The Company files income tax returns in U.S. federal and numerous state jurisdictions. The Company is subject to tax audits in numerous jurisdictions in the United States until the applicable statute of limitations expires. The Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal tax examinations for tax years prior to 2012. The Company is open for various state tax audits for tax years 2011 and later. The Company is currently under income tax examination by several state authorities for tax years 2011 through 2013. The Company does not expect any significant liability to arise as a result of the examinations. 16. Employee Benefits Hilltop and its subsidiaries have benefit plans that provide for elective deferrals by employees under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Employee contributions are determined by the level of employee participation and related salary levels per Internal Revenue Service regulations. Hilltop and its subsidiaries match a portion of employee contributions based on entity-specific factors including the level of normal operating earnings and the amount of eligible employees’ contributions and salaries. In addition, Hilltop, PlainsCapital and the Bank made additional contributions to employees’ 401(k) accounts based on achievement of certain corporate objectives through December 31, 2015. The amount charged to operating expense for these matching contributions totaled $12.6 million, $8.8 million and $7.5 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Effective upon the completion of the PlainsCapital Merger, the Company recorded a liability of $8.9 million associated with separate retention agreements entered into between Hilltop and two executive officers of PlainsCapital. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the recorded liability, including interest, was $9.0 million. The Bank purchased $15.0 million of flexible premium universal life insurance in 2001 to help finance the annual expense incurred in providing various employee benefits. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the carrying value of the policies included in other assets was $24.2 million and $24.8 million, respectively. During 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Bank recorded income of $0.8 million, $0.4 million and $0.4 million, respectively, related to the policies that was reported in other noninterest income within the consolidated statement of operations. Deferred Compensation Plan As a result of the SWS Merger, the Company assumed a deferred compensation plan offered by the former SWS (the “SWS Plan”) that allows former SWS eligible officers and employees to defer a portion of their bonus compensation and commissions. The SWS Plan matched 15% of the deferrals made by participants up to a predetermined limit through matching contributions that vest ratably over four years. Pursuant to the terms of the SWS Plan, the trustee periodically purchased the former SWS common stock in the open market. As a result of the SWS Merger, the former SWS common shares were converted into Hilltop common stock based on the terms of the merger agreement. No further contributions can be made to this plan. The assets of the SWS Plan are held in a rabbi trust and primarily include investments in company-owned life insurance (“COLI”) and Hilltop common stock. These assets are consolidated with those of the Company. Investments in COLI are carried at the cash surrender value of the insurance policies and recorded in other assets within the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2015. Investments in Hilltop common stock, which are carried at cost and accounted for in a manner similar to treasury stock, and the corresponding liability related to the deferred compensation plan are presented as components of stockholders’ equity as employee stock trust and deferred compensation employee stock trust, net, respectively, at December 31, 2015. F-59 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 17. Related Party Transactions Pursuant to a Sublease Agreement, Diamond A Administration Company LLC (“Diamond A Admin”), an affiliate of Gerald J. Ford, the current Chairman of the Board of Hilltop and the beneficial owner of 15.8% of Hilltop common stock at December 31, 2015, currently provides office space to Hilltop at a cost of $24,030 per month. This Sublease Agreement continues in effect until July 31, 2018 or such earlier date that the base lease expires. Jeremy B. Ford, a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop, is the beneficiary of a trust that owns a 49% limited partnership interest in Diamond A Financial, L.P. Diamond A Financial, L.P. owned 15.7% of the outstanding Hilltop common stock at December 31, 2015. He also is a director and the Secretary of Diamond A Admin, which provides office space to Hilltop as described the preceding paragraph. Diamond A Admin is owned by Hunter’s Glen/Ford, Ltd., a limited partnership in which a trust for the benefit of Jeremy B. Ford is a 46% limited partner. Jeremy B. Ford is the son of Gerald J. Ford. Corey G. Prestidge, Hilltop’s General Counsel and Secretary, is the son-in- law of Gerald J. Ford. Accordingly, Messrs. Jeremy Ford and Corey Prestidge are brothers-in-law. In the ordinary course of business, the Bank has granted loans to certain directors, executive officers and their affiliates (collectively referred to as related parties) totaling $34.2 million and $32.7 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These loans were made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other unaffiliated persons and do not involve more than normal risk of collectability. For such loans during 2015, total principal additions were $8.0 million and total principal payments were $6.5 million. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Bank held deposits of related parties of $61.5 million and $161.9 million, respectively. A related party is the lessor in an operating lease with the Bank. The Bank’s minimum payment under the lease is $0.5 million annually through 2028, for an aggregate remaining obligation of $6.5 million at December 31, 2015. The Bank purchases loans from a company for which a related party serves as a director, president and chief executive officer. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the outstanding balance of the purchased loans was $3.9 million and $6.0 million, respectively. The loans were purchased with recourse to the company in the ordinary course of business and the related party had no direct financial interest in the transactions. PlainsCapital Equity, LLC is a limited partner in certain limited partnerships that have received loans from the Bank. The Bank made those loans in the normal course of business, using underwriting standards and offering terms that are substantially the same as those used or offered to non-affiliated borrowers. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Bank had outstanding loans of $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively, in which PlainsCapital Equity, LLC had a limited partnership interest. The investment of PlainsCapital Equity, LLC in these limited partnerships was $3.8 million at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. 18. Commitments and Contingencies The Bank acts as agent on behalf of certain correspondent banks in the purchase and sale of federal funds that aggregated $23.0 million at December 31, 2015. At December 31, 2014, there were no such amounts outstanding. Legal Matters The Company is subject to loss contingencies related to litigation, claims, investigations and legal and administrative cases and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company evaluates these contingencies based on information currently available, including advice of counsel. The Company establishes accruals for those matters when a loss contingency is considered probable and the related amount is reasonably estimable. Any accruals are periodically reviewed and may be adjusted as circumstances change. A portion of the Company’s exposure with respect to loss contingencies may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. In determining the amounts of any accruals or estimates F-60 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) of possible loss contingencies, the Company does not take into account the availability of insurance coverage, other than that provided by reinsurers in the insurance segment. When it is practicable, the Company estimates loss contingencies for possible litigation and claims, whether or not there is an accrued probable loss. When the Company is able to estimate such possible losses, and when it estimates that it is reasonably possible it could incur losses, in excess of amounts accrued, the Company is required to make a disclosure of the aggregate estimation. As available information changes, however, the matters for which the Company is able to estimate, as well as the estimates themselves will be adjusted, accordingly. Assessments of litigation and claims exposures are difficult due to many factors that involve inherent unpredictability. Those factors include the following: the varying stages of the proceedings, particularly in the early stages; unspecified, unsupported, or uncertain damages; damages other than compensatory, such as punitive damages; a matter presenting meaningful legal uncertainties, including novel issues of law; multiple defendants and jurisdictions; whether discovery has begun or not or discovery is not complete; meaningful settlement discussions have not commenced; and whether the claim involves a class action and if so, how the class is defined. As a result of some of these factors, the Company may be unable to estimate reasonably possible losses with respect to some or all of the pending and threatened litigation and claims asserted against the Company. Following completion of Hilltop’s acquisition of SWS, several purported holders of shares of SWS common stock filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. These petitions were consolidated as In re SWS Group, Inc., C.A. No. 10554- VCG. As of February 24, 2016, the consolidated matter represented a total of approximately 5.2 million shares of SWS common stock. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. On or about November 2, 2012, FSC, along with thirteen other defendants, was named in a lawsuit pending in the state of Rhode Island Superior Court styled Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, et al. FSC is included in connection with its role as financial advisor to the State of Rhode Island, specifically in connection with the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation’s issuance of $75 million in bonds to finance a loan to 38 Studios, LLC. 38 Studios, LLC ultimately failed to repay the loan and the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation is seeking recovery to repay the bonds it issued to make such loan. FSC intends to defend itself vigorously in this action. The Company is involved in information-gathering requests and investigations (both formal and informal), as well as reviews, examinations and proceedings (collectively, “Inquiries”) by various governmental regulatory agencies, law enforcement authorities and self-regulatory bodies regarding certain of its businesses, business practices and policies, as well as the conduct of persons with whom it does business. Additional Inquiries will arise from time to time. In connection with those Inquiries, the Company receives document requests, subpoenas and other requests for information. The Inquiries, including the Inquiry described below, could develop into administrative, civil or criminal proceedings or enforcement actions that could result in consequences that have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a whole. Such consequences could include adverse judgments, findings, settlements, penalties, fines, orders, injunctions, restitution, or alterations in the Company’s business practices, and could result in additional expenses and collateral costs, including reputational damage. As a part of an industry-wide inquiry, PrimeLending received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding mortgage-related practices, including those relating to origination practices for loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (the “FHA”). On August 20, 2014, PrimeLending received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) related to this Inquiry. According to the Civil Investigative Demand, the DOJ is conducting an investigation to determine whether PrimeLending has violated the False Claims Act in connection with originating and underwriting single-family residential mortgage loans insured by the FHA. No allegations have been asserted against PrimeLending. PrimeLending cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this investigation, and cannot make a reasonable estimate of potential liability, if any, at this time. PrimeLending continues to cooperate with the investigation. While the final outcome of litigation and claims exposures or of any Inquiries is inherently unpredictable, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of pending and threatened litigation and Inquiries will not have a material F-61 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a whole. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is reasonably possible that an adverse outcome in any of the matters discussed above could be material to the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period of occurrence. Other Contingencies The mortgage origination segment may be responsible for errors or omissions relating to its representations and warranties that each loan sold meets certain requirements, including representations as to underwriting standards and the validity of certain borrower representations in connection with the loan. If determined to be at fault, the mortgage origination segment either repurchases the affected loan from the investor or reimburses the investor’s losses. The mortgage origination segment has established an indemnification liability reserve for such probable losses. Generally, the mortgage origination segment first becomes aware that an investor believes a loss has been incurred on a sold loan when it receives a written request from the investor to repurchase the loan or reimburse the investor’s losses. Upon completing its review of the investor’s request, the mortgage origination segment establishes a specific claims reserve for the loan if it concludes its obligation to the investor is both probable and reasonably estimable. An additional reserve has been established for probable investor losses that may have been incurred, but not yet reported to the mortgage origination segment based upon a reasonable estimate of such losses. Factors considered in the calculation of this reserve include, but are not limited to, the total volume of loans sold exclusive of specific investor requests, actual investor claim settlements and the severity of estimated losses resulting from future claims, and the mortgage origination segment’s history of successfully curing defects identified in investor claim requests. While the mortgage origination segment’s sales contracts typically include borrower early payment default repurchase provisions, these provisions have not been a primary driver of investor claims to date, and therefore, are not a primary factor considered in the calculation of this reserve. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the mortgage origination segment’s indemnification liability reserve totaled $16.6 million and $17.6 million, respectively. The provision for indemnification losses was $4.0 million, $3.1 million and $3.5 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The following tables provide for a roll-forward of claims activity for loans put-back to the mortgage origination segment based upon an alleged breach of a representation or warranty with respect to a loan sold and related indemnification liability reserve activity (in thousands). Representation and Warranty Specific Claims Activity - Origination Loan Balance Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Balance, beginning of period Claims made Claims resolved with no payment Repurchases Indemnification payments Balance, end of period Balance, beginning of period Additions for new sales Repurchases Early payment defaults Indemnification payments Change in estimate Balance, end of period $ $ $ $ 53,906 $ 71,783 (38,862) (14,884) (14,645) 57,298 $ 51,912 $ 50,558 (29,257) (15,439) (3,868) 53,906 $ 39,693 40,001 (17,746) (6,255) (3,781) 51,912 Indemnification Liability Reserve Activity Year Ended December 31, 2014 2015 2013 17,619 $ 4,006 (1,420) (64) (3,027) (474) 16,640 $ 21,121 $ 3,109 (1,593) (143) (1,708) (3,167) 17,619 $ 18,964 3,539 (251) (528) (1,003) 400 21,121 F-62 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Reserve for Indemnification Liability: Specific claims Incurred but not reported claims Total December 31, 2015 2014 $ $ 5,210 $ 11,430 16,640 $ 7,912 9,707 17,619 Although management considers the total indemnification liability reserve to be appropriate, there may be changes in the reserve over time to address incurred losses, due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy and historical loss patterns, discrete events adversely affecting specific borrowers or industries, and/or actions taken by institutions or investors. The impact of such matters is considered in the reserving process when probable and estimable. In connection with the FNB Transaction, the Bank entered into two loss-share agreements with the FDIC that collectively cover $1.2 billion of loans and OREO acquired in the FNB Transaction. Pursuant to the loss-share agreements, the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Bank the following amounts with respect to the covered assets: (i) 80% of net losses on the first $240.4 million of net losses incurred; (ii) 0% of net losses in excess of $240.4 million up to and including $365.7 million of net losses incurred; and (iii) 80% of net losses in excess of $365.7 million of net losses incurred. Net losses are defined as book value losses plus certain defined expenses incurred in the resolution of assets, less subsequent recoveries. Under the loss-share agreement for commercial assets, the amount of subsequent recoveries that are reimbursable to the FDIC for a particular asset is limited to book value losses and expenses actually billed plus any book value charge-offs incurred prior to the Bank Closing Date. There is no limit on the amount of subsequent recoveries reimbursable to the FDIC under the loss-share agreement for single family residential assets. The loss-share agreements for commercial and single family residential assets are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date and the loss recovery provisions to the FDIC are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the Bank Closing Date. In accordance with the loss-share agreements, the Bank may be required to make a “true-up” payment to the FDIC approximately ten years following the Bank Closing Date if its actual net realized losses over the life of the loss-share agreements are less than the FDIC’s initial estimate of losses on covered assets. The “true-up” payment is calculated using a defined formula set forth in the P&A Agreement. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank estimated that the sum of covered losses and reimbursable expenses subject to the loss-share agreements will exceed $240.4 million, but will not exceed $365.7 million. Unless actual plus projected covered losses and reimbursable expenses exceed $365.7 million, the Bank will not record additional amounts to the FDIC Indemnification Asset. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank had billed $125.4 million of covered net losses to the FDIC, of which 80%, or $100.3 million, were reimbursable under the loss-share agreements. As of December 31, 2015, the Bank had received aggregate reimbursements of $100.3 million from the FDIC. As discussed in Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements, effective upon completion of the PlainsCapital Merger, Hilltop entered into separate retention agreements with two executive officers of PlainsCapital, one having an initial term of three years (with automatic one-year renewals at the end of two years and each anniversary thereof) and the other having an initial term of two years (with automatic one-year renewals at the end of the first year and each anniversary thereof). Each of these retention agreements provides for severance pay benefits if the executive officer’s employment is terminated without “cause”. In addition to these retention agreements, Hilltop and its subsidiaries maintain employment contracts with certain officers that provide for benefits in the event of a “change in control” as defined in these agreements. Hilltop and its subsidiaries lease space, primarily for branch facilities and automated teller machines, under noncancelable operating leases with remaining terms, including renewal options, of 1 to 13 years and under capital leases with remaining terms of 9 to 13 years. Rental expense under the operating leases was $40.3 million, $31.4 million and $29.2 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. F-63 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Future minimum lease payments under these agreements follow (in thousands). 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter Total minimum lease payments Amount representing interest Present value of minimum lease payments Operating Leases $ 33,231 $ 26,573 23,670 15,721 12,378 31,435 143,008 Capital Leases 1,103 1,129 1,167 1,187 1,198 7,127 12,911 (5,444) 7,467 $ $ 19. Financial Instruments with Off-Balance Sheet Risk The Bank is party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit that involve varying degrees of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amount recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Such financial instruments are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they are funded or related fees are incurred or received. The contract amounts of those instruments reflect the extent of involvement (and therefore the exposure to credit loss) the Bank has in particular classes of financial instruments. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer provided that the terms established in the contract are met. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates and may require payment of fees. Because some commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. These letters of credit are primarily issued to support public and private borrowing arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan commitments to customers. In the aggregate, the Bank had outstanding unused commitments to extend credit of $1.7 billion at December 31, 2015 and outstanding financial and performance standby letters of credit of $38.9 million at December 31, 2015. The Bank uses the same credit policies in making commitments and standby letters of credit as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary, in these transactions is based on management’s credit evaluation of the borrower. Collateral held varies but may include real estate, accounts receivable, marketable securities, interest-bearing deposit accounts, inventory, and property, plant and equipment. In the normal course of business, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers execute, settle, and finance various securities transactions that may expose the Hilltop Broker-Dealers to off-balance sheet risk in the event that a customer or counterparty does not fulfill its contractual obligations. Examples of such transactions include the sale of securities not yet purchased by customers or for the accounts of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers, use of derivatives to support certain non-profit housing organization clients, clearing agreements between the Hilltop Broker-Dealers and various clearinghouses and broker- dealers, secured financing arrangements that involve pledged securities, and when-issued underwriting and purchase commitments. F-64 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 20. Stock-Based Compensation Pursuant to the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2012 Plan”), the Company may grant nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, RSUs, performance awards, dividend equivalent rights and other awards to employees of the Company, its subsidiaries and outside directors of the Company. Upon the approval by stockholders and effectiveness of the 2012 Plan in September 2012, no additional awards were permissible under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2003 Plan”). In the aggregate, 4,000,000 shares of common stock may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the 2012 Plan. At December 31, 2015, 2,570,555 shares of common stock remain available for issuance pursuant to the 2012 Plan, including shares that may be delivered pursuant to outstanding awards. Compensation expense related to the 2012 Plan and the 2003 Plan was $8.3 million, $4.7 million and $1.7 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. During 2015, 2014 and 2013, Hilltop granted 13,631, 9,519 and 9,343 shares of common stock, respectively, to certain non-employee members of the Company’s Board of Directors for services rendered to the Company pursuant to the 2012 Plan. Restricted Stock Awards The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has issued restricted shares of Hilltop common stock (“Restricted Stock Awards”) pursuant to the 2012 Plan. The Restricted Stock Awards generally cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date and are subject to service conditions set forth in the award agreements, with associated costs recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective vesting periods. The award agreements governing the Restricted Stock Awards provide for accelerated vesting under certain conditions. Prior to the completion of the SWS Merger and in accordance with the SWS merger agreement, on August 20, 2014, SWS granted restricted shares of SWS common stock to certain of its executive officers and key employees. On January 1, 2015, the effective time of the SWS Merger, these restricted shares of SWS common stock converted into the right to receive an aggregate of 62,994 Restricted Stock Awards based on the value of the merger consideration, and their vesting schedule did not accelerate. Such Restricted Stock Awards generally have begun to vest in three equal annual installments commencing on August 20, 2015, and are subject to service conditions set forth in the award agreements, with associated costs recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective vesting periods. At December 31, 2015, unrecognized compensation expense related to outstanding Restricted Stock Awards of $0.7 million is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 0.30 years. Restricted Stock Units The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has issued RSUs pursuant to the 2012 Plan. Certain RSUs are subject to time-based vesting conditions and generally provided for a cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, while other RSUs provided for vesting based upon the achievement of certain performance goals over a three-year period service conditions set forth in the award agreements, with associated costs generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective vesting periods. The RSUs are not transferable, and the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of vested RSUs are generally subject to transfer restrictions for a period of one year following conversion, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, the applicable RSU award agreements provide for accelerated vesting under certain conditions. At December 31, 2015, 709,399 of the outstanding RSUs are subject to time-based vesting conditions and generally cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, and 165,875 outstanding RSUs vest based upon the achievement of certain performance goals over a three-year period. At December 31, 2015, unrecognized compensation expense related to outstanding RSUs of $11.3 million is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.85 years. F-65 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following table summarizes information about nonvested Restricted Stock Award and RSU activity for the noted periods (shares in thousands). Restricted Stock Awards RSUs Weighted Average Weighted Average Outstanding Grant Date Fair Value Outstanding Balance, January 1, 2013 Granted Balance, December 31, 2013 Granted Vested/Released Forfeited Balance, December 31, 2014 Granted Vested/Released Forfeited Balance, December 31, 2015 - $ 471 $ 471 $ - $ (2) $ (3) $ 466 $ 63 $ (54) $ (22) $ 453 $ - 13.32 13.32 - 13.25 13.25 13.32 19.95 19.58 13.25 13.50 Grant Date Fair Value - - - 23.16 24.06 23.74 23.14 19.61 22.45 21.93 21.22 - $ - $ - $ 444 $ (1) $ (8) $ 435 $ 491 $ (12) $ (39) $ 875 $ Vested/Released Restricted Stock Awards and RSUs include an aggregate of 4,784 shares withheld to satisfy employee statutory tax obligations during 2015 and 2014. Pursuant to certain RSU award agreements, an aggregate of 7,025 vested RSUs at December 31, 2015 require deferral of the settlement in shares and statutory tax obligations to a future date. Stock Options Stock options granted on November 2, 2011 to two senior executives pursuant to the 2003 Plan to purchase an aggregate of 600,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Stock Option Awards”) at an exercise price of $7.70 per share were fully vested and exercisable at December 31, 2015. These Stock Option Awards expire on November 2, 2016. The fair value for these Stock Option Awards granted was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with an expected volatility of 25%, a risk-free interest rate of 0.96%, a dividend yield rate of zero, a five-year expected life of the options and a forfeiture rate of 15%. 21. Regulatory Matters Bank The Bank and Hilltop are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory — and possibly additional discretionary — actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct, material effect on the consolidated financial statements. The regulations require the Bank and Hilltop to meet specific capital adequacy guidelines that involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. The capital classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. On January 1, 2015, the new comprehensive capital framework (“Basel III”) for U.S. banking organizations became effective for the Bank and Hilltop for reporting periods beginning after January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period through January 2019). Under Basel III, total capital consists of two tiers of capital, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 capital is further composed of common equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require the companies to maintain minimum amounts and ratios (set forth in the following table) of Tier 1 capital (as defined in the regulations) to total average assets (as defined), and minimum ratios of common equity Tier 1, Tier 1 and total capital (as defined) to risk-weighted assets (as defined). F-66 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) In addition, under the final rules, bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in assets as of December 31, 2009 are allowed to continue to include junior subordinated debentures in Tier 1 capital, subject to certain restrictions. However, if an institution grows to above $15 billion in assets as a result of an acquisition, or organically grows to above $15 billion in assets and then makes an acquisition, the combined trust preferred issuances must be phased out of Tier 1 and into Tier 2 capital (75% in 2015 and 100% in 2016). All of the debentures issued to the Trusts, less the common stock of the Trusts, qualified as Tier 1 capital as of December 31, 2015, under guidance issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Management believes that, as of December 31, 2015, Hilltop and the Bank would meet all applicable capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III capital rules for bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in assets on a fully phased-in basis as if such requirements were currently in effect. During September 2013, Hilltop and PlainsCapital contributed capital of $35.0 million and $25.0 million, respectively, to the Bank to provide additional capital in connection with the FNB Transaction. The following table shows the Bank’s and Hilltop’s consolidated actual capital amounts and ratios compared to the regulatory minimum capital requirements and the Bank’s regulatory minimum capital requirements needed to qualify as a “well-capitalized” institution in accordance with Basel III as measured at December 31, 2015 and applicable regulatory guidelines at December 31, 2014. December 31, 2015 Tier 1 capital (to average assets): Bank Hilltop Common equity Tier 1 capital (to risk- weighted assets): Bank Hilltop Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets): Bank Hilltop Total capital (to risk-weighted assets): Bank Hilltop December 31, 2014 Tier 1 capital (to average assets): Bank Hilltop Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets): Bank Hilltop Total capital (to risk-weighted assets): Actual Minimum Capital Requirements Minimum Capital Requirements Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio To Be Well Capitalized $ 1,064,212 13.22 % $ 322,104 1,520,514 12.65 % 480,928 4.0 % $ 402,630 N/A 4.0 % 5.0 % N/A 1,063,041 16.23 % 294,716 1,469,642 17.87 % 370,156 4.5 % 425,701 N/A 4.5 % 6.5 % N/A 1,064,212 16.25 % 392,954 1,520,514 18.48 % 493,541 6.0 % 523,939 N/A 6.0 % 8.0 % N/A 1,112,654 16.99 % 523,939 1,553,867 18.89 % 658,055 8.0 % 654,924 N/A 8.0 % 10.0 % N/A $ 845,656 10.31 % $ 328,025 1,231,724 14.17 % 347,619 4.0 % $ 410,031 N/A 4.0 % 5.0 % N/A 845,656 13.74 % 246,099 1,231,724 19.02 % 259,078 4.0 % 369,148 N/A 4.0 % 6.0 % N/A Bank Hilltop 888,744 14.45 % 492,198 1,275,023 19.69 % 518,157 8.0 % 615,247 N/A 8.0 % 10.0 % N/A F-67 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) To be considered “adequately capitalized” (as defined) under regulatory requirements, the Bank must maintain minimum Tier 1 capital to total average assets of 4%, common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of 4.5%, Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratios of 6% (an increase from 4% prior to January 1, 2015), and a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 8%. Based on the actual capital amounts and ratios shown in the previous table, the Bank’s ratios place it in the “well capitalized” (as defined) capital category under regulatory requirements. A reconciliation of equity capital to common equity Tier 1, Tier 1 and total capital (as defined) is as follows (in thousands). Total equity capital Add: Net unrealized holding losses (gains) on securities available for sale and held in trust Deduct: Goodwill and other disallowed intangible assets Other Common equity Tier 1 capital (as defined) Add: Tier 1 capital Trust preferred securities Minority interests Deduct: Additional Tier 1 capital deductions Tier 1 capital (as defined) Add: Allowable Tier 2 capital Allowance for loan losses Net unrealized holding losses on equity securities Deduct: Additional Tier 2 capital deductions Total capital (as defined) Broker-Dealer December 31, 2015 Bank Hilltop December 31, 2014 Bank Hilltop $ 1,293,327 $ 1,736,954 $ 1,104,048 $ 1,460,452 (567) (2,629) 3,484 (651) (229,656) (63) 1,063,041 (264,683) — 1,469,642 (259,048) (3,615) (290,052) (3,812) — 1,171 65,000 1,171 — 787 65,000 787 — 1,064,212 (15,299) 1,520,514 — 845,656 NA 1,231,724 48,442 — 48,652 — 43,088 — 43,088 211 — (15,299) $ 1,112,654 $ 1,553,867 $ — NA 888,744 $ 1,275,023 Pursuant to the net capital requirements of the Exchange Act, Hilltop Securities and FSC each elected to determine their respective net capital requirements using the alternative method. Accordingly, Hilltop Securities is, and FSC was, required to maintain minimum net capital, as defined in Rule 15c3-1 promulgated under the Exchange Act, equal to the greater of $250,000 and 1,000,000, respectively, or 2% of aggregate debit balances, as defined in Rule 15c3-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act. Additionally, the net capital rule of the NYSE provides that equity capital may not be withdrawn or cash dividends paid if resulting net capital would be less than 5% of the aggregate debit items. HTS Independent Network follows the primary (aggregate indebtedness) method, as defined in Rule 15c3-1 promulgated under the Exchange Act, which requires the maintenance of the larger of minimum net capital of $250,000 or 1/15 of aggregate indebtedness. At December 31, 2015, the net capital position of each of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers was as follows (in thousands). Net capital Less required net capital Excess net capital Hilltop HTS Independent FSC Securities Network $ 68,613 $ 154,796 $ 3,393 7,762 $ 65,220 $ 147,034 $ 1,326 250 1,076 Net capital as a percentage of aggregate debit items Net capital in excess of 5% aggregate debit items 40.5 % 39.9 % $ 60,131 $ 135,390 F-68 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Under certain conditions, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers may be required to segregate cash and securities in a special reserve account for the benefit of customers under Rule 15c3-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act. Assets segregated under the provisions of the Exchange Act are not available for general corporate purposes. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Hilltop Broker-Dealers held cash of $158.6 million and $76.0 million, respectively, segregated in special reserve bank accounts for the benefit of customers. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers were not required to segregate cash or securities in special reserve accounts for the benefit of proprietary accounts of introducing broker-dealers at December 31, 2015 and 2014. The fair values of these segregated assets included in special reserve accounts were determined using Level 1 inputs. Mortgage Origination As a mortgage originator, PrimeLending is subject to minimum net worth requirements established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the GNMA. On an annual basis, PrimeLending submits audited financial statements to HUD and GNMA documenting PrimeLending’s compliance with its minimum net worth requirements. In addition, PrimeLending monitors compliance on an ongoing basis and, as of December 31, 2015, PrimeLending’s net worth exceeded the amounts required by both HUD and GNMA. Insurance The statutory financial statements of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, which are domiciled in the State of Texas, are presented on the basis of accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the Texas Department of Insurance. Texas has adopted the statutory accounting practices of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (“NAIC”) as the basis of its statutory accounting practices with certain differences that are not significant to the insurance company subsidiaries’ statutory equity. A summary of statutory capital and surplus and statutory net income of each insurance subsidiary is as follows (in thousands). Capital and surplus: National Lloyds Insurance Company American Summit Insurance Company December 31, 2015 2014 $ 121,750 $ 30,592 113,023 28,964 Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Statutory net income: National Lloyds Insurance Company American Summit Insurance Company $ 9,000 $ 14,893 $ 1,611 2,554 3,583 521 Regulations of the Texas Department of Insurance require insurance companies to maintain minimum levels of statutory surplus to ensure their ability to meet their obligations to policyholders. At December 31, 2015, the Company’s insurance subsidiaries had statutory surplus in excess of the minimum required. The NAIC has adopted a risk based capital (“RBC”) formula for insurance companies that establishes minimum capital requirements indicating various levels of available regulatory action on an annual basis relating to insurance risk, asset credit risk, interest rate risk and business risk. The RBC formula is used by the NAIC and certain state insurance regulators as an early warning tool to identify companies that require additional scrutiny or regulatory action. At December 31, 2015, the Company’s insurance subsidiaries’ RBC ratio exceeded the level at which regulatory action would be required. F-69 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 22. Stockholders’ Equity The Bank is subject to certain restrictions on the amount of dividends it may declare without prior regulatory approval. At December 31, 2015, $312.4 million of its earnings was available for dividend declaration without prior regulatory approval, of which $50.0 million was paid to its parent in January 2016. At December 31, 2015, the maximum aggregate dividend that may be paid to NLC from its insurance company subsidiaries in 2016 without regulatory approval was $15.2 million. Stock Repurchase Program During the second quarter of 2015, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program under which it authorized the Company to repurchase, in the aggregate, up to $30.0 million of its outstanding common stock. Under the stock repurchase program authorized, the Company could repurchase shares in open-market purchases or through privately negotiated transactions as permitted under Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Exchange Act. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had repurchased an aggregate of $30.0 million of its outstanding common stock. The extent to which the Company repurchased its shares and the timing of such repurchases depended upon market conditions and other corporate considerations, as determined by Hilltop’s management team. The purchases were funded from available cash balances. The stock repurchase program terminated effective December 31, 2015. During 2015, the Company paid $30.0 million to repurchase and retire an aggregate of 1,390,977 shares of common stock at an average price of $21.56 per share. These retired shares were returned to the Company’s pool of authorized but unissued shares of common stock. The Company uses the par value method of accounting for its stock repurchases, whereby the par value of the shares is deducted from common stock. The excess of the cost of shares acquired over the par value is allocated to additional paid-in capital based on an estimated average sales price per issued share with the excess amounts charged to retained earnings. Series B Preferred Stock As a result of the PlainsCapital Merger, the outstanding shares of PlainsCapital’s Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series C, all of which were held by the U.S. Treasury, were converted on a one-for-one basis into 114,068 shares of Hilltop Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B (“Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock”). The terms of the Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock provide for the payment of non-cumulative dividends on a quarterly basis. The dividend rate, as a percentage of the liquidation amount, fluctuated until December 31, 2013 based upon changes in the level of “qualified small business lending” (“QSBL”) by the Bank. The shares of Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock are senior to shares of Hilltop common stock with respect to dividends and liquidation preference, and qualify as Tier 1 Capital for regulatory purposes. At December 31, 2014, $114.1 million of Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock was outstanding. The dividend rate on the Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock had been fixed at 5.0% since January 1, 2014, based upon the level of QSBL at September 30, 2013. On April 28, 2015, as discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, Hilltop used the net proceeds of the offering of Senior Notes to redeem all shares of Hilltop Series B Preferred Stock at an aggregate liquidation value of $114.1 million, plus accrued but unpaid dividends of $0.4 million. F-70 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 23. Other Noninterest Income and Expense The following tables show the components of other noninterest income and expense (in thousands). Other noninterest income: Change in fair value of Hilltop Broker-Dealer derivatives Direct bill fees and insurance service fee income Net gain (loss) from trading securities portfolio Net gain on investment in SWS common stock Revenue from check and stored value cards Service charges on depositor accounts Trust fees Other Other noninterest expense: Accounting fees Acquisition costs Amortization of intangible assets Data processing Marketing Other professional services Printing, stationery and supplies Repossession and foreclosure Telecommunications Unreimbursed loan closing costs Other 24. Derivative Financial Instruments Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 43,704 $ 5,329 13,134 — 7,110 15,169 7,113 14,906 106,465 $ 8,357 $ 13,400 12,375 35,986 26,957 50,535 7,949 14,385 7,324 35,253 95,763 308,284 $ 16,228 $ 5,719 2,126 5,985 7,614 16,730 6,330 18,809 79,541 $ 5,247 $ 1,406 11,138 23,096 21,372 39,310 4,902 17,621 11,249 32,669 63,569 231,579 $ 11,427 5,697 (2,773) — 4,682 11,376 5,050 9,211 44,670 5,455 117 11,087 17,922 17,257 32,526 4,583 3,546 8,350 30,095 57,009 187,947 $ $ $ $ The Company uses various derivative financial instruments to mitigate interest rate risk. The Bank’s interest rate risk management strategy involves effectively managing the re-pricing characteristics of certain assets and liabilities to mitigate potential adverse impacts from changes in interest rates on the net interest margin. PrimeLending has interest rate risk relative to IRLCs and its inventory of mortgage loans held for sale. PrimeLending is exposed to such interest rate risk from the time an IRLC is made to an applicant to the time the related mortgage loan is sold. To mitigate interest rate risk, PrimeLending executes forward commitments to sell mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). Additionally, PrimeLending has interest rate risk relative to its MSR asset. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, PrimeLending began using derivative instruments, including interest rate swaps and swaptions, to hedge this risk. The Hilltop Broker-Dealers use forward commitments to both purchase and sell MBSs to facilitate customer transactions and as a means to hedge related exposure to interest rate risk in certain inventory positions. Non-Hedging Derivative Instruments and the Fair Value Option As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has elected to measure substantially all mortgage loans held for sale at fair value under the provisions of the Fair Value Option. The election provides the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without applying complex hedge accounting provisions. The fair values of PrimeLending’s IRLCs, forward commitments, and interest rate swaps and swaptions are recorded in other assets or other liabilities, as appropriate, and changes in the fair values of these derivative instruments are recorded as a component of net gains from sale of loans and other mortgage production income. The fair value of PrimeLending’s derivative instruments increased $17.3 million and $8.2 million during 2015 and 2013, respectively, compared with a decrease of $16.3 million during 2014. Changes in fair value are attributable to changes in the volume of IRLCs, mortgage loans held for sale, commitments to purchase F-71 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) and sell MBSs and MSR assets, and changes in market interest rates. Changes in market interest rates also conversely affect the value of PrimeLending’s mortgage loans held for sale and its MSR asset, which are measured at fair value under the Fair Value Option. The effect of the change in market interest rates on PrimeLending’s loans held for sale and MSR asset is discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements. The fair values of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers’ derivative instruments are recorded in other assets or other liabilities, as appropriate, and the fair values of the Hilltop Broker-Dealers’ derivatives increased $43.7 million, $16.2 million and $11.4 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The changes in fair value were recorded as a component of other noninterest income. Derivative positions are presented in the following table (in thousands). December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014 Notional Amount Estimated Notional Amount Fair Value Estimated Fair Value Derivative instruments: IRLCs Commitments to purchase MBSs Commitments to sell MBSs Interest rate swaps and swaptions $ 944,942 $ 23,762 $ 3,151,862 5,038,565 409,982 8,350 (2,352) 490 621,216 $ 17,057 6,040 510,553 (12,566) 1,968,768 425 83,000 PrimeLending has advanced cash collateral totaling $0.8 million and $6.6 million to offset net liability derivative positions on its commitments to sell MBSs at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In addition, PrimeLending advanced cash collateral totaling $6.4 million and $3.3 million in initial margin on its interest rate swaps and swaptions at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These amounts are included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheets. 25. Balance Sheet Offsetting Certain financial instruments, including resale and repurchase agreements, securities lending arrangements and derivatives, may be eligible for offset in the consolidated balance sheets and/or subject to master netting arrangements or similar agreements. The following tables present the assets and liabilities subject to enforceable master netting arrangements, repurchase agreements, or similar agreements with offsetting rights (in thousands). Net Amounts Gross Amounts Not Offset in the Balance Sheet December 31, 2015 Securities borrowed: of Recognized Assets Offset in the Balance Sheet Gross Amounts Gross Amounts of Assets Presented in the Balance Sheet Financial Instruments Cash Collateral Pledged Net Amount Institutional counterparties $ 1,307,741 $ — $ 1,307,741 $ (1,307,741) $ — $ — Interest rate swaps and swaptions: Institutional counterparties Reverse repurchase agreements: Institutional counterparties Forward MBS derivatives: Institutional counterparties December 31, 2014 Securities borrowed: 1,526 (393) 1,133 — 105,660 — 105,660 (105,412) — — 1,133 248 1,377 1,416,304 $ $ — (393) $ 1,377 1,415,911 $ (1,377) (1,414,530) $ — — $ — 1,381 Institutional counterparties $ 152,899 $ — $ 152,899 $ (152,899) $ — $ — Interest rate swaps and swaptions: Institutional counterparties Forward MBS derivatives: Institutional counterparties 425 — 425 $ 41 153,365 $ — — $ 41 153,365 $ — — (152,899) $ — — — $ 425 41 466 F-72 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Net Amounts Gross Amounts Gross Amounts of Liabilities Offset in the Balance Sheet Presented in the Balance Sheet of Recognized Liabilities Gross Amounts Not Offset in the Balance Sheet Financial Instruments Cash Collateral Pledged Net Amount December 31, 2015 Securities loaned: Institutional counterparties $ 1,235,466 $ — $ 1,235,466 $ (1,235,466) $ — $ — Interest rate swaps and swaptions: Institutional counterparties Repurchase agreements: Institutional counterparties Customer counterparties Forward MBS derivatives: Institutional counterparties December 31, 2014 Securities loaned: 643 69,748 148,000 — — — 643 (2,519) 69,748 148,000 (69,748) (148,000) — — — (1,876) — — 4,385 1,458,242 $ $ (1,769) (1,769) $ 2,616 1,456,473 $ (1,420) (1,457,153) $ — — $ 1,196 (680) Institutional counterparties $ 117,822 $ — $ 117,822 $ (117,822) $ — $ 136,396 — 136,396 (136,396) — $ 12,829 267,047 $ (223) (223) $ 12,606 266,824 $ — (254,218) $ (6,137) (6,137) $ 6,469 6,469 — — Repurchase agreements: Customer counterparties Forward MBS derivatives: Institutional counterparties Secured Borrowing Arrangements Secured Borrowings (Repurchase Agreements) — The Company participates in transactions involving securities sold under repurchase agreements, which are secured borrowings and generally mature within one to thirty days from the transaction date. Securities sold under repurchase agreements are reflected at the amount of cash received in connection with the transactions. The Company may be required to provide additional collateral based on the fair value of the underlying securities, which is monitored on a daily basis. Securities Lending Activities — The Company’s securities lending activities include lending securities for other broker-dealers, lending institutions and its own clearing and retail operations. These activities involve lending securities to other broker-dealers to cover short sales, to complete transactions in which there has been a failure to deliver securities by the required settlement date and as a conduit for financing activities. When lending securities, the Company receives cash or similar collateral and generally pays interest (based on the amount of cash deposited) to the other party to the transaction. Securities lending transactions are executed pursuant to written agreements with counterparties that generally require securities loaned to be marked-to-market on a daily basis. The Company receives collateral in the form of cash in an amount generally in excess of the fair value of securities loaned. The Company monitors the fair value of securities loaned on a daily basis, with additional collateral obtained or refunded, as necessary. Collateral adjustments are made on a daily basis through the facilities of various clearinghouses. The Company is a principal in these securities lending transactions and is liable for losses in the event of a failure of any other party to honor its contractual obligation. Management sets credit limits with each counterparty and reviews these limits regularly to monitor the risk level with each counterparty. The Company is subject to credit risk through its securities lending activities if securities prices decline rapidly because the value of the Company’s collateral could fall below the amount of the indebtedness it secures. In rapidly appreciating markets, credit risk increases due to short positions. The Company’s securities lending business subjects the Company to credit risk if a counterparty fails to perform or if collateral securing its obligations is insufficient. In securities transactions, the Company is subject to credit risk during the period between the execution of a trade and the settlement by the customer. F-73 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) The following tables present the remaining contractual maturities of repurchase agreement and securities lending transactions accounted for as secured borrowings (in thousands). The Company had no repurchase-to-maturity transactions outstanding at both December 31, 2015 or 2014. Gross amount of recognized liabilities for repurchase agreement and securities lending transactions in offsetting disclosure above Amount related to agreements not included in offsetting disclosure above December 31, 2015 Repurchase agreement transactions: U.S. Treasury and agency securities Securities lending transactions: U.S. Treasury and agency securities Corporate securities Equity securities Total December 31, 2014 Repurchase agreement transactions: U.S. Treasury and agency securities Securities lending transactions: U.S. Treasury and agency securities Corporate securities Equity securities Total Overnight and Continuous Up to 30 Days 30-90 Days Greater Than 90 Days Total Remaining Contractual Maturities $ 201,090 $ 16,658 $ — $ — $ 217,748 12,646 5,993 1,216,827 1,436,556 $ — — — 16,658 $ $ — — — — $ Overnight and Continuous Up to 30 Days 30-90 Days Greater Than 90 Days Total Remaining Contractual Maturities $ 136,396 $ — $ — $ — $ 136,396 9,171 200 108,451 254,218 $ $ — — — — $ — — — — $ — — — — $ 12,646 5,993 1,216,827 1,453,214 $ $ 1,453,214 — — — — — $ 9,171 200 108,451 254,218 $ $ 254,218 — Gross amount of recognized liabilities for repurchase agreement and securities lending transactions in offsetting disclosure above Amount related to agreements not included in offsetting disclosure above 26. Broker-Dealer and Clearing Organization Receivables and Payables Broker-dealer and clearing organization receivables and payables consisted of the following (in thousands). Receivables: Securities borrowed Securities failed to deliver Clearing organizations Trades in process of settlement, net Other Payables: Securities loaned Correspondents Securities failed to receive Clearing organizations December 31, 2015 2014 $ $ $ $ 1,307,741 $ 25,087 16,701 5,707 7,263 1,362,499 $ 1,235,466 $ 69,046 28,352 5,441 1,338,305 $ 152,899 3,497 11,471 — 17 167,884 117,822 51,930 5,960 3,330 179,042 F-74 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 27. Deferred Policy Acquisition Costs Policy acquisition expenses, primarily commissions, premium taxes and underwriting expenses related to the successful issuance of a new or renewal policy incurred by NLC are deferred and charged against income ratably over the terms of the related policies. A summary of the activity in deferred policy acquisition costs is as follows (in thousands). Balance, beginning of year Acquisition expenses capitalized Amortization charged to income Balance, end of year 2015 20,416 $ 39,716 (40,258) Year Ended December 31, 2014 20,991 $ 41,034 (41,609) 20,416 $ 2013 19,812 41,771 (40,592) 20,991 19,874 $ $ $ Amortization is included in policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. 28. Reserve for Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses A rollforward of NLC’s reserve for unpaid losses and LAE, as included in other liabilities within the consolidated balance sheets, is as follows (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Balance, beginning of year Less reinsurance recoverables Net balance, beginning of year $ 29,716 $ 27,468 $ (4,315) 25,401 (4,508) 22,960 34,012 (10,385) 23,627 Incurred related to: Current year Prior years Total incurred Payments related to: Current year Prior years Total payments Net balance, end of year Plus reinsurance recoverables Balance, end of year 93,544 5,522 99,066 86,642 7,787 94,429 110,096 659 110,755 (74,866) (18,746) (93,612) (73,841) (18,147) (91,988) (96,284) (15,138) (111,422) 30,855 13,502 25,401 4,315 $ 44,357 $ 29,716 $ 22,960 4,508 27,468 The increase in the NLC’s reserves at December 31, 2015 as compared with December 31, 2014 of $14.6 million is primarily due to increased reserves attributable to an increase in frequency and severity of severe weather events in NLC’s geographic coverage area as well as additional reinsurance recoverables associated with the increase in reserves. The prior period adverse development of $5.5 million and $7.8 million during 2015 and 2014 was primarily related to litigation emerging from a series of hail storms within the 2012 through 2014 accident years. F-75 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 29. Reinsurance Activity NLC limits the maximum net loss that can arise from large risks or risks in concentrated areas of exposure by reinsuring (ceding) certain levels of risk. Substantial amounts of business are ceded, and these reinsurance contracts do not relieve NLC from its obligations to policyholders. Such reinsurance includes quota share, excess of loss, catastrophe, and other forms of reinsurance on essentially all property and casualty lines of insurance. Net insurance premiums earned, losses and LAE and policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses are reported net of the amounts related to reinsurance ceded to other companies. Amounts recoverable from reinsurers related to the portions of the liability for losses and LAE and unearned insurance premiums ceded to them are reported as assets. Failure of reinsurers to honor their obligations could result in losses to NLC; consequently, allowances are established for amounts deemed uncollectible as NLC evaluates the financial condition of its reinsurers and monitors concentrations of credit risk arising from similar geographic regions, activities, or economic characteristics of the reinsurers to minimize its exposure to significant losses from reinsurer insolvencies. At December 31, 2015, reinsurance receivables have a carrying value of $16.9 million, which is included in other assets within the consolidated balance sheet. There was no allowance for uncollectible accounts at December 31, 2015, based on NLC’s quality requirements. Reinsurers with a balance in excess of 5% of the Company’s outstanding reinsurance receivables at December 31, 2015 are listed below (in thousands). Federal Emergency Management Agency Aspen Bermuda Partner Reinsurance Co. Everest Re Lloyd's Syndicate #2791 Lloyd's Syndicate #2001 A.M. Best Balances Due From Reinsurers Rating $ 6,003 N/A 2,819 A 2,175 N/A A+ 1,636 A 1,257 868 A+ $ 14,758 The effects of reinsurance on premiums written and earned are summarized as follows (in thousands). Premiums from direct business Reinsurance assumed Reinsurance ceded Net premiums Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Earned Written Written $ 167,025 $ 169,334 $ 172,464 $ 173,496 $ 173,982 $ 168,942 7,202 (18,611) $ 160,569 $ 162,082 $ 164,365 $ 164,524 $ 163,441 $ 157,533 8,960 (17,932) 7,987 (18,528) 9,746 (17,845) 10,714 (17,170) 10,283 (17,535) Written Earned Earned The effects of reinsurance on incurred losses are as follows (in thousands). Loss and LAE incurred Reinsurance recoverables Net loss and LAE incurred Multi-line excess of loss coverage 2015 $ 123,017 $ (23,951) Year Ended December 31, 2014 97,011 $ 117,089 (2,582) (6,334) 94,429 $ 110,755 2013 99,066 $ $ In addition to the catastrophe reinsurance noted below, both NLIC and ASIC participate in an excess of loss program placed with various reinsurers. This program is limited to each risk with respect to property and liability in the amount of $500,000 for each of NLIC and ASIC. Each of NLIC and ASIC retain $500,000 in this program. F-76 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Catastrophic coverage NLC’s liabilities for losses and LAE include liabilities for reported losses, liabilities for IBNR losses and liabilities for LAE less a reduction for reinsurance recoverables related to those liabilities. The amount of liabilities for reported claims is based primarily on a claim-by-claim evaluation of coverage, liability, injury severity or scope of property damage, and any other information considered relevant to estimating exposure presented by the claim. The amounts of liabilities for IBNR losses and LAE are estimated on the basis of historical trends, adjusted for changes in loss costs, underwriting standards, policy provisions, product mix and other factors. Estimating the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is inherently judgmental and is influenced by factors that are subject to significant variation. Liabilities for LAE are intended to cover the ultimate cost of settling claims, including investigation and defense of lawsuits resulting from such claims. Based upon the contractual terms of the reinsurance agreements, reinsurance recoverables offset, in part, NLC’s gross liabilities. Effective July 1, 2015, NLC renewed its catastrophic excess of loss reinsurance coverage for a two year period. At December 31, 2015, NLC had catastrophic excess of loss reinsurance coverage of losses per event in excess of $8 million retention by NLIC and $1.5 million retention by ASIC. ASIC maintained an underlying layer of coverage, providing $6.5 million in excess of its $1.5 million retention to bridge to the primary program. The reinsurance in excess of $8 million is comprised of four layers of protection: $17 million in excess of $8 million retention; $25 million in excess of $25 million loss; $25 million in excess of $50 million loss and $50 million in excess of $75 million loss. NLIC and ASIC retain no participation in any of the layers, beyond the first $8 million and $1.5 million, respectively. At December 31, 2014, total retention for any one catastrophe that affects both NLIC and ASIC was limited to $8 million in the aggregate. Effective July 1, 2013, NLC renewed its catastrophic reinsurance contract for its third and fourth layers of reinsurance for a two year period. In the contract renewal, the coverage provided by the fourth layer changed to reflect the reduction of exposure in Texas primarily as a result of NLIC exiting the Texas coast and reducing its exposure in Harris County, Texas. The coverage provides $40 million in excess of $100 million loss, resulting in catastrophic excess of loss reinsurance coverage up to $140 million. Effective January 1, 2014, NLC renewed its reinsurance contract for its first and second layers of reinsurance for an eighteen month period. Effective January 1, 2016, NLC renewed its underlying excess of loss contract that provides $10.0 million aggregate coverage in excess of NLC’s per event retention and aggregate retention for sub-catastrophic events. NLC retains no participation beyond the first $1 million, down from 9% participation in this coverage during 2015. During 2015 and 2014, NLC experienced no significant catastrophes that resulted in losses in excess of retention at NLIC, compared to two significant catastrophes during 2013. NLC did not experience any significant catastrophe that resulted in losses in excess of retention at ASIC during 2015, 2014 or 2013. There were 11 tornado, hail and wind storms during 2015 that fit the coverage criteria for the underlying excess of loss contract providing aggregate coverage for sub- catastrophic events. These events had a gross incurred loss total of $35.3 million, which developed a reinsured recoverable of $9.1 million at the 91% subscription level. During 2014, the eight tornado, hail and wind storms that exceeded retention had incurred losses of $21.7 million, which developed a reinsured recoverable of $1.8 million at the 66% subscription level. The two tornado, hail and wind storms that exceeded retention in 2013 had incurred losses of $18.3 million. These losses have no effect on net loss and LAE incurred beyond retention because the catastrophic events exceeded retention levels and are fully recoverable. The primary financial effect beyond the reinsurance retention is additional reinstatement premium payable to the affected reinsurers. Reinstatement premiums during 2015, 2014 and 2013 of $0.2 million, $0.2 million and $0.3 million, respectively, were recorded as ceded premiums. F-77 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 30. Segment and Related Information The Company currently has four reportable business segments that are organized primarily by the core products offered to the segments’ respective customers. These segments reflect the manner in which operations are managed and the criteria used by the Company’s chief operating decision maker function to evaluate segment performance, develop strategy and allocate resources. The chief operating decision maker function consists of the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital. The banking segment includes the operations of the Bank and, since January 1, 2015, the operations of the former SWS FSB acquired in the SWS Merger. The broker-dealer segment includes the operations of First Southwest and, since January 1, 2015, the broker-dealer operations acquired in the SWS Merger. The mortgage origination segment is composed of PrimeLending, while the insurance segment is composed of NLC. Corporate includes certain activities not allocated to specific business segments. These activities include holding company financing and investing activities, and management and administrative services to support the overall operations of the Company including, but not limited to, certain executive management, corporate relations, legal, finance and acquisition costs. Balance sheet amounts not discussed previously and the elimination of intercompany transactions are included in “All Other and Eliminations.” The following tables present certain information about reportable business segment revenues, operating results, goodwill and assets (in thousands). Year Ended December 31, 2015 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense $ Income (loss) before income taxes $ 369,493 $ 12,795 62,639 243,926 175,411 $ 32,971 $ (80) 334,495 367,812 (266) $ (10,423) $ — 597,163 539,257 47,483 $ 3,187 $ — 171,185 158,720 15,652 $ (5,109) $ — 81,289 31,926 44,254 $ 18,464 $ — (19,129) (1,625) 960 $ Consolidated 408,583 12,715 1,227,642 1,340,016 283,494 Banking Broker-Dealer Origination Insurance Corporate Mortgage All Other and Hilltop Eliminations Year Ended December 31, 2014 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes Year Ended December 31, 2013 Net interest income (expense) Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income (loss) before income taxes $ $ Banking 334,377 16,916 67,438 245,790 139,109 $ Banking $ 293,254 $ 37,140 71,045 155,102 172,057 $ Mortgage $ Broker-Dealer Origination $ (12,591) — 456,776 431,820 $ 12,365 12,144 17 119,451 124,715 6,863 $ Insurance 3,672 $ — 173,577 151,541 $ 25,708 $ Corporate 5,219 — 5,985 13,878 $ (2,674) $ All Other and Hilltop Eliminations 18,320 — (23,916) (2,391) (3,205) Consolidated $ 361,141 16,933 799,311 965,353 $ 178,166 $ Mortgage Broker-Dealer Origination Insurance Corporate All Other and Hilltop Eliminations Consolidated 12,064 $ 18 102,714 112,360 2,400 $ (37,840) $ — 537,497 472,284 27,373 $ 7,442 $ — 166,163 166,006 7,599 $ (1,597) $ — — 10,439 (12,036) $ 22,878 $ — (27,334) (4,456) — $ 296,201 37,158 850,085 911,735 197,393 23,988 $ 251,808 349,259 $ 1,905,547 $ (3,506,536) $ 11,867,001 — $ — $ 23,988 $ — $ 328,693 $ 1,522,655 $ (2,903,143) $ — $ 251,808 9,242,416 December 31, 2015 Goodwill Total assets December 31, 2014 Goodwill Total assets $ $ 207,741 $ 8,707,433 $ 7,008 $ 13,071 $ 2,673,455 $ 1,737,843 $ $ $ 207,741 $ 8,036,729 $ 7,008 $ 13,071 $ 758,636 $ 1,498,846 $ F-78 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 31. Earnings per Common Share The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share (in thousands, except per share data). Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 Basic earnings per share: Income applicable to Hilltop common stockholders Less: income applicable to participating shares Net earnings available to Hilltop common stockholders $ $ 209,119 $ (952) 208,167 $ 105,947 $ (547) 105,400 $ 121,015 (672) 120,343 Weighted average shares outstanding - basic 99,074 89,710 84,382 Basic earnings per common share $ 2.10 $ 1.18 $ 1.43 Diluted earnings per share: Income applicable to Hilltop common stockholders Add: interest expense on Exchangeable Notes (net of tax) Net earnings available to Hilltop common stockholders $ 209,119 $ — 209,119 105,947 $ — 105,947 121,015 5,059 126,074 Weighted average shares outstanding - basic Effect of potentially dilutive securities Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted 99,074 888 99,962 89,710 863 90,573 84,382 5,949 90,331 Diluted earnings per common share $ 2.09 $ 1.17 $ 1.40 32. Condensed Financial Statements of Parent Condensed financial statements of Hilltop (parent only) follow (in thousands). Investments in subsidiaries are determined using the equity method of accounting. Condensed Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income Investment income Interest expense Net gain on investment in SWS common stock Bargain purchase gain General and administrative expense Income (loss) before income taxes, equity in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries and preferred stock activity Income tax benefit Equity in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries Net income Other comprehensive income (loss), net Comprehensive income Year Ended December 31, 2014 2015 $ 445 $ 5,554 — 81,289 31,926 5,219 $ — 5,985 — 13,878 2013 6,635 8,232 — — 10,439 44,254 (9,562) 158,763 212,579 $ 1,978 214,557 $ (2,674) (592) 114,640 112,558 $ 35,514 148,072 $ (12,036) (4,680) 134,065 126,709 (43,418) 83,291 $ $ F-79 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Condensed Balance Sheets Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Securities, available for sale Investment in subsidiaries Investment in SWS common stock Other assets Total assets Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity: Accounts payable and accrued expenses Notes payable Stockholders’ equity Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity Condensed Statements of Cash Flows 2015 December 31, 2014 2013 $ 55,542 $ — 1,817,083 — 32,922 163,856 69,023 1,069,226 — 14,293 $ 1,905,547 $ 1,522,655 $ 1,316,398 145,948 $ — 1,218,182 70,282 88,243 $ 20,419 $ 5,257 62,203 $ — — 1,311,141 1,460,452 $ 1,905,547 $ 1,522,655 $ 1,316,398 148,174 1,736,954 Operating Activities: Net income Year Ended December 31, 2014 2013 2015 $ 212,579 $ 112,558 $ 126,709 Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Equity in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries Bargain purchase gain Deferred income taxes Net gain on investment in SWS common stock Loss on redemption of senior exchangeable notes Other, net Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (158,763) (81,289) 12,429 — — 2,443 (12,601) (114,640) — 156 (5,985) — (1,379) (9,290) (134,065) — 8,850 — 3,733 132 5,359 Investing Activities: Advance to subsidiary Capital contribution to subsidiary Cash paid for acquisition Other, net Net cash used in investing activities Financing Activities: Payments to repurchase common stock Proceeds from issuance of notes payable Redemption of senior exchangeable notes Dividends paid on preferred stock Redemption of preferred stock Other, net Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities Net change in cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year Cash and cash equivalents, end of year — — (78,217) (31) (78,248) (30,028) 148,078 — (3,539) (114,068) — 443 (90,406) 145,948 $ 55,542 $ F-80 (6,000) — — — (6,000) — — — (5,619) — 3,001 (2,618) — (35,000) — — (35,000) — — (11,088) (2,985) — 2,816 (11,257) (17,908) 163,856 145,948 $ (40,898) 204,754 163,856 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Supplemental Schedule of Non-Cash Activities: Common stock issued in acquisition Conversion of available for sale investment in SWS common stock Redemption of senior exchangeable notes for common stock $ $ $ 200,626 $ — $ — — — $ 71,502 $ — $ — $ 83,950 During September 2013, Hilltop contributed capital of $35.0 million to the Bank to provide additional capital in connection with the FNB Transaction. As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock is accounted for under the provisions of the Fair Value Option effective October 2, 2014. Hilltop had previously accounted for its investments in SWS as available for sale securities. Under the Fair Value Option, Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock is recorded at fair value, with changes in fair value being recorded in other noninterest income within Hilltop’s condensed statement of operations rather than as a component of other comprehensive income. Hilltop’s election to apply the provisions of the Fair Value Option resulted in Hilltop recording those unrealized gains previously associated with its investment in SWS common stock of $7.2 million. For the period from October 3, 2014 through December 31, 2014, the change in fair value of Hilltop’s investment in SWS common stock resulted in a loss of $1.2 million. In the aggregate, Hilltop recorded a $6.0 million net gain in income within Hilltop’s condensed statement of operations during 2014. 33. Recently Issued Accounting Standards In January 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-01 related to financial instruments. This pronouncement requires that most equity investments be measured at fair value, with subsequent changes in fair value recognized in net income. The pronouncement also impacts financial liabilities under the Fair Value Option and the presentation and disclosure requirements for financial instruments. The amendment is effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those fiscal periods, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of the amendment and the impact on its future consolidated financial statements. In September 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-16 as part of its initiative to reduce complexity in accounting standards and eliminate the requirement to restate prior period financial statements for measurement period adjustments following a business combination. The amendment requires that an acquirer recognize adjustments to provisional amounts that are identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined. The prior period impact of the adjustment should be either presented separately on the face of the income statement or disclosed in the notes. The amendment is effective for annual periods and interim reporting periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015, with earlier application permitted for financial statements that have not been issued. The Company elected to early adopt the provisions of this amendment beginning with the three months ended December 31, 2015. Adoption of the amendment did not have a significant effect on the Company’s future consolidated financial statements. In June 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-10 to clarify the codification, correct unintended application of guidance, eliminate inconsistencies, and to improve the codification’s presentation of guidance for a wide range of topics in the codification. Transition guidance varies based on the amendments included. The amendments that require transition guidance are effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those fiscal periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. All other amendments were effective upon the issuance, including the Company’s adoption of the amendment related to a clarification of the disclosure requirements for nonrecurring fair value measurements made during the period. The Company adopted the amendments requiring transition guidance as of January 1, 2016 and does not expect the amendment to have a significant effect on its future consolidated financial statements. In May 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-09 requiring enhanced disclosures for insurers relating to short-duration insurance contract claims and the unpaid claims liability rollforward for long and short-duration contracts. The amendment is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and interim reporting periods thereafter. F-81 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) Early adoption is permitted. Adoption of the amendment is not expected to have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03 to simplify presentation of debt issuance costs to require that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs is not affected by this amendment. The amendment is effective for annual periods, and interim reporting periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015 using the retrospective method of adoption. As permitted within the amendment, the Company elected to early adopt the provisions of this amendment beginning with the three months ended June 30, 2015. Adoption of the amendment resulted in unamortized debt issuance costs of $1.9 million in connection with Hilltop’s issuance of the 5% senior notes due 2025 on April 9, 2015 being presented in the consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2015 as a reduction from the $150.0 million aggregate principal amount. In February 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-02 to modify the analysis that companies must perform in order to determine whether a legal entity should be consolidated. ASU 2015-02 affects reporting entities that are required to evaluate whether they should consolidate certain legal entities. All legal entities are subject to reevaluation under the revised consolidation model. Specifically, the amendments: (i) modify the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities ("VIEs") or voting interest entities, (ii) eliminate the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership, (iii) affect the consolidated analysis of reporting entities that are involved with VIEs, particularly those that have fee arrangements and related party relationships and (iv) provide a scope exception for certain entities. The amendment is effective for annual periods, and interim reporting periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. The Company adopted the amendment as of January 1, 2016 and does not expect the amendment to have a significant effect on its future consolidated financial statements. In January 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-01 as part of its initiative to reduce complexity in accounting standards. This amendment eliminates the concept of extraordinary items. The amendment is effective for annual periods, and interim reporting periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015 and may be adopted using either a full retrospective transition method or a prospective transition method. The Company adopted the amendment as of January 1, 2016 using the prospective transition method and does not expect the amendment to have a significant effect on its future consolidated financial statements. In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 which clarifies the principles for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers. The amendment outlines a single comprehensive model for entities to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in amounts that reflect the payment to which a company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The amendment also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. The amendment was initially scheduled to be effective for the Company no earlier than the first quarter of 2017, however, in July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015- 14 which deferred the effective date by one year. Therefore, the amendment is effective for annual periods, and interim reporting periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2017 and may be adopted using either a full retrospective transition method or a modified retrospective transition method. Early adoption is permitted no earlier than the first quarter of 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of the amendment and the impact on its future consolidated financial statements. F-82 Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (continued) 34. Selected Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited) Selected quarterly financial information is summarized as follows (in thousands, except per share data). Interest income Interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest Year Ended December 31, 2015 Third Quarter Fourth Quarter $ 115,962 $ 130,545 $ 115,662 $ 107,669 $ Second Quarter Quarter First 16,649 99,313 4,277 276,927 338,721 33,242 12,020 21,222 15,334 115,211 5,593 296,469 333,502 72,585 25,338 47,247 14,995 100,667 158 301,400 353,317 48,592 18,137 30,455 14,277 93,392 2,687 352,846 314,476 129,075 15,420 113,655 495 353 405 353 Full Year 469,838 61,255 408,583 12,715 1,227,642 1,340,016 283,494 70,915 212,579 1,606 210,973 1,854 209,119 Income attributable to Hilltop Dividends on preferred stock Income applicable to Hilltop common stockholders $ 20,727 $ 46,894 $ 30,050 $ 113,302 $ — — 428 1,426 $ 20,727 $ 46,894 $ 29,622 $ 111,876 $ Earnings per common share: Basic Diluted $ $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.47 $ 0.47 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 1.12 $ 1.11 $ 2.10 2.09 Year Ended December 31, 2014 Third Quarter Second Quarter First Quarter Full Year Fourth Quarter $ Interest income Interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan losses Noninterest income Noninterest expense Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest Income attributable to Hilltop Dividends on preferred stock Income applicable to Hilltop common stockholders 7,802 91,514 4,125 213,795 246,768 54,416 20,950 33,466 325 7,457 85,760 4,033 212,135 254,744 39,118 14,010 25,108 296 99,316 $ 93,217 $ 104,408 $ 91,828 $ 388,769 5,962 27,628 361,141 98,446 16,933 5,533 799,311 203,281 965,353 251,212 178,166 44,982 16,294 65,608 112,558 28,688 908 177 33,141 $ 24,812 $ 28,511 $ 25,186 $ 111,650 5,703 1,426 1,425 31,716 $ 23,386 $ 27,085 $ 23,760 $ 105,947 6,407 85,421 3,242 170,100 212,629 39,650 14,354 25,296 110 1,426 1,426 $ $ Earnings per common share: Basic Diluted $ $ 0.35 $ 0.35 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 1.18 1.17 F-83 STOCK PERFORMANCE GRAPH Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “HTH.” The following graph assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2010, and compares (a) the yearly percentage change in the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock (as measured by dividing (i) the sum of (A) the cumulative amount of dividends, assuming dividend reinvestment, during the period commencing on the first day of trading, and ending on December 31, 2015, and (B) the difference between our share price at the end and the beginning of the periods presented by (ii) the share price at the beginning of the periods presented) with (b) the KBW NASDAQ Regional Banking Index, and (c) our selected peer group of the following institutions: 1st Source Corporation; BancFirst Corporation; Banner Corporation; Capital Bank; Financial Corp.; Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.; First Financial Bankshares, Inc.; First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.; IBERIABANK Corporation; International Banchares Corp.; MB Financial, Inc.; Old National Bancorp; Park National Corporation; Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.; Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.; Southside Bancshares, Inc.; Westamerica Bancorporation; Trustmark Corporation; and Umpqua Holdings Corporation. ) % ( n r u t e R l a t o T 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 (20.0) (40.0) 0 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 1 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 2 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 3 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 4 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 5 1 0 2 / 1 3 / 2 1 HTH HTH Comps (1) KBW Nasdaq Regional Bank Date 12/31/2015 12/31/2014 12/31/2013 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 HTH HTH Selected Peer Group 93.7 101.1 133.2 36.5 (14.8) 85.2 74.1 74.3 17.7 1.8 KBW NASDAQ Regional Bank Index 52.8 47.7 47.4 2.6 (7.1) CORPORATE INFORMATION Corporate Headquarters Board of Directors 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-2177 Facsimile: (214) 855-2173 www.hilltop-holdings.com Transfer Agent and Registrar American Stock Transfer & Trust Company New York, New York Toll free: (800) 937-5449 Telephone: (718) 921-8124 Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Dallas, Texas Stock Symbol Common Stock: HTH New York Stock Exchange Available Information Hilltop Holdings Inc. makes available, free of charge, its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, press releases, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and other company information. Such information will be furnished upon written request to: Hilltop Holdings Inc. 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attn: Investor Relations This information also is available on our website, www.hilltop-holdings.com. Reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission also are available at www.sec.gov. Gerald J. Ford – Chairman Alan B. White – Vice Chairman Charlotte Jones Anderson Rhodes Bobbitt Tracy A. Bolt W. Joris Brinkerhoff J. Taylor Crandall Charles R. Cummings Hill A. Feinberg Jeremy B. Ford J. Markham Green William T. Hill, Jr. James R. Huffines Lee Lewis Andrew J. Littlefair W. Robert Nichols, III C. Clifton Robinson Kenneth D. Russell A. Haag Sherman Robert C. Taylor, Jr. Carl B. Webb Executive Officers Jeremy B. Ford President and Chief Executive Officer Darren E. Parmenter Executive Vice President – Principal Financial Officer Corey G. Prestidge Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Alan B. White Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital Corporation James R. Huffines Chief Operating Officer of PlainsCapital Corporation John A. Martin Chief Financial Officer of PlainsCapital Corporation Jerry L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer of PlainsCapital Bank Todd L. Salmans Chief Executive Officer of PrimeLending Hill A. Feinberg Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Securities Inc. Robert Otis Chief Executive Officer of National Lloyds Corporation 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1330 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-2177 Facsimile: (214) 855-2173 

Continue reading text version or see original annual report in PDF format above