SCHEDULE 14A

PROXY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant  x                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

April 7, 2016

Dear Stockholder:

I am pleased to present the 2015 Annual Report of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., the holding company for Texas Capital Bank, N.A. Earnings releases, performance information and corporate governance documents may be found in the Investors section of our website atwww.texascapitalbank.com.

I would also like to invite you to attend our Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. at 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The attached Notice of Annual Stockholders’ Meeting describes the formal business to be transacted at the Annual Meeting. Members of our board of directors and executive officer team will be present at the meeting and will be available to answer questions regarding the Company.

Your vote is very important.    Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we urge you to vote and submit your proxy by the Internet, telephone or mail.

The board of directors and our employees thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

C. Keith Cargill

President and Chief Executive Officer

TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.

2000 McKinney Avenue,

7^th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75201

NOTICE OF ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS’ MEETING

To be held on May 17, 2016

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the annual stockholders’ meeting (the “Annual Meeting”) of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and the holding company for Texas Capital Bank, N.A., will be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of the Company located at 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The Annual Meeting is for the purpose of considering and voting upon the following matters:

We are furnishing our 2015 Annual Report and proxy materials to our stockholders primarily through the Internet in accordance with rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stockholders have been mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials on or around April 7, 2016, which provides them with instructions on how to vote and how to access the 2015 Annual Report and proxy materials on the Internet. It also provides instructions on how to request paper copies of these materials. Stockholders who previously enrolled in a program to receive electronic versions of the 2015 Annual Report and proxy materials will receive an email notice with details on how to access those materials and how to vote.

Stockholders of record may vote:

If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the voting instructions that you receive from the broker, bank or other nominee entitled to vote your shares.

Stockholders of record at the close of business on March 29, 2016 are the only stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting.

All stockholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting in person. Whether you expect to attend the Annual Meeting or not, please vote your shares. If you are a stockholder of record and attend the Annual Meeting, you may vote your shares in person even though you have previously voted your proxy.

By order of the board of directors,

C. Keith Cargill

President and Chief Executive Officer

April 7, 2016

Dallas, Texas

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Stockholders’

Meeting to be Held on May 17, 2016:

The Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting, the Notice of the 2016 Annual Meeting, the form of proxy and the Company’s 2015 Annual Report are available at www.proxydocs.com/tcbi.

PROXY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant   ☒                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

March 7, 2019

Dear Stockholder:

I am pleased to present the 2018 Annual Report of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., the holding company for Texas Capital Bank, N.A. Earnings releases, performance information and corporate governance documents may be found in the Investors section of our website atwww.texascapitalbank.com.

I would also like to invite you to attend our Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The attached Notice of Annual Stockholders’ Meeting describes the formal business to be transacted at the Annual Meeting. Members of our board of directors and executive officer team will be present at the meeting and will be available to answer questions regarding the Company.

Your vote is very important.     Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we urge you to vote and submit your proxy by the Internet, telephone or mail.

The board of directors and our employees thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

C. Keith Cargill

President and Chief Executive Officer

TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.

2000 McKinney Avenue,

7^th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75201

NOTICE OF ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS’ MEETING

To be held on April 16, 2019

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the annual stockholders’ meeting (the “Annual Meeting”) of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and the holding company for Texas Capital Bank, N.A., will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of the Company located at 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The Annual Meeting is for the purpose of considering and voting upon the following matters:

In addition, we will transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any postponements or adjournments thereof.

We are furnishing our 2018 Annual Report and proxy materials to our stockholders primarily through the Internet in accordance with rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stockholders have been mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials on or around March 7, 2019, which provides them with instructions on how to vote and how to access the 2018 Annual Report and proxy materials on the Internet. It also provides instructions on how to request paper copies of these materials. Stockholders who previously enrolled in a program to receive electronic versions of the 2018 Annual Report and proxy materials will receive an email notice with details on how to access those materials and how to vote.

Stockholders of record may vote:

If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the voting instructions that you receive from the broker, bank or other nominee entitled to vote your shares.

Stockholders of record at the close of business on February 20, 2019 are the only stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting.

All stockholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting in person. Whether you expect to attend the Annual Meeting or not, please vote your shares. If you are a stockholder of record and attend the Annual Meeting, you may vote your shares in person even though you have previously voted your proxy.

By order of the board of directors,

C. Keith Cargill

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 7, 2019

Dallas, Texas

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Stockholders’

Meeting to be Held on April 16, 2019:

The Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting, the Notice of the 2019 Annual Meeting, the form of proxy and the Company’s 2018 Annual Report are available atwww.proxydocs.com/tcbi.

PROXY STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.

2000 McKinney Avenue

7^th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75201

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR THE ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS’ MEETING

ON MAY 17, 2016APRIL 16, 2019

MEETING INFORMATION

This Proxy Statement is being furnished to the stockholders of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on or about AprilMarch 7, 2016,2019, in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the board of directors to be voted at the annual stockholders’ meeting (the “Annual Meeting”). The Annual Meeting will be held on May 17, 2016,April 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of the Company located at 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201. The Company is the parent corporation of Texas Capital Bank, N.A. (“Texas Capital Bank” or the “Bank”).

In accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), instead of mailing a printed copy of our proxy materials to each stockholder, we are furnishing proxy materials to our stockholders on the Internet. You will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials, unless specifically requested. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials will instruct you as to how you may access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials also instructs you as to how you may submit your proxy on the Internet.

The purpose of the Annual Meeting is to consider and vote upon the following matters:

In addition, we will transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any postponements or adjournments thereof.

RECORD DATE AND VOTING SECURITIES

You are entitled to one vote for each share of common stock you own.

Only those stockholders that owned shares of the Company’s common stock on March 29, 2016,February 20, 2019, the record date established by the board of directors, will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. At the close of business on the record date, there were 45,900,64050,248,221 shares of common stock outstanding held by 207172 identified holders.

QUORUM AND VOTING

At least a majority of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of common stock as of the record date must be present at the Annual Meeting in person or by proxy and entitled to vote in order to have a quorum to transact business. If there are not sufficient shares present and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting for a quorum or to approve any proposal, the board of directors may postpone or adjourn the Annual Meeting in order to permit the further solicitation of proxies.

Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting. The twelve (12) nominees receiving the highest number of votes “for” will be elected. Votes may be cast “for” or may be “withheld” with respect to any or all nominees. For purposes of the election of directors, votes that are “withheld” and brokernon-votes (described below) will be counted as “present” for purposes of establishing a quorum but will not be counted as votes cast and will have no effect on the result of the vote. Stockholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors. In accordance with our Majority Voting Policy, any nominee for election as a director who receives a greater number of “withhold” votes than votes “for” election in an uncontested election must deliver his or her resignation to the board of directors. The board of directors will determine whether to accept the resignation based upon the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee and consideration of the circumstances. See “Board and Committee Matters — Corporate Governance” for more information on the Majority Voting Policy.

The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of the Company’s common stock present in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve (i)Proposal Two (advisory vote on an advisory basis, the 2015 compensation of our named2018 executive officerscompensation) and (ii) ratification of the selectionProposal Three (ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.firm). Votes on these proposals may be cast “for,” “against” or “abstain.” An abstention will have the effect of a vote against the matter.Proposals Two and Three. Brokernon-votes will have no effect on the outcome of these votes.Proposal Two. Abstentions, votes against and brokernon-votes will be counted as “present” for purposes of establishing a quorum. The resolutions with respect to the 2015 compensationresults of our named executive officersvoting on Proposals Two and with respect to the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLPThree are advisory only and will not be binding upon the Company or its board of directors.

A brokernon-vote occurs when a bank, broker or other nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner submits an executed proxy to the Company but does not vote on a particular proposal because it does not have discretionary voting power with respect to that item and has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner. If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other nominee, they are not permitted to vote on your behalf on proposals one and twoProposals One or Two at the Annual Meeting unless you provide specific instructions by following the instructions they provide to you. For your vote to be counted in the electionon Proposal One (election of directorsdirectors) or advisoryProposal Two (advisory vote on 2018 executive compensation,compensation), you must communicate your voting decisions to your bank, broker or other nominee within the time period stated in their instructions to you. Your bank, broker or other nominee will be permitted to vote on proposal threeProposal Three (ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm) without instructions from you.

The individuals named as your proxies will vote properly completed proxies received prior to the Annual Meeting in the way you direct. If you send in a properly completed proxy but do not specify how the proxy is to be voted, the shares represented by those properly completed proxiesyour proxy will be voted to elect the twelve (12) director nominees, to approve, on an advisory basis, the 20152018 compensation of our named executive officers, and to ratify the selectionappointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.firm for fiscal 2019. If your shares are held by a bank, broker or other nominee and you want to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from the record holder and present it at the Annual Meeting.

If you are a stockholder of record you may revoke a proxy at any time before the proxy is exercised by:

2.

submitting another properly completed proxy card that is later dated;

If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the instructions that you receive from them in order to instruct them to revoke the voting of your shares.

Please review the proxy materials and follow the relevant instructions to vote your shares. We hope you will exercise your rights and fully participate as a stockholder.

SOLICITATION OF PROXIES

It is important that you are represented by proxy or are present in person at the Annual Meeting. The Company requests that you vote your shares by following the instructions as set forth in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. Your proxy will be voted in accordance with the directions you provide.

Other than the election of twelve (12) directors, approval, on an advisory basis, of 20152018 executive compensation, and ratification of the selectionappointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2019, the Company is not aware of any additional matters that will be presented for consideration at the Annual Meeting. However, if any additional matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting, your proxy will be voted in the discretion of the persons designated as proxies on the proxy card.

The Company’s board of directors is making this solicitation and the Company will pay the costs of this proxy solicitation. The directors, officers and regular employees of the Company and the Bank may also solicit proxies by telephone or in person but will not be paid additional compensation to do so.

We are permitted to send a single Notice of Annual Stockholders’ Meeting (“Notice”) and any other proxy materials we choose to mail to stockholders who share the same last name and address. This procedure is called “householding” and is intended to reduce our printing and postage costs. If you would like to receive a separate copy of a proxy statement or annual report, either now or in the future, please contact us in writing at the following address: Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., Attn: Investor Relations, 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700,7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201. If you hold your shares through a bank, broker or other nominee and would like to receive additional copies of the Notice and any other proxy materials, or if multiple copies of the Notice or other proxy materials are being delivered to your address and you would like to request householding, please contact your broker.bank, broker or nominee.

PROPOSALS FOR STOCKHOLDER ACTION

Proposal 1 — Election of Directors

TwelveThe twelve (12) currently serving members of the board of directors have each been nominated forre-election. Directors serve for a one-year term ending on the date of the following year’s annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors are elected and qualified. All of the nominees below have indicated their willingness to continue to serve as a director if elected. However, if any of the nominees is unable or declines to serve for any reason, your proxy will be voted for the election of a substitute nominee selected by the board of directors.

Nominees

At the Annual Meeting, the stockholders will elect twelve (12) directors. The board of directors recommends a vote FOR each of the director nominees set forth below:

Larry L. Helmhas beenserved as a director since January 2006 and was elected Chairmanchairman of the Boardboard in May 2012. Most recentlyHe currently serves as a Senior Advisor for Accelerate Resources, LLC, a company engaged in the acquisition ofnon-operated oil and natural gas properties and mineral interests located in the Permian Basin and other areas, a position he has held since August 2017. Prior to joining Accelerate Resources, he served as the Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Halcón Resources Corporation, a company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas properties located in North America, a position he held from January 2013 until his retirement into March 2016. Previously,Before Halcón Resources, he served as Executive Vice President-FinancePresident, Finance and Administration, offor Petrohawk Energy Corporation.Corporation from June 2004 until its sale to BHP Billiton in July 2011. He served as Vice President-Transition with BHP Billiton prior to joining Halcón Resources in 2012. Prior to joining Petrohawk, in 2004, Mr. Helm spent 14 years with Bank One, most notably as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Bank One Dallas.Dallas and head of U.S. Middle Market Banking.

As a former banking executive, Mr. Helm has extensive knowledge about our industry. His executive roles in energy companies and experience managing energy and commercial lending groups give him important insights into the Company’s lending activities and make him well qualified to serve as Chairmanchairman of our board of directors and a member of the Credit Risk Committee.

C. Keith Cargill has served as President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company and as a member of the board of directors since January 1, 2014. He has served as CEO of the Bank since June 2013, after becoming President of the Bank in October 2008. He served as Chief Lending Officer and as a director of the Bank since its inception in December 1998 through July 2013. Mr. Cargill has more than 25 years of banking experience in the North Texas area.

Mr. Cargill has extensive knowledge of all aspects of our business and particularly its lending operations. He has served as a director of the Bank since October 2008. His many years of experience as a banker and his leadership in building our Company make him well qualified to serve as a director.

Peter B. BartholowJonathan E. Baliff has served as a director since July 2017. Mr. Baliff currently serves as an advisor to the office of the Bristow Group, Inc. Chairman, a position he has held since his retirement from Bristow Group, Inc. in February 2019. Prior to his retirement, he served as President and Chief FinancialExecutive Officer (“CFO”) and as a director sinceof Bristow Group, Inc., from July 2014 until February 2019 and served as Bristow Group’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from October 2003 and as Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) since January2010 to June 2014. Prior to joining us in 2003,Bristow, he served as Executive Vice President-Strategy at NRG Energy, where he led the development and implementation of NRG’s corporate strategy, as well as acquisitions and business alliances. Prior to joining NRG, he was managing director of a private equity firm,in Credit Suisse’s Global Energy Group, where he advised energy companies on merger and acquisition assignments and project and corporate financings, most recently as Managing Director. Mr. Baliff started his career at Standard and Poor’s and then worked in JP Morgan’s natural resources group. He also served as a financial executive with Electronic Data Systems Corp., and spent many yearson active duty in the banking industry as an executive officer and memberU.S. Air Force from 1985 until his retirement in 1993 with the rank of the boards of both public and private companies.Captain.

As our CFO and COO, Mr. BartholowBaliff has extensive knowledge of all aspects of our business. His previous businessfinancial and financialleadership experience as anserving in executive officer and director ofroles with other public companies andcompanies. His focus on corporate strategy, coupled with banking organizations makeexperience earlier in his career, makes him wellhighly qualified to serve as a director.director and member of the Risk Committee.

James H. Browning has served as a director since October 2009. He retired in 2009 as a partner at KPMG LLP, an international accounting firm, in Houston where he served companies in the energy, construction, manufacturing, distribution and commercial industries. He began his career at KPMG in 1971, becoming a partner in 1980. He most recently served as KPMG’s Southwest Area Professional Practice Partner, and also served as an SEC Reviewing Partner and as Partner in Charge of the New Orleans audit practice. He also previously servedcurrently serves as a directorchairman of the board and member of the Audit Committee and the TechnologyCompensation Committee of RigNet Inc., a global technology company providing customized communications services, applications, real-time machine learning and Reserves Committee for Endeavour International Corporation, a NYSE listed international oilcybersecurity solutions to enhance customer decision-making and gas exploration and production company.business performance. He also currently serves as Chairmana director of Herc Holdings, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange listed full-service equipment rental company, where he chairs the boardAudit Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee chair of RigNet Inc. and asis a member of their Audit Committee and Compensationthe Finance Committee.

As a former partner with KPMG with more than 38 years in public accounting, Mr. Browning has demonstrated leadership capability. His public accounting experience with various industries gives him a wealth of knowledge in dealing with financial and accounting matters, as well as extensive knowledge of the responsibilities of public company boards. Mr. Browning is highly qualified to serve as a director and the chairman of our Audit and Risk Committee, where he has been designated a financial expert. He also serves as a member of the Governance and Nominating Committee.

Preston M. Geren IIIDavid S. Huntley has served as a director since July 2012.January 2018. Mr. Geren isHuntley currently theserves as Senior Executive Vice President and CEOChief Compliance Officer of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation,AT&T, Inc., a position he has held since July 2011,December 2014. AT&T Inc. is a leading provider of communications and previously served as its Senior Advisor from April 2010 to July 2011.digital entertainment services in the United States and the world. He served as an executiveSenior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for AT&T Services, Inc. from May 2012 to December 2014 and as Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for AT&T Advertising Solutions and AT&T Interactive from September 2010 to May 2012. From June 2009 to September 2010, Mr. Huntley served as Senior Vice President of AT&T’s Mobility Customer Service Centers. He held positions of increasing responsibility in external affairs, wireless operations, mergers and acquisitions, data operations and other areas within AT&T since joining the Departmentcompany in 1994.

Mr. Huntley’s compliance and legal expertise, as well as his experience developing policies to safeguard the privacy of Defense from 2001customer and employee information, make him highly qualified to 2009, completing his serviceserve as Secretarya director and member of the Army under Presidents Bush and Obama. He served as a member of Congress representing the 12Audit Committee.

^th Congressional District of Texas for four terms. Mr. Geren previouslyCharles S. Hyle has served as a director of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Before entering public service Mr. Geren was an attorney and businessman in Fort Worth and served as a director of both privately and publicly held banking organizations.

Mr. Geren’s experience and leadership in high government positions, as well as his banking experience, position him to provide us with a valuable perspective on a broad range of business and governmental issues affecting our Company and the businesses and entrepreneurs we serve. He is well suited to serve as a member of the Credit Risk Committee and the Bank’s Trust Committee.

Charles S. Hylejoined the board of directors insince October 2013. He served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Key Corp. from June 2004 to his retirement in December 2012. He served as an executive with Barclays working in the U.S. and in London from 1980 to 2003, rising to serve as Managing Director and Global Head of Credit Portfolio Management — Barclays Capital — London. Mr. Hyle began his banking career in 1972 at JP Morgan.

Mr. Hyle has many years of experience in managing credit and operational risk for large banking and financial services organizations as a senior executive. This experience provides him with an understanding of the risks facing the Company and the Bank and the challenges theywe will face as theywe continue to grow and are required to comply with enhanced regulatory risk management requirements, which make him well qualified to serve as a director and the chairman of our Credit Risk Committee. He also serves as a member of the Audit and Risk Committee and has been designated as a financial expert.

Elysia Holt Ragusa has served as a director since January 2010. She currently serves as Principal of RCubetti, LLC, a business operations, investment, and sales advisory firm, a position she has held since February of 2018. She served as an International Director of Jones Lang LaSalle a position she has held sincefrom July 2008 and currently provides team leadership for the Central Texas market while also serving clientsuntil her retirement in Austin, San Antonio and Dallas/Fort Worth.December 2017. From 1989 until 2008, she served as President and Chief Operating Officer of The Staubach Company, chaired Staubach’s Executive and Operating Committees and was a member of its board of directors. Jones Lang LaSalle and The Staubach Company merged in 2008. She also servespreviously served as a director of Fossil Group, Inc., a maker of watches and other apparel and accessories, where she servesserved as a member of the Compensation Committee and chairschaired the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

As an executive with extensive experience in all aspects of the commercial real estate business in Texas, Ms. Ragusa provides valuable insight for this important aspect of our business. This expertise, her demonstrated leadership capabilities and her public company board experience are valuable to the Company and make her well qualified to serve as a director, andas chairman of our Governance and Nominating Committee. She also servesCommittee and as a member of the Bank’s TrustHuman Resources Committee.

Steven P. Rosenberghas served as a director since September 2001. He is President of SPR Ventures, Inc., a private investment company, a position he has held since June 1997, and1997. He served as President of SPR Packaging LLC, a manufacturer of flexible packaging for the food industry, a position he has held sincefrom May 2007.2007 until his retirement in January 2018. He currently serves on the board of directors of Cinemark Holdings, a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry, where he serves as chair of the GovernanceNominating and NominatingCorporate Governance Committee and is an Audit Committee member. He previously served as a board member of PRGX Global, a business analytics and information services firm, where he also served on the Human Resources Committee.

Mr. Rosenberg offers valuable experience and insight to the board of directors deriving from his background as an entrepreneur, in a manufacturing business in Texas, as well as a director of other public companies. Mr. Rosenberg is a member of the Human Resources Committee and serves as the chairman of the Bank’s Trust Committee.

Robert W. Stallingshas served as a director since August 2001. He has served as Chairman of the board of directors and CEO of Stallings Capital Group, an investment company, since March 2001. He is currently Executive Chairman of the Boardboard of Gainsco, Inc., a property and casualty insurance company, a position he has held since August 2001. Prior to joining Gainsco, he served as Chairman and CEO of an asset management company as well as a savings bank.

Mr. Stallings’ experience in the banking and financial services industries provides extensive knowledge about our industry, which makes him highly qualified to serve as a director and member of the Credit Risk Committee and the Bank’s Trust Committee.

Dale W. Tremblay has served as a director since May 2011. He is the President and CEO of C.H. Guenther and Son, Inc.LLC (dba Pioneer Flour Mills), one of the oldest privately held corporations in the U.S., and serves as a member of its board of directors. He joined Guenther in 1998 as Executive Vice President and COO,

Chief Operating Officer, and became President and CEO in April 2001. He haspreviously served as President for The Quaker Oats Company’s worldwide foodservice division and currently serves onformerly was a member of the Michigan State University School of Finance Advisory Board and the Business and Community Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. He serves as a director of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc., one of the world’s largest outdoor advertising companies, where he serves as a member of the Audit Committee and Intercompany Note Committee,Special Committees and serves as chairman of the Compensation Committee. He also serves as a director of Nature Sweet Ltd.

Mr. Tremblay’s leadership experience in both private and public companies brings valuable knowledge and insight to our board of directors and his service as chairman of our Human Resources Committee.

Ian J. Turpinhas beenserved as a director since May 2001. Since 1992, he has served as President and director of LBJ Family Wealth Advisors, Ltd. (formerly LBJ Asset Management Partners, Ltd. and The LBJ Holding Company, LP) and has managed various companies affiliated with the family of the late President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, which have included radio, real estate and private equity investments and diversified investment portfolios. From 1989 through 2015 he served as CEO of BusinesSuites, LP, a provider of serviced office space.

Mr. Turpin’s business experience in international banking and wealth management and in a variety of industries offers valuable insights to the board of directors. Mr. Turpin’s background in public accounting also qualifies him as an Auditdirectors and Risk Committee financial expert, supporting his service as a member of the AuditGovernance and RiskNominating Committee.

Patricia A. Watson has beenserved as a director since February 2016. She serves as the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of TSYS,Total System Services, Inc., (“TSYS”), a global payment solutions provider for financial andnon-financial institutions. Prior to joining TSYS in September 20152016 she served as Vice President and Global Chief Information Officer for The Brinks Company. Prior to joining Brinks she worked with Bank of America for more than 14 years in technology positions of increasing responsibility. She spent 10 years in the United States Air Force as executive staff officer, flight commander and director of operations. Ms. Watson currently serves as a director of Rockwell Automation, Inc., where she is a member of the Audit Committee and the Technology Committee.

Ms. Watson’s expertise in information technology and security in the financial services and payments industries, as well as her strategic leadership skills, make her highly qualified to serve as a director and member of the Audit and Risk Committee. Ms. Watson was recommended for election to the board of directors

Directors are elected by the Governance and Nominating Committee after a selection process in which the committee was assisted by an independent search firm having significant experience in director searches for companies in the financial services industry. The committee established specific criteria for this search based upon our Corporate Governance Guidelines and considerationplurality of the requirementsvotes cast at the Annual Meeting. The twelve (12) nominees receiving the highest number of the board at this time and interviewed several candidates.votes “For” will be elected.

The board of directors unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of each of the nominees.

Proposal 2 — Approval of Executive Compensation on an Advisory Basis

In accordance with the requirements of Rule14a-21(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), we are providing our stockholders with an advisory vote to approve executive compensation on an annual basis. An advisorybasis, commonly referred to as a“say-on-pay” vote. We have held asay-on-pay vote atannually since the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders confirmed that stockholders overwhelmingly favored an annual advisory vote on executive compensation.Stockholders.

We believe that our executive compensation programs effectively align the interests of our named executive officers, or NEOs, with those of our stockholders by creating a combination of incentive compensation arrangements, in both cash and equity-linkedequity-based programs, which are directly linkedtied to performance and creation of stockholder value, coupled with a competitive level of base compensation. The Our

objective foris that the named executive officers is toNEOs should have a substantial portion of total compensation derived from performance-based incentives. AdvisoryAt our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we received the affirmative support of 97% of votes on executive compensation in 2013, 2014 and 2015 resulted in affirmative votes of 96.9%, 63.1%, and 96.7%, respectively.

The decrease in affirmative votes in 2014 resulted from Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”) recommending that stockholders vote against our say-on-pay proposal in 2014, primarily because in 2013 the Company entered into an amended and restated executive employment agreement with Mr. Cargill upon his designation for succession as the Company’s CEO that continued to include an excise tax gross-up provision applicable to change in control transactions. This provision had appeared in his employment agreement since 2008. In response to the decreased supportcast in favor of our 2017 executive compensation, the board of directors undertook a review of the gross-up and other governance issues identified by ISS in order to

determine appropriate action in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Company subsequently entered into amended and restated employment agreements with each of Mr. Cargill, Mr. Bartholow, Mr. Hudgens and Mr. Ackerson that removed the provisions allowing for an excise tax gross-up payment in certain change in control transactions and adopted policies against excise tax gross-ups and “single trigger” acceleration of rights to compensation in connection with any change in control transaction involving the Company.

Other governance policies adopted by the board of directors are described below at “Board and Committee Matters — Corporate Governance.”compensation.

The board values stockholders’ opinions, and, as in prior years, the board intends to evaluate the results of the 20162019 vote when making future decisions regarding compensation of the named executive officers.NEOs. We encourage you to carefully review the “Executive Compensation” section of this Proxy Statement and particularly the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for a detailed discussion of the Company’s executive compensation programs.

This annual advisory vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officersNEOs and the policies and practices with respect to their compensation described in this Proxy Statement. TheYour vote on Proposal Two is advisory and, therefore, not binding on the Company, the board of directors or the Human Resources Committee. This advisory vote may not be construed as overruling a decision by the board, nor create or imply any additional fiduciary duty of the board.

We are asking our stockholders to indicate their approval, on an advisory basis, for the 20152018 compensation paid to our NEOs by voting FOR the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the 20152018 compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement pursuant to SECRegulation S-K, Item 402, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and otherthe narrative executive compensation disclosures to the compensation tables included in this Proxy Statement.

The proposal to approve the advisory vote on executive compensationProposal Two requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock present, in person or represented by proxy, and entitled to vote on the proposal at the Annual Meeting.

The board of directors unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” approval of this resolution.

Proposal 3 — Ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit and Risk Committee of the Company’s board of directors has appointed Ernst & Young LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company for the year ending December 31, 2016.2019. The Company is seeking stockholder ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP for fiscal 2016.2019. Stockholder ratification of the selectionappointment of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is not required by the Company’s bylaws, state law or otherwise. However, the board of directors is submitting the selectionappointment of Ernst & Young LLP to the Company’s stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate governance. If the stockholders fail to ratify the selection,appointment of Ernst & Young LLP, the Audit and Risk Committee will consider this information when determining whether to retain Ernst & Young LLP for future services. See the discussion at “Auditor Fees and Services” for information regarding the services provided to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP.

The ratification of such appointment will requireProposal Three requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock present, in person or represented by proxy, and entitled to vote on the proposal at the Annual Meeting.

The board of directors unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2016.2019.

Other Matters

The Company does not currently know of any other matters that may come before the Annual Meeting. However, if any other matters are properly presented at the Annual Meeting, the persons designated in the enclosed proxy will vote your proxy in their discretion on such matters.

BOARD AND COMMITTEE MATTERS

Board of Directors

The business affairs of the Company are managed under the direction of the board of directors. The board of directors meets on a regularly scheduled basis to review significant developments affecting the Company and to act on matters requiring approval by the board of directors. Special meetings of the board of directors are held as required from time to time when important matters arise that require action between scheduled meetings. The board of directors held six regularly scheduled meetings during 2015.2018. Each of the Company’s directors participated in at least 75% of the meetings of the board of directors and the committees of the board of directors on which the director served during 2015.2018.

Corporate Governance

The board of directors is committed to providing sound governance for the Company. The board of directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) and charters for each committee of the board of directors to provide a flexible framework of policies relating to the governance of the Company. These documents are available in the “Governance Documents” section of the Company’s website at:http://investors.texascapitalbank.com/govdocs.govdocs.

Among the policies addressed in the Guidelines are the following:

Clawback of Incentive Compensation.    The Guidelines include a policy providing that incentive compensation payable to our NEOs under certain of the Company’s incentive compensation arrangements will be subject to recovery by the Company if, in the year such compensation is paid, or within three years thereafter, the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under applicable securities laws. The repayment obligation applies to the extent repayment is required by applicable law, or to the extent the executive’s compensation is determined to be in excess of the amount that would have been payable taking into account any restatement or correction. The board of directors, considering the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and the recommendation of the Human Resources Committee, has the sole discretion to determine whether an executive’s actions have or have not met any particular standard of conduct under law or Company policy, and whether recovery of incentive compensation should be pursued.

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines.    The Guidelines include stock ownership guidelines for the NEOs in order to further align their interests with the long-term interests of stockholders. NEOs are expected to own common stock having a value of at least three times their base compensation (five times for the CEO), and may not dispose of any shares of the Company’s common stock unless they own, and will continue to

own, common stock at that level. Unvested restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock options and stock appreciation rights are not included in an executive’s stock ownership for purposes of this policy. All of the currently serving NEOs are in compliance with the Company’s stock ownership policy, and as of the date of this Proxy Statement Mr. Cargill, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Ackerson have each reached the target level of share ownership.

Hedging of Company securities prohibited.    All Company directors, officers and employees are prohibited from purchasing any financial instrument that is designed to hedge or offset any decrease in market value of Company securities, and from participating in derivative or speculative transactions with respect to Company securities, including but not limited to prepaid variable forward contracts, collars, equity swaps, exchange funds, puts, calls and other derivative instruments. All directors, officers and employees are also prohibited from participating in short sales of the Company’s securities.

Pledging of Company securities prohibited.    Directors and officers who are reporting persons under Section 16 of the Exchange Act and such additional employees as may be designated by the Governance and Nominating Committee are prohibited from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan.

Risk Management

Our board of directors oversees an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, intended to support the achievement of strategic objectives to optimize our organizational performance and enhance stockholder value while operating within the guidelines of our risk appetite statement. While the board of directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, the board has authorized various committees to provide primary oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management program. In addition, management has appointed a Risk Management Committee (“RMC”) comprised of executives responsible for all major categories of risk to provide management oversight and guidance related to the Company’s enterprise risk management. Annually, the RMC updates our risk appetite statement and establishes various risk tolerances, which are ultimately approved by the board. Specific responsibilities for the board’s committees are discussed in more detail below.

Director Independence

The board of directors has determined that each director other than Mr. Cargill and Mr. Bartholow qualifies as an “independent director” as defined in the Nasdaq Stock Market Listing Rules and as further defined by applicable statutes and regulations.

Board Leadership Structure and Risk Oversight

The CEO and Chairmanchairman positions are separated under the Company’s board leadership structure. Larry L. Helm acts as thenon-executive Chairman chairman and C. Keith Cargill serves as the CEO. The board of directors determined that this is the most effective way for its leadership to be structured and believes this is a best practice for governance in its industry.governance. The members of the Company’s board of directors also serve as directors of the Bank in order to provide effective oversight of the Bank.

The board of directors is responsible for oversight of management and the business and affairs of the Company, including those relating tothe management of risk. The Auditboard of directors has delegated various aspects of its risk oversight responsibilities to the board’s committees. The Risk Committee is charged with oversight of the Company’s policies and Riskprocesses related to identification, assessment, monitoring and management of market risk, interest rate risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, price risk, operational risk, regulatory compliance risk, strategic risk, legal risk, reputational risk and other material business risks, including the establishment of a comprehensive risk framework for the Company and setting and monitoring the risk appetite of the

Company. The Audit Committee assists the board of directors in monitoring the effectiveness of the Company’s identification and management of compliance risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, price risk, operational risk and financial reporting risk. The Credit Risk Committee overseesrisk, which includes the Company’s processes related to identification, management and reporting of credit risk exposures, the determination and adequacyappropriateness of the allowance for loan and lease losses and the establishment and administration of the Company’s credit policies.losses. The Human Resources Committee, reviews periodicallyin conjunction with its annual review and approval of the compensation of the Company’s human resourcesCEO and compensation policies, practices and proceduressenior management, considers whether the Company’s incentive plans encourage participants to identify potentialtake risks that would be reasonably likely to the Company.

The Company maintains an executive Risk Management Committee (“RMC”) which operates under the direction of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Audit and Risk Committee has approved the RMC’s charter and defined its scope of activities. The RMC is comprised of executives responsible for all major categories of risk withinhave a material adverse impact on the Company, and to the extent necessary, reviews and discusses with management any related risk mitigation features and disclosures determined to be advisable.

The Risk Committee provides oversight to the RMC. The RMC reports to the Audit and Risk Committee at least quarterly. The Audit and Risk Committee reports to the board of directors at least quarterly with respect to activities ofits risk-related activities. The Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”) has a direct reporting relationship to the RMC.Risk Committee. Additionally, the Audit Committee receives reports from the CRO and the Internal Audit Department regarding management’s compliance with the Company’s risk appetite statement and applicable risk-related policies, procedures and tolerances that impact the Company’s financial reporting and related internal controls and regulatory compliance.

Committees of the Board of Directors and Meeting Attendance

The board of directors had four standing committees during 2015.2018. A general description of the functions performed by each committee and committee membership as of the date of this Proxy Statement is set forth below.

The Governance and Nominating Committee considers high professional ethicsindustry knowledge and values,other business expertise, personal traits such as character, integrity and wisdom, and the candidate’s understanding of business operations, marketing, finance or other aspects relevant management experience and commitment to enhancing stockholder valuethe success of a large publicly traded corporation in today’s business environment, among other factors, when evaluating candidates for the Company’s board of directors, utilizing a variety of methods.directors. The Committee considers diversity when identifying nominees for director, looking primarily for diversity in professional experiences and skills, but also considering other dimensions of diversity, including gender and cultural background. ThisDirector searches in recent years have specified that candidates should provide diversity to the board in addition to specific experience and skill sets being sought; the individuals considered by the Governance and Nominating Committee in these searches have included diverse candidates. It is done toexpected that future director searches will continue this practice. These considerations ensure the board of directors is comprised of individuals who are able to contribute a variety of viewpoints, which the Committee believes is an important component in ensuring that the board exercises broadgood judgment and diligence. The Committee regularly assesses the size of the board of directors, whether any vacancies are expected due to retirement or otherwise, and the need for particular expertise on the board of directors. Candidates may come to the attention of the Committee from current directors, stockholders, professional search firms, officers or other persons. The Committee reviews all candidates in the same manner regardless of the source of the recommendation.

The board of directors has determined that all of the committee’s members are able to read and understand fundamental financial statements as contemplated by the current listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market. The board of directors also determined that fourtwo members qualify as “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the SEC and thereforealso satisfy the Nasdaq Stock Market’s financial sophistication requirements as well.requirements.

Communications with the Board

Stockholders may communicate with the board of directors, including thenon-management directors, by sending ane-mail tobod@texascapitalbank.com or by sending a letter to the board of directors,

c/o Corporate Secretary, 2000 McKinney Avenue, 7^th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201. The Corporate Secretary has the authority to disregard any inappropriate communications or to take other appropriate actions with respect to any such inappropriate communications. If deemed an appropriate communication, the Corporate Secretary will submit yourstockholder correspondence to the Chairmanchairman of the Boardboard or to any specific director to whom the correspondence is directed.

Report of the Audit and Risk Committee

The Audit and Risk Committee’s general role is to assist the board of directors in overseeing the Company’s financial reporting process and related matters. The Audit and Risk Committee has reviewed and discussed with the Company’s management and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm the audited financial statements of the Company contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.2018.

The Audit and Risk Committee has also discussed with the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed pursuant to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Auditing Standard,Communications with Audit Committees. The Audit and Risk Committee has received and reviewed the written disclosures and the letter from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding communication with audit committees concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the firm’s independence. The Audit and Risk Committee has also considered whether the provision ofnon-audit services to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP is compatible with maintaining their independence, and has determined that such independence has been maintained.

Based on the review and discussion referred to above, the Audit and Risk Committee recommended to the board of directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,2018, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2016.14, 2019.

This report is submitted on behalf of the Audit and Risk Committee of the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.

James H. Browning, ChairmanChair

David S. Huntley

Charles S. Hyle

W. W. McAllister III

Ian J. TurpinPatricia A. Watson

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

The Company has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code of Conduct”) that applies to all its employees, including its CEO, CFO and controller.Chief Accounting Officer. The Company has made the Code of Conduct available on its website atwww.texascapitalbank.com. Any amendments to, or waivers from, our Code of Conduct applicable to our executive officers will be posted on our website within four days of such amendment or waiver.

COMMON STOCK OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following tables set forth information as of March 29, 2016February 20, 2019 concerning the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock by: (a) each person the Company knows to beneficially own more than 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of a class of common stock, (b) each director, director nominee and named executive officer (“NEO”), and (c) all of the Company’s named executive officers (“NEOs”) and directors as a group. The persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares they owned, unless otherwise noted. In computing the number of shares beneficially owned by a person and the percentage of ownership held by that person, shares of common stock subject to options, restricted stock units (“RSUs”) or stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) held by that person that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable or vest within 60 days after March 29, 2016of February 20, 2019 are deemed exercised and outstanding, while these shares are not deemed exercised and outstanding for purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person.outstanding.

Name(1)		Number of Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned				Percent of Shares of Common Stock Outstanding
Vince A. Ackerson			13,634	(2)			*
Julie L. Anderson			23,757	(3)			*
Peter B. Bartholow			26,500	(4)			*
James H. Browning			12,247	(5)			*
C. Keith Cargill			38,981	(6)			*
Preston M. Geren III			3,772	(7)			*
Frederick B. Hegi, Jr.			205,815	(8)			*
Larry L. Helm			21,747	(9)			*
John D. Hudgens			2,983	(10)			*
Charles S. Hyle			1,272	(11)			*
W. W. McAllister III			34,872	(12)			*
Elysia Holt Ragusa			6,547	(13)			*
Steven P. Rosenberg			54,747	(14)			*
Robert W. Stallings			6,347	(15)			*
Dale W. Tremblay			4,747	(16)			*
Ian J. Turpin			37,843	(17)			*
Patricia A. Watson			1,512	(18)			*
All executive officers and directors as a group			497,323				1.08	%**

(12)	Includes 23,600 shares held by Mr. McAllister. Also includes 272 RSUs that will become exercisable within 60 days and 11,000 vested SARs. Mr. McAllister will retire from the board effective at the 2016 Annual Meeting.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Officers

Our namedcurrently serving executive officers, (NEOs) for 2015, and the positions held by them on December 31, 2015as of the date of this proxy statement, are:

C. Keith Cargill,,President and CEO of the Company and President and CEO of Texas Capital Bank. Mr. Cargill, age 63,66, has served as President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)CEO of the Company and as a member of the board of directors since January 1, 2014. He has served as CEO of the Bank since June 2013, after becoming President of the Bank in October 2008. He served as Chief Lending Officer of the Bank since its inception in December 1998 through July 2013. Mr. Cargill has more than 25 years of banking experience in the North Texas area.

Peter B. Bartholow,Julie L. Anderson,CFO and COOSecretary of the Company and COOCFO of Texas Capital Bank. Mr. Bartholow,Ms. Anderson, age 67, has served as Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and as a director since October 2003 and as Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) since January 2014. Prior to joining us in 2003, he was managing director of a private equity firm, served as a financial executive with Electronic Data Systems Corp., and spent many years in the banking industry as an executive officer and member of the boards of both public and private companies.

John D. Hudgens,Chief Risk Officer of the Company and Chief Risk Officer of Texas Capital Bank. Mr. Hudgens, age 60, assumed the role of Chairman of the Company’s Risk Management Committee in 2009, and in that role became the Chief Risk Officer of Texas Capital Bank. Additionally, he50, has served as the Company’s Chief Risk OfficerCFO since May 2014. He alsoJuly 2017, and served as Chief CreditAccounting Officer from December 2003 through August 2018. She assumed the role of CFO of Texas Capital Bank in July 2013 and the role of Corporate Secretary in May 2014. She served as the Company’s Controller from JanuaryFebruary 1999 to August 2015.June 2017.

Vince A. Ackerson,,Texas President and Chief Lending Officer of Texas Capital Bank. Mr. Ackerson, age 59,62, has served as Texas President and Chief Lending Officer of Texas Capital Bank since July 2013. Prior to holding this position, he served as Dallas Regional President since October 2008 and was previously Executive Vice President of Dallas Corporate Banking since the Bank’s inception in December 1998.

John G. Turpen,Julie L. Anderson,Controller, Chief AccountingRisk Officer and Secretary of the Company and CFOChief Risk Officer of Texas Capital Bank. Ms. Anderson,Mr. Turpen, age 48, has served as the Company’s Controller since February 1999 and Chief Accounting Officer since December 2003. In July 2013, she50, assumed the role of CFOChief Risk Officer of Texas Capital Bank and in May 2014, sheSeptember 2018 and assumed the role of SecretaryChief Risk Officer of the Company.Company on January 1, 2019. From April 2016 to September 2018, Mr. Turpen served as chief risk officer for corporate and commercial banking at U.S. Bancorp. Mr. Turpen joined U.S. Bancorp in 2009 after holding increasingly senior positions in credit, risk and strategic planning at HSBC and Wells Fargo. Mr. Turpen’s banking career spans more than 20 years.

Our named executive officers (“NEOs”) for 2018 include Mr. Cargill, Ms. Anderson, Mr. Ackerson and John D. Hudgens. Mr. Hudgens, age 63, served as Chief Risk Officer of the Company from May 2014 to December 31, 2018 and of Texas Capital Bank from May 2014 until September 30, 2018, stepping down from those positions in connection with his planned retirement. He served as chairman of the Company’s Risk Management Committee from 2009 through December 31, 2018, and as Chief Credit Officer of Texas Capital Bank from January 1999 to August 2016.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describesprovides an overview of our compensation programs, and explains our compensation philosophy, policies and practices, and describes the material compensation decisions we have made under such programs in 2018 with respect to the named executive officersNEOs identified above.

In view of the Company’s competitive performance, historical earnings levels and growth in earnings, the HR Committee believes that the Company’s current executive compensation philosophy and practices arehave been successful in providing stockholders withattracting and retaining talented, dedicated executive officers atand providing them with competitive compensation levels.levels that are properly aligned with shareholder interests.

20152018 Financial ResultsHighlights

The Company performed well in 2015,2018, reporting record net income of $144.9 million (6% increase from 2014 and 20% increase from 2013).$300.8 million. We benefitted from continued growth in both traditional loans held for investment (16% increase) and intotal mortgage finance loans, (21% increase) in 2015 compared to 2014. At the same time we maintained strong credit discipline (net charge-offs of 10 basis points), achieved significant

growth in deposits (19% increase), particularly non-interest bearing deposits (27% increase), and controlled expenses (efficiency ratio of 54.0%).including MCA loans. Our net interest income reached a record of $556.5$914.9 million, (17%primarily due to an increase from 2014of $2.3 billion in average earning assets as well as the effect of increases in interest rates on loan yields, offset by an increase in interest-bearing liabilities of $2.7 billion and 33% increase from 2013).the effect of increased funding costs. These results were accomplished organically without dilutive acquisitions place us at or near the top of our peer group for 2015 and are consistent with the Company’s high level of performance over the past five years. At $2.91$5.79 per diluted share, 20152018 was the second-bestbest earnings per share (“EPS”) year for our shareholders in our history. We reported EPSHowever, as a result of $2.91the decline in 2015 compared to $2.88our stock price, our executives experienced a significant loss in 2014, $2.72 in 2013 and $3.00 in 2012, where the effectsvalue of capital raised through preferred stock,their owned common stock and long-term debt had a significant impact on EPS growth.

We responded to a number2018 equity incentives along with our stockholders, reflecting the close alignment of challenges in 2015, some new and some continuing, that contributed to our results falling below expectations established when we began the year. These challenges have significantly impacted our stock price and the 2015 incentive compensationtheir interests with those of our executives. The status of our energy lending portfolio produced strong headwinds in terms of a $136.5 million increase in non-performing loans, to $179.8 million, and an increase of $31.3 million in our 2015 provision for credit losses, to $53.3 million. The continued low interest rate environment and the substantial growth in liquidity assets pushed our 2015 net interest margin to 3.14% in 2015 from 3.78% reported in 2014 and 4.22% reported in 2013. The expense of meeting regulatory expectations for mid-sized national banks has increased significantly over the past three years.

In 2014 we increased capital by $256 million with two common stock offerings totaling 4.4 million shares (average price to the Company was $58.44), increasing the number of outstanding shares by more than 10%, which made achieving EPS growth in 2014 and 2015 more difficult. We have increased liquidity assets from $144.0 million at the end of 2013 to $2.7 billion at the end of 2015, funded primarily through low-cost deposits. The increase in liquidity assets, which earned just 0.25% in 2015 as Federal Reserve Bank deposits, has reduced our return on assets (“ROA”) although we continued to earn a small positive spread against our funding cost. We successfully launched our mortgage correspondent aggregation (“MCA”) business late in the third quarter of 2015. The costs associated with the launch of the business, reduced revenue opportunity due to changes in market conditions, and our decision to build volume slowly in order to prove-out systems and risk management effectiveness resulted in a loss of approximately $7.4 million for 2015.stockholders.

Executive Summary

Our compensation philosophy demands that executive compensation track appropriately to the Company’s economic performance, not justas well as management’s performance. The HR Committee and the board of directors recognizebelieve that the Company’s financial performance and our management’s overall performance in 20152018 were outstanding while the Company’s overall economic performance was exceptional given the challenges facing the Company. The growth in net revenue from other lending businesses offset the combined impact of the $31.3 million increase in provision for credit losses, the $7.4 million loss on the launch of the MCA line of business, increased regulatory costs and the dilutive impact of equity offerings completed in 2014. Notably, the Company outperformed other banks operating in Texas and involved in energy lending in terms of growth in both net income and EPS. A majority of our compensation peer group in 2015 was not similarly affectedtempered by the volatility in the energy industry and its actual and projected impact on the Texas economy.

Average payouts of the annual cash incentive to the NEOs for 2015 ranged between 42% and 57% of the executive’s base salary, with an average of 48%. This compares to a 2014 payout range of 72% to 100%, with an average 2014 payout of 83%, and a 2013 payout range of 65% to 94%, with an average 2013 payout of 78%. In each of 2013, 2014 and 2015 the HR Committee set the aggregate incentive amount, or pool, at 7% of pre-tax, pre-annual incentive income based on the committee’s consideration of the profitability of the Company, performance of individual business units, number of participants, amounts guaranteed to new officers and other factors. The Company does not use a specific formula for its short-term incentive compensation program or disclose the specific factors contributing to each year’s awards in order to protect sensitive business information, to allow fine-tuning of each executive’s incentives and because certain of

the performance criteria require subjective evaluation of the executive’s performance. At the same time, the financial parameters set for each year’s short-term incentive compensation place an effective cap on the amounts that may be awarded and do not allow the HR Committee broad discretion in determining the payout.

Long-term incentive compensation for 2015 was adversely impacted by a number of factors. The performance vesting portions of the long-term grants of cash-settled performance units made to the NEOs in 2013 (60%) were based on EPS and ROA targets set in 2013 and did not anticipate, and were not adjusted for, the $31.3 million increase in the provision for credit losses in 2015 resulting from the decline in energy prices or the large increase in liquidity assets in 2014 and 2015 that significantly lowered ROA results, neither of which could have been anticipated in 2013. Partial adjustments to 2014 and 2015 vestings were made for the EPS impact of the 2014 commonour stock offerings described above. As a consequence the NEOs received a 28% payout on the EPS target and no payout on the ROA targets in 2015. The remainder of the 2015 long-term compensation was attributable to the time-vesting portions of the 2013 awards. The 2015 vested long-term incentive payments for the four NEOs who were serving as such in 2013 represented an average decrease of 50% when compared to 2014 payments and an average decrease of 78% when compared to 2013 payments.price.

In view of the substantially reduced payouts to the NEOs in short-term and long-term incentives for 2015, theThe HR Committee believes that executive pay and performance atof the Company continue to be stronglyappropriately aligned. We have continued to appropriately adjust the base compensation of our NEOs upward in 2015 and in 2016 to address specific instances of increased responsibilities and performance expectationsThe key NEO pay decisions during 2018 were as well as to maintain reasonable parity with the 50^th percentile of our compensation peer group.follows:

As described in more detail below at “Equity Incentive Philosophy”, the HR Committee determined that long-term incentives granted in 2015 and subsequent years to the NEOs (excluding Ms. Anderson) will be settled in shares of common stock rather than cash in order to support the accumulation of larger amounts of directly owned shares by the NEOs. The initial grant of these stock-settled

Objectives of Executive Compensation

We seek to provide a compensation package for our NEOs that is primarily driven primarily by the overall financialeconomic performance of the Company. We believe thatCompany, together with a focus on the performance of each of the executivesexecutive, which we

believe impacts our overall long-term profitability and, therefore, have the followingprofitability. The objectives forof our executive compensation programs impacting the NEOs of the Company:are:

Oversight of Executive Compensation Program

The HR Committee of our board of directors oversees our executive compensation programs. Each member of the HR Committee is an “independent director” as defined by the Nasdaq Stock Market Listing Rules. With approval by the board, the HR Committee has developed and applied a compensation philosophy that focuses on a combination of competitive base salary and incentive compensation, including cash and equity-linkedequity-based programs, which are directly tied to performance and creation of stockholder value. The objective for the executive officers and key employees is to have a substantial portion of total compensation derived from performance-based incentives.

The HR Committee worksmeets throughout the year, including conferences, formal meetings, informal conferences and discussions with consultants and management and review of compensation-related materials.consultants. The HR Committee works with executive management, primarily our chief executive officer (“CEO”), in assessingCEO, to assess the compensation approach and compensation levels for our executive officers and key employees. In consultation withemployees other than the full board, theCEO. The HR Committee is empowered to advise management and makemakes recommendations to the board of directors with respect to the overall executive compensation and employment benefits, philosophy and objectives of the Company. The HR Committee establishes objectives for the Company’s CEO and sets the CEO’s compensation based, in part, on the evaluation of peer group data.market data provided by its independent consultant. The HR Committee also reviews and recommends to the board the Company’s annual and long-term incentive plans for executive officers and key employees.

The HR Committee regularly reviews the Company’s compensation programs to ensure that remunerationcompensation levels and incentive opportunities are competitive and reflect performance. Factors taken into accountconsidered in assessing the compensation of individual officers may include the Company’s overall performance, the officer’s experience, performance and contribution to the Company, the achievement of strategic goals, external equity and market value, internal equity, fairness and retention priority. The various components of the compensation programs for the named executive officers are discussed below in the “Executive Compensation Program Overview”.retention. There are no material differences in compensation policies for each ofand approach among the five named executive officers,NEOs, as all relate primarily to performance and contribution in achieving consolidated results. In the case of the four named executive officersNEOs other than the CEO, the CEO makes recommendations to the HR Committee about each of their individualregarding salary increases, annual incentive amounts and total compensation levels. The HR Committee may delegate to the CEO the allocation of certain salary increases or annual incentive amounts for the other four named executive officers.

Compensation Risk Oversight

The HR Committee regularly reviews all compensation plans to identify whether any of the Company’s or the Bank’s compensatory policies or practices incent behavior that creates excessive or unnecessary risk to the Company. In 2018, the HR Committee conducted its biennial compensationa risk assessment with the assistance of Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC (“Pearl Meyer”), its independent compensation advisor in 2014. In 2015 the Committee reviewed the 2014 risk assessment in view of current developments.advisor. Based upon the results of these assessments we do not believethis assessment, the HR Committee determined that our compensation program createsdoes not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Equity Incentive Philosophy

In 2013 and 2014 the Company issued cash-settled Performance Units to its named executive officers as their primary long-term equity incentive, a portion of which vest based on the attainment of certain performance metrics developed by the HR Committee and the balance of which vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant if the named executive is employed by the Company or is eligible for approved retirement. The HR Committee determined that 2015 and 2016 equity incentives will be settled in shares of common stock rather than cash in order to support the accumulation of larger amounts of directly- owned shares of common stock by the named executive officers. It is expected that grants in future years will similarly emphasize the accumulation of direct ownership of common stock.

The cash-settled awards in 2013 and 2014 were intended to balance the interest of the Company in providing an incentive to its executives that would vary based upon the performance of the Company’s common stock with the interest of stockholders in experiencing less dilution of their ownership of the Company resulting from the Company’s employee compensation program. The Company performed at or near the top of its peer group over this time period while having less dilution to its stockholders resulting from its employee compensation programs. The HR Committee believes that the direct ownership of substantial amounts of common stock combined with the cash-settled and stock-settled incentives issued over the past three years combine to strongly align the interests of the Company’s senior executive officers with the interests of stockholders.

The following table is provided to indicate the substantial value at riskCompany’s NEO compensation arrangements place a large amount of each individual’s future compensation “at risk” relative to the performance of the named executive officers resulting from their directly ownedCompany’s common stock. Our NEOs’ significant investments in our common stock, unvested RSUs and unvested cash-settled Performance Units.as required by our executive stock ownership guidelines, also make our executives sensitive to declines in our stock price.

The HR Committee generally considers the returns realized by stockholders through increases or decreases in the price of the Company’s common stock in the course of establishing NEO equity incentive compensation performance targets and in determining annual incentive compensation and vesting of long-term performance-based incentives, but has determined that it would be inappropriate to base specific incentive compensation award amounts or vesting determinations on stockholder return measures such as total shareholder return (“TSR”).stockholder return. This is primarily based upon concern that the Company’s NEO compensation measures not incent excessive risk-taking behavior in times such as 2015 where the Company’s financial performance is strong in historical terms butwhen market perceptions of matters outside of our executives’ control, such as future commodity price risk, or interest rate changes, earnings multiples applied to financial services companies generally, tax law changes or the expectation of future easing of regulatory compliance costs, introduce significant volatility into our stock price.

The HR Committee does not believe that strict benchmarkingOur long-term performance-based incentives are earned based on achievement of the Company’s stock price performance against other banking organizations having substantially different business models, funding sources and growth and earnings trajectories will produce an appropriate correlation between the Company’s economic achievements and its executive compensation. This was proven to be true during the 2008-2012 period as our economic results exceeded most of our peer group over that entire time period, but sharp “rebounds” in stock price during the recovery by banks that had lost much more value in the downturn could in individual years make it appear that those banks had superior performance, justifying superior compensation of their executives in a TSR-based compensation program. Basing vesting of incentive compensation on measures such as TSR over artificially defined one- or even three-year periods can produce unfairness to our executives or to our stockholders due to unforeseeable changes in economic conditions and short-term volatility in our stock price.

The Company’s NEO compensation arrangements place a large amount of each individual’s future compensation “at risk” relative to the performance of the Company’s common stock. The NEO’s significant investments in our common stock, as required by our executive stock ownership guidelines, also make our executives sensitive to declines in our stock price. Introducing even more stock-price risk into

our incentive compensation does not appear reasonable. Our performance measures such as EPS, ROAreturn on equity (“ROE”), return on assets (“ROA”) and increases in tangible book value that(“TBV”). These performance measures are based on the Company’s financial performance and take into account the importance of balancing the risk appetite and risk management framework established by the board of directors, regulatory expectations for safe and sound operation of a federally insured bank and the desire and ability of our executive leadership and employees to achieve long-term, sustainable growth in stockholder value.

Consideration of Most Recent Advisory Stockholder Vote on Executive Stock Ownership GuidelinesCompensation

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines include stock ownership guidelines forAt our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we received the affirmative support of 97% of votes cast in favor of our 2017 executive compensation, as disclosed in the 2018 Proxy Statement. The Board and the HR Committee value the perspectives of our stockholders regarding executive compensation. In considering the results of this advisory vote on executive compensation, the HR Committee concluded that the compensation paid to our NEOs in order to further align their interestsand the Company’s overall pay practices enjoy strong stockholder support.

The Company maintains active engagement with our stockholders, communicating directly with the long-term interestsholders of stockholders. NEOs are expected to ownmore than 50% of our outstanding common stock having a value of at least three times their baseeach year regarding the Company’s performance and responding to any questions or issues they may raise. Future advisory votes on executive compensation (five times forwill continue to serve as an additional tool to guide the CEO),Board and may not dispose of any sharesthe HR Committee in evaluating the alignment of the Company’s common stock unless they own, and will continue to own, common stock at that level. Unvested restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock options and stock appreciation rights are not included in an executive’s stock ownership for purposes of this policy. Allexecutive compensation program with the interests of the NEOs are in compliance withCompany and its stockholders.

An advisory vote at the Company’s stock ownership policy, and as2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders confirmed that stockholders overwhelmingly favored an annual advisory vote on executive compensation. Consistent with this preference, the dateBoard determined to implement an annual advisory vote on executive compensation until the next required vote on the frequency of this Proxy Statement Mr. Bartholow and Ms. Anderson have reachedstockholder votes on executive compensation, which is scheduled to occur at the target levels2023 Annual Meeting of share ownership.Stockholders.

Role of the Compensation Consultant

The HR Committee has engaged the services ofPearl Meyer as its independent executive compensation consulting firm Frederic W. Cook & Co, Inc. (“Cook”). Cook reports to and acts at the direction of the HR Committee. The HR Committee looks to its compensation consultantfor 2018 to provide:

The HR Committee has determined that a formal executive compensation market/peer review will be performed every other year and engaged CookPearl Meyer to perform thatsuch review most recently in 2014, which we refer to as the Cook 2014 Review. The HR Committee has used the Cook 2014 Review to inform its 2014 and 2015 compensation decisions. Cook2018. Pearl Meyer provided the HR Committee with a market competitive executive compensation analysis for the NEOs, including base salary, annual incentives, long-term incentives andnon-qualified deferred compensation plans, including retirement benefits. Cook assisted the HR Committee in its review of total direct compensation for the NEOs including a review of 2014 incentive compensation and 2015 base salaries for the NEOs, as discussed in the “Base Salary” section below. For 2016 base salaries and 2015 incentive compensation the HR Committee used the Cook 2014 Review and market data regarding performance of comparable financial services companies as well as consideration of the Company’s financial performance and each NEO’s individual performance. The next executive compensation market/peer review will be performed in 2016.2020.

CookPearl Meyer provided its executive compensation consulting services under the direction of the HR Committee and did not provide any additional services to the Company. Our management provides input to the compensation consultant but does not direct or oversee its activities with respect to our executive compensation programs. In order not to impair the independence of the compensation consultant, or create

the appearance of an impairment, the Committee follows a policy that the compensation consulting firm may not provide other services to the Company. The HR Committee has evaluated Cook’sPearl Meyer’s independence, including the factors relating to independence specified in Nasdaq Stock Market Listing Rules, and determined that Cook isPearl Meyer to be independent.

Peer Company Compensation Data

The HR Committee works with the independent consultant to collect and Cook, with input fromreview competitive market compensation practices. As one point of reference, the Company’s management, established the Company’sHR Committee reviews compensation practices for a peer group in connection with the Cook 2014 Review and will reevaluate the peer group in 2016.of publicly traded bank holding companies of comparable size. The peer group consists of eighteen companies with business operationsused in commercial banking and financial services that were identified as having comparable long-term performance, asset size, and market capitalization. Peer company data is used by the HR Committee as a reference and not an absolute target for compensation approaches and levels. No changes to the peer group were made in 2015, which includes2018 included the following companies:

Associated Banc-Corp

BOK Financial Corporation

Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc.

First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.

F.N.B. Corporation

IberiaBank Corporation

MB Financial, Inc.

PacWest Bancorp

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.

Prosperity Bancshares Inc.

Signature Bank

SVB Financial Group

TCF Financial Corporation

TrustMark Corporation

Western Alliance Bancorporation

Wintrust Financial Corporation

The HR Committee targets total compensation paid to the Company’s executive officers to be aligned betweenwith the 50^th percentile of the Company’s peer group and given commensurate performance, 75market. Some executive officers may be below the 50^th percentilespercentile, while some may be above, depending on the facts and circumstances of the Company’s peer group.each executive including experience, time in position and performance.

ExecutiveElements of our Compensation Program Overview

TheOur compensation program for executive compensation package available to our NEOs is comprised of:officers consists of the following elements:

Base Salary

Base salary issalaries are designed to compensate executive officers for their roles and responsibilities and to provide competitive levels of fixed compensation to our executives and to reflectthat reflects their experience, duties and scope of responsibilities. We pay competitive base salaries requiredin order to recruit

and retain executives of the quality that we must employnecessary to ensure the success of our Company. Base salaries for the NEOs are subject to annual review, under the terms of the contracts discussed below, but are not always adjusted on an annual basis. The HR Committee determines the appropriate level and timing of changes in base compensation for the CEO, and forNEOs (other than the other NEOs upon consideration ofCEO) based on the recommendation of the CEO. In making determinations of salary levels for the named executives,NEOs, the HR Committee considers the entire compensation package for each executive officers,officer, including the equity-linkedequity-based compensation provided under long-term compensation plans. The Company intends for total compensation levels to be consistent with competitive practices of our peer group companies and each executive’s level of responsibility.

The HR Committee determines the level of periodic salary increases after reviewing:

After considering these factors, reviewing results of the Pearl Meyer peer review and discussing recommendedproposed salaries for the other named executive officersNEOs with Mr. Cargill,the CEO, the HR Committee recommended and the board approved annual salaries, andwith the indicated percentage increases, effective March 1, 20162018, as follows: Mr. Cargill $800,000 (7%$965,000 (6%), Mr. Bartholow $470,000 (3%), Mr. Hudgens $450,000 (3%Ms. Anderson $480,000 (10%), Mr. Ackerson $445,000 (3%$510,000 (5%), and Ms. Anderson $350,000 (13%). Annual salaries and percentage increases were determined by the HR Committee on a comparable basis effective March 1, 2015 as follows: Mr. Cargill $750,000 (20%), Mr. Bartholow $458,000 (4%), Mr. Hudgens $435,000 (5%), Mr. Ackerson $430,000 (8%), and Ms. Anderson $310,000 (7%$495,000 (3%).

Annual Incentive Compensation

AnnualWe provide annual cash incentive compensation is designed to provide competitive levels of compensation based on experience, duties and scope of responsibilities. In addition, our annual incentive program is designed to ensure that variable compensation based on the Company’s profitability is a significant component of total cash compensation for the named executives. The HR Committee compares our performance to peers with an emphasis on net income and EPS growth, as well as improvements in ROA, tangible book value growth (“TBV”), and measures of credit quality. The HR Committee uses the annual incentive compensationopportunities to motivate and reward the NEOs for achievement of strategic, business and financial objectives.

Pursuant to the cash incentive program approved by the HR Committee, an aggregate incentive pool is established each year. The size of the incentive pool is derived as a percentage of the Company’s pre-tax, pre-annual incentive income. The incentive pool has varied from 5% to 15% of the Company’s pre-tax, pre-annual incentive income depending on the profitability of the Company, performance of individual business units, number of participants, amounts guaranteed to new officers and other factors. Due to our continued profitability, the HR Committee approved an incentive pool for 2015 set at 7% of pre-tax, pre-annual incentive income. The amount of the incentive pool is incorporated in the annual business and financial plan approved by the board of directors and is adjusted during the year based on actual results compared to the approved financial plan. After verification of final results, the total annual incentive pool and allocation of dollars in the incentive pool among the participants are approved by the HR Committee. This approach provides an effective cap on the size of awards that may be made to the NEOs.

The HR Committee can exercise positive or negative discretion over the incentive pool based on their evaluation of the Company in comparison to peer companies in our industry as well as evaluation of overall economic conditionsstrategic and individual performance. The incentive poolbusiness objectives. A target bonus opportunity is allocated among three distinct

groups: the NEOs, relationship managers generally responsibleset for lending and other service offerings and other key managers, which includes persons who oversee and provide critical support in such areas as finance, human resources, operations, technology, funding, investments and credit policy. Executive management determines allocations within production and key management groups pursuant to the approved program.

The portion of the total incentive pool allocated to the NEOs is based on the performance of the Company compared to plan and other measures of performance. For 2015, it was specifically based on the Company’s EPS, ROA and TBV compared to targets established by the HRC and individualeach NEO goals. A targeted amount as a percentage of base salary, for each NEO is also considered. The HR Committee approveswith the allocation ofpercentage varying depending on their position. For 2018, the remainder of theannual incentive pool with input from the CEO. The CEO submits recommendations for incentive compensationtarget amounts for the NEOs other than himself. Thewere as follows:

Actual incentive amounts that could be earned by the NEOs for 2018 were based on the level of achievement of performance goals relating to the following key metrics: net income (65%), credit quality (25%) and MSOs (10%).

For the net income metric, NEOs could earn between 25% (for performance at threshold levels) and 150% (for performance above target levels) of their respective target bonus amounts. With respect to the net income metric, the target performance goal was $278.0 million, which would result in a payout of 100% of the weighted target incentive; the threshold performance goal was $236.3 million, resulting in a payout of 25% of the weighted target incentive; and the maximum threshold performance goal was $306.1 million, resulting in a payout of 150% of the weighted target incentive.

For the credit quality metric, NEOs could earn between 0% and 100% of the weighted target amount based on performance measured against board-approved guidelines and tolerances reviewed by the Risk Committee throughout the year.

For the MSO metric, NEOs could earn between 0% and 100% of the weighted target amount based on the HR Committee’s qualitative assessment of the NEO’s successful completion of specific business and financial objectives and strategic initiatives related to the NEO’s areas of responsibility in the business and approved by the HR Committee determinesat the incentive payment forbeginning of the CEO andyear.

In addition, in determining the amount of annual incentives earned, the HR Committee considers the recommendationperformance of the CEO inCompany relative to its final determinations of awards to be paid to the other NEOs. The Committee met with the CEOpeer group, and considered the individual contributions and responsibilities of the other NEOs in determining their incentive payments.

In determining annual cash incentives, the HR Committeealso considers the entire compensation package of each of the NEOs and the performance of that individual. The incentive award potential is intended to be consistent with each NEO’s level of responsibility, position and performance. A percentage of each NEO’s base salary in effect at the end of the prior fiscal year is generally targeted, ranging from 70% to 100%. The 2014 Cook Review confirmed these amounts are consistent with mid-range opportunities among our peer group companies. Individual incentives can be above or below these targets based on the Company’s and NEO’s performance in any given year.

The HR Committee met in February 20162019 to consider the Company’s performance against incentive goals and to determine the annual incentive pool compensationincentives to be paid to the named executive officersNEOs. For 2018, the following results were achieved and considered in determining NEO incentive compensation:

Based on the Summary Compensation Table.achievement of the financial, business and individual performance goals described above, the HR Committee awarded the following annual incentives to the NEOs for fiscal year 2018:

Long-Term IncentivesIncentive Compensation

Long-term incentive awards for our NEOs include cash-settled equity-linked and equity-based awards that are designed to directly align more directly the interests of the NEOs with those of our stockholders and to motivate the NEOs to increase the stockholder value of the Company to stockholders over the long term. Executive management and the HR CommitteeWe believe that equity-linkedequity-based incentives are mostan effective in aligningway align the interests of employees and stockholders, buildingbuild stockholder value and retainingretain the Company’s key employees.

2018 Grant of Equity Awards

In 2013 and 2014, long-term incentive grants wereMarch 2018, the Company made an annual grant of equity awards to the NEOs under the 2010 Plan in the formNEOs. The 2018 equity awards consisted of cash-settled Performance UnitsRSUs, 50% of which were time-based awards and in 2015 long-term incentive grants50% of which were made to the NEOs under the 2015 Plan in the form of stock-based RSUs. A percentage of the Performance Units and RSUs vest based on the attainment of certain performance metrics developed by the HR Committee as outlined below, referred to as the performance portion of theperformance-based awards. The vesting of the remaining percentages, referred to as the time-based portion, occursRSUs vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, of grant ifsubject to the named executive is employed by the Company or is eligible for approved retirement.

Vestingexecutive’s continued employment with Company. The performance-based RSUs may be earned in amounts ranging from 0% to 150% of the target award, based on the Company’s level of achievement of performance portions of the Performance Units and RSUs is subjectgoals relating to determinations by the HR Committee that the(i) average EPS and ROA objectives have been achieved without imposing excessive risk to stockholders and that the Company has maintained appropriate standards related to asset quality, capital management, expense managementgrowth relative to revenuethe Company’s three-year plan (25% weighting), (ii) average EPS growth relative to a peer group (25% weighting), (iii) average ROE relative to the Company’s three-year plan (25% weighting), and the funding composition and level(iv) average ROE relative to support loan growth. For each vesting period, the Committee makes a threshold determination of whether: the Bank’s asset quality and credit controls were at a level of comparable high performing banks’ asset quality and credit controls; the Bank maintained a tangible capital ratio comparable to that of solidly capitalized banks; the Bank was run efficiently, with a guideline efficiency ratio of 60% or better; and that at least 100% of traditional loans held for investment were supported by core deposits.

The Company made an annual grant of cash-settled Performance Units in June 2013, of which 60% of the grant was tied to performance measures and 40% of the grant was time-based. The performance measures for the 2013 grant were tied to growth levels in EPS and the level of ROApeer group (25% weighting) for the three-year period ending December 31, 2015,2020.

When considering the 2018 awards, the HR Committee started with 50% of the performance portion of the grant based upon the EPS objective and 50% based upon the ROA objective. Ms. Anderson was not considered an NEO in 2013 and therefore did not receive this grant. Instead, Ms. Anderson was awarded an annual grant of cash-settled Performance Units that are 100% service-based and provideintended target value for annual vesting over the three-year period.

The number of cash-settled Performance Units awarded in 2013each executive officer, which was based on a targeted percentage of his or her base compensationsalary. For 2018, the target values for each of the named executives and recognition that the award would effectively cover a three-year period. Based on the defined objectives for the 60% performance portion of the Performance Units, the NEOs had the opportunity to vest between 0% and 150% of the performance portion of the Performance Units. The value of the Performance Units was determined at December 31, 2015, the end of the three-year period covered by the grants. At December 31, 2015, average growth in EPS over the three-year period was 7.4% on an adjusted basis and average ROA was 1.00%, resulting in a 27.9% payout for EPS targets met and no payout for ROA targets met during the three-year period.

The HR Committee and the board of directors determined that these results were achieved without imposing excessive risk to stockholders and that the Company maintained appropriate standards related to asset quality, capital management, expense management relative to revenue and the funding composition and level to support loan growth. Based on the achievement of the EPS performance goals and its consideration of the threshold factors described above, the HR Committee determined that the 2013 grant vested at 67.9% of target, including the time-vested portion of 40%. The actual amounts paidequity awards to the NEOs, are included in the compensation tables below.

The Company made an annual grantas a percentage of cash-based Performance Units in May 2014. The grantstheir respective base salaries, were structured in a manner consistent with the 2013 grants described above, however the performance portion of the Performance Units was set at 50% to reflect industry standards, with 50% of the performance portion of the grant based upon the EPS objective and 50% based upon the ROA objective. The time-based portion of these Performance Units was set at 50%. Similar to the 2013 grants described above, the NEOs will have the opportunity to vest between 0% and 150% of the performance portion of the Performance Units under this grant, which covers the three-year period ending December 31, 2016.as follows: Mr. Cargill, 230%; Ms. Anderson, was not considered an NEO in 2014100%; Mr. Ackerson, 100%; and therefore did not receive this grant. Instead, Ms. Anderson was awarded an annual grant of cash-settled Performance Units that are 100% service-based and provide for annual vesting over the three-year period.

In June 2015, the HR Committee moved away from the cash-settled Performance Units and made annual grants of RSUs. The grants were structured in a manner consistent with the 2014 grants described above; however the 50% performance portion of the grant is 40% based upon the EPS objective, 40% based upon the ROA objective and 20% based upon a newly defined growth in TBV objective. Similar to the 2014 grants described above, the NEOs will have the opportunity to vest between 0% and 150% of the performance portion of the RSUs under this grant, which covers the three-year period ending

December 31, 2017. Unlike the 2013 and 2014 grants, settlement of these awards will be made in shares of the Company’s common stock. Ms. Anderson was not considered an NEO for the performance period to which the 2015 grant relates to and therefore did not receive this grant. Instead, Ms. Anderson was awarded an annual grant of cash-settled Performance Units that are 100% service-based and provide for annual vesting over the three-year period.

AllMr. Hudgens, 85%.The amounts of the grants were based on a variety of factors deemed relevant by the HR Committee, including the Company’s performance, the named executive officer’sNEO’s level of responsibility, an assessment of individual performance made by the Committee and competitive market data. Because grantsThe number of time-based RSUs and the target number of performance-based RSUs (including the threshold and maximum number of performance-based RSUs that could be earned) granted to each NEO are expressedset forth below in specific share numbers, the amounts that an NEO may receive from vesting2018 Grants of long-term equity incentives is effectively capped.Plan-Based Awards Table.

The following summarizes the performance targets for the performance portions of the, 2013, 2014 and 2015 grants of Performance Units and RSUs discussed above:

2013 Grant:

2014 Grant:

2015 Grant:

The Performance Units and RSUs will be forfeited upon an NEO’s termination of employment, except as otherwise provided below. The 2013 and 2014 Performance UnitsRSUs provide for accelerated vesting upon a change in control, as defined under the respective incentive plan, with 50% to vest upon the effective date of the change in control and 50% to vest upon the original vesting date of the Performance Unit, or two years following the effective date of the change in control, whichever occurs earlier. If theif an NEO is terminated without cause or terminates his employment for good reason (each as defined in the NEOs employment agreement) within 90 days immediately preceding or following the effective date of the change in control, the unvested Performance Units will become vested on the later of the effective date of the change in control or the NEO’s termination date. In addition, the Performance Units become immediately vested upon the NEO’s death or total and permanent disability. If an NEO retires upon reaching the age of 65 with 12 years of service, the Performance Units become fully vested with the payout to occur at the end of the three-year performance period, subject to board approval and the execution of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements by the executive.

The RSUs provide for accelerated vesting of 100% of the unvested units upon a change in control, as defined under the 2015 Plan, if the NEO is terminated without cause or terminates hisher employment for good reason (each as defined in the NEO’s employment agreement) following thea change in control effective upon such termination, andof the Company, regardless of whether the performance criteria have been achieved. If an NEO retires upon reaching the age of 65 with 12 years of service, a prorated portion of the time-based RSUs will vest based on the number of full years the NEO has been employed since the date of grant, and the performance-based RSUs will continue to vest based on the achievement of the performance goals within the time periods established for such grant. If an NEO violates the provisions of any agreement with the Company that contains confidentiality,non-solicitation or other protective or restrictive covenant provisions, any unvested awards will cease to vest, any undelivered shares will be forfeited and any net shares delivered to the NEO with respect to the awards willmust be immediately returned to the Company.

2016 Grants of Performance-Based RSUs – Performance Results and Payouts

The Company made an annual grant of RSUs in September 2016. The grants were structured in a manner consistent with the 2018 grants described above, with awards consisting of 50% time-based RSUs and 50% performance-based RSUs. The 2016 performance-based RSUs could be earned in amounts ranging from 0% to 150% of the target award, based on the Company’s level of achievement of performance goals relating to EPS, ROA and increases in TBV over a three-year performance period.

The following table sets forth the range of specific targets, relative weights and resulting payouts for the 2016 performance-based RSUs for the three-year period ending December 31, 2018, as established at the time the awards were granted:

Payouts for results falling between the specified values reflected above are determined based on straight-line interpolation.

The three-year performance period with respect to the 2016 performance-based RSUs concluded on December 31, 2018. The following table sets forth the Company’s actual achievement of performance goals for the 2016 performance-based RSUs and the resulting payout percentages. Actual EPS was adjusted downward for the impact of a reduction in the Company’s income tax rate as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017 that the HR Committee determined did not result from management’s performance.

Based on the Company’s actual achievement of performance goals for the three-year period ending December 31, 2018, the NEOs who received 2016 performance-based RSUs earned the following payouts:

Other Benefits

2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.    In 2006, the board of directors adopted and our stockholders approved the Company’s 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2006 ESPP”). The 2006 ESPP provides eligible employees of the Company (and its participating subsidiaries) with an incentive to advance the best interests of the Company and its subsidiaries by providing them a means of voluntarily purchasing common stock at 95% of the market price and upon favorable terms. We believe that the participants in the 2006 ESPP have an additional incentive to promote the success of the Company’s business by increasing their economic interest in the Company. Participation in the 2006 ESPP is voluntary and dependent upon each eligible employee’s election to participate and determination of the level of participation. We believe that the 2006 ESPP is an important part of our compensation program that helps us compete effectively for talent. It has been and remains the policy of the Company that the NEOs are not eligible to participate in the 2006 ESPP.

Retirement Savings Opportunity.    All employees may participate in our 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, or 401(k) Plan. Each employee may makebefore-tax contributions of up to 85% of their eligible compensation up to current Internal Revenue Service limits. We provide the 401(k) Plan to help our employees save some amount of their cash compensation for retirement in a tax efficient manner. Since 2006, we have matched contributions made by our employees to the 401(k) Plan based upon a formula that considers the amount contributed by the respective employee with a vesting scheduled based upon suchthe employee’s tenure with the Company. The matching contributions for each NEO are set forth in the2018 All OtherCompensation Table. We do not provide an option for our employees to invest in our common stock through the 401(k) Plan. In 2015, we didWe have not provide or offerhistorically provided any other retirement plans, such as defined benefit, defined

contribution, supplemental executive retirement benefits, retiree medical or deferred compensation plans requiring mandatory Company contributions, to our employees or the NEOs, other than the 401(k) Plan.Plan and the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan described below.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan.    Effective for fiscal 2016, we implementedThe Company offers a nonqualified deferred compensation plan for our executives and key members of management in order to assist us in attracting and retaining these individuals. Participants in the plan may elect to defer up to 75% of their annual salary and/or short-term incentive payout into deferral accounts that mirror the gains or losses of investmentsspecified investment funds or market indexes approved by the HR Committee and selected by the participants. These investment alternatives are similar to the choices under the 401(k) Plan. The gains and losses credited to each participant’s deferral account are subject to the same investment risk as an actual investment in the specified investment funds or market indexes. The Company does notrestores any lost company match deferralsin the 401(k) Plan due to legal limits on qualified plans. Beginning in 2018, we have matched contributions made pursuant toby participants into the plan. Thenonqualified deferred compensation plan allowsbased upon a formula that considers the Company to make discretionary contributions on behalf ofamount contributed by the respective employee with a participant, however there are no current plans to do so, nor is it required.vesting scheduled based upon the employee’s tenure with the Company. All participant contributions to the plan and any related earnings are immediately vested and may be withdrawn upon the participant’s separation from service, death or disability or upon a date specified by the participant.

Health and Welfare Benefits.    All full-time employees, including our NEOs, may participate in our health and welfare benefit programs, including medical, dental and vision care coverage, disability insurance and life insurance. We provide these benefits to meet the health and welfare needs of employees and their families.

Employment Agreements

The Company maintains employment agreements with each of its NEOs. The material terms of each NEO’s employment agreement are described below.

Employment Agreement for Mr. Cargill

Mr. Cargill’s amended and restated employment agreement, which we refer to as the “Cargill Agreement,” has a term of one year and will be automatically renewed for successiveone-year terms unless notice ofnon-renewal is given by either party. The Cargill Agreement will terminate upon Mr. Cargill’s death or disability, upon his voluntary termination of employment or upon his termination for cause. “Cause” as defined in the agreement includes: (1) fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement; (2) the material breach of executive responsibilities, restrictive covenants or fiduciary duties; (3) conviction of a felony or crime of moral turpitude; (4) illegal use of drugs interfering with the performance of his duties; or (5) acceptance of other employment without permission. Upon any such termination Mr. Cargill would be entitled to receive his base salary,pro-rated through the termination date, any unpaid but accrued vacation benefits and any unreimbursed business expenses.

If terminated by the Company without cause or bynon-renewal, or by Mr. Cargill for “good reason,” Mr. Cargill would receive a cash payment equal to twelve months’ base salary, a cash payment equal to the average annual incentive payment for the two prior years, and continued medical insurance benefits for twelve months following termination. “Good reason” is defined as (1) an assignment of duties that are functionally inferior to the duties set forth in the Cargill Agreement; (2) a change of employment location which is more than 50 miles from the Company’s current executive offices; or (3) a reduction in salary, other than as part of a proportionate reduction affecting all other senior officers.

If, in connection with a change in control, as defined in the Cargill Agreement, Mr. Cargill’s employment is terminated either (1) by the Company or the successor entity without cause, or (2) by Mr. Cargill for good

reason, Mr. Cargill will receive a lump sum payment equal to 2.5 times his average base salary and the average of any annual incentive amounts paid to him during the two years preceding the change in control. This change in control payment is in lieu of any other amounts to which he would be entitled under the Cargill Agreement.

As a means of providing protection to the Company’s stockholders, under certain adverse conditions such as dissolution, bankruptcy or a distressed sale of the Company’s assets or stock for the purpose of avoiding a bankruptcy proceeding or at the recommendation of regulatory authorities, the above described payments would not occur, except for the cash payments described above that would be owing upon Mr. Cargill’s voluntary termination of employment.

The Cargill Agreement contains other terms and conditions, includingnon-competition andnon-solicitation provisions, confidentiality obligations and restrictions on Mr. Cargill’s ability to be involved with a competing bank or company with a place of business in Texas.

Employment Agreements for Mr. Bartholow, Mr. Hudgens, Mr. Ackerson and Ms. Anderson

In order to retain the Company’s senior executive officers, the HR Committee and board of directors of the Company determined it was in the best interests of the Company to enter into employment agreements with Messrs. Bartholow, Hudgens and Ackerson and Ms. Anderson. We entered into these agreements to ensure that the executives perform their respective roles for an extended period of time in view of the critical nature of each of their positions. The Company entered into Amended and Restated Executive Employment AgreementsAgreement between Ms. Anderson and the Company

The Company entered into an Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement with Ms. Anderson effective July 1, 2017 (the “2014 Agreements”“Anderson Agreement”). Pursuant to the Anderson Agreement, in addition to serving as CFO of the Bank, Ms. Anderson began serving as CFO of the Company. The Anderson Agreement has an18-month initial term and is automatically renewable for successiveone-year terms unless earlier terminated.

The Anderson Agreement will terminate upon Ms. Anderson’s death or disability, upon her voluntary termination of employment or upon her termination for cause. Upon any such termination, Ms. Anderson would be entitled to receive her base salary,pro-rated through the termination date, any unpaid but accrued vacation benefits and any unreimbursed business expenses.

Termination for cause means the Company’s termination of Ms. Anderson’s employment for any of the following: (1) fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement; (2) the material breach of Ms. Anderson’s executive responsibilities or of the protective covenants in the Anderson Agreement; (3) conviction of a felony or crime of moral turpitude; (4) intentional breach of anynon-disclosure ornon-competition/non-solicitation agreement with Mr. Bartholow,the Company or the Bank; (5) intentional failure to perform the duties and responsibilities required by the Anderson Agreement; (6) illegal use of drugs interfering with Ms. Anderson’s performance of her duties under the Anderson Agreement; (7) acceptance of other employment without permission; or (8) material breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Company.

If Ms. Anderson’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or upon notice, or Ms. Anderson terminates her employment for good reason, Ms. Anderson is entitled to a cash severance benefit of twelve months’ base salary plus her average annual cash bonus for the two preceding bonus plan years, and continued medical insurance benefits for twelve months following termination. If Ms. Anderson’s employment is terminated without cause or for good reason within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 18 months following a change in control of the Company, Ms. Anderson is entitled to a cash severance benefit equal to 2.5 times her average base salary and average cash bonus for the two preceding bonus plan years, and continued health and welfare benefits that are no less favorable than the benefits to which Ms. Anderson was entitled prior to thechange-in-control for a period of 18 months following termination. “Good reason” is defined as: (1) an assignment of duties that are functionally inferior to the duties set forth in the Anderson Agreement; (2) a change of employment location which is more than 50 miles from the Company’s current executive offices; (3) a reduction in salary, other than as part of a proportionate reduction affecting all other senior officers; or (4) the delivery by the Company of a notice ofnon-renewal of the Anderson Agreement in connection with certain change in control events.

As a means of providing protection to the Company’s stockholders, under certain adverse conditions such as dissolution, bankruptcy or a distressed sale of the Company’s assets or stock for the purpose of avoiding a bankruptcy proceeding or at the recommendation of regulatory authorities, the above described payments would not occur except for the cash payments described above that would be owing upon Ms. Anderson’s termination of employment due to death or disability, voluntary termination of employment or termination for cause. If the described adverse conditions occur and Ms. Anderson’s termination of employment is without cause or for good reason, the above described payments would be for a period of six months in lieu of twelve months.

The Anderson Agreement contains other terms and conditions, includingnon-competition andnon-solicitation provisions, confidentiality obligations and restrictions on Ms. Anderson’s ability to be involved with a competing state or national bank or company providing similar services with a place of business in Texas during her employment and for theone-year period following her termination or resignation.

Retirement Transition and Award Agreement between Mr. Hudgens and the Company

On August 6, 2018, the Company announced Mr. Hudgens’ planned retirement from the Company, which will become effective August 31, 2019 (the “Separation Date”). In connection with his retirement, Mr. Hudgens entered into a Retirement Transition and Award Agreement (the “Retirement Agreement”) with the Company that provides for Mr. Hudgens to receive the following compensation in connection with his retirement and continuation ofnon-competition andnon-solicitation obligations through February 28, 2021:

Mr. Hudgens will also receive certain health benefits for a period of 18 months following his retirement.

If Mr. Hudgens’ employment is terminated without cause or for disability prior to August 31, 2019, or upon death prior to the date that all Cash Separation Payments have been paid, Mr. Hudgens or his estate will be entitled to receive the Cash Separation Payments as set forth in the Retirement Agreement. If a change in control (as defined in the 2015 Plan) should occur prior to the Separation Date, in lieu of the amounts described above, Mr. Hudgens will be entitled to receive 2.5 times his average annual base salary and bonus in effect for the two years immediately preceding the change in control.

Mr. Hudgens is subject to an eighteen month restriction on his right to compete with, and solicit customers of, the Bank. If Mr. Hudgens violates these restrictions, he will forfeit any unpaid portion of the retirement benefits described above. Subject to the arrangements described above, Mr. Hudgens’s employment during 2018 continued to be subject to his Employment Agreement, the terms of which are substantially identical to those of the Ackerson Agreement described below.

Employment Agreement for Mr. Ackerson

The Company entered into an Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. Ackerson effective December 18, 2014. The Company’s Employment Agreement with Ms. Anderson, who became a named executive officer in fiscal 2015, is dated May 5, 20062014 (the “2006 Agreement”, which together with the 2014 Agreements is referred to as an “NEO“Ackerson Agreement”).

Each of the NEO AgreementsThe Ackerson Agreement has a term of one year and will be automatically renewed for successiveone-year terms unless notice ofnon-renewal is given by either party or unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and each provides for compensation including a base salary and participation in the annual incentive plan for key executives. Each of the executives is also eligible to receive grants of equity-based incentive compensation under our long-term incentive plans.

Each NEOThe Ackerson Agreement terminates upon the executive’s death or disability, upon the executive’s voluntary termination of employment or upon the executive’s termination for cause. Upon any such termination the executive would be entitled to his or her base salary,pro-rated through the termination date, any unpaid but accrued vacation benefits and any unreimbursed business expenses. “Cause” is defined substantially identically to the Cargill Agreement. Upon termination of the 2006 Agreement for death or disability, Ms. Anderson would receive the lesser of (i) the balance of her base salary remaining in the term of her Agreement or (ii) twelve months’ base salary.

The NEO Agreements provideAckerson Agreement provides for severance payments to the executive upon termination of the executive’s employment by us without cause or by the executive for good reason, at which time the executive is entitled to receive: (1) a cash payment equal to 12 months’ base salary as then in effect; (2) an amount equal to the average annual incentive paid to the executive for the two years preceding his or her termination; and (3) continued medical insurance benefits, at the Company’s expense, for a period of twelve months following termination. “Good reason” is defined substantially identically to the Cargill Agreement.

The NEO Agreements includeAckerson Agreement includes provisions relating to payments upon a change in control that are substantially identical to the terms of the Cargill Agreement, as well as protective provisions triggered under adverse conditions that limit the payments due to the NEOsMr. Ackerson andnon-competition andnon-solicitation provisions, confidentiality obligations and restrictions on the executive’s ability to be involved with a competing state or national bank.

Indemnification Arrangements

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and applicable Delaware law provide indemnification rights to our directors and officers. Our board of directors has granted broader rights to indemnity pursuant to Indemnification Agreements between the Company and each of its directors and NEOs. These indemnification arrangements may require us to, among other things, indemnify our officers and directors against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. These indemnification arrangements may also require us to advance any expenses incurred by our directors or officers as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. As of the date of this filing, there is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors, officers, employees or agents in which indemnification by us is sought, nor are we aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for indemnification. We have purchased a policy of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that insures our directors and officers against the cost of defense, settlement or payment of a judgment in certain circumstances.

Tax Implications of Executive Compensation

Although deductibility of compensation is preferred, tax deductibility is not a primary objective of our compensation programs. We believe that achieving our compensation objectives set forth above is more important than the benefit of tax deductibility and we reserve the right to maintain flexibility in how we compensate our executive officers, even if it may result in limiting the deductibility of amounts of compensation from time to time.

Report of the Human Resources Committee on the Compensation Discussion and Analysis

The Human Resources Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this Proxy Statement. Based on such review and discussion, the Human Resources Committee recommended to the board of directors that this Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement for filing with the SEC.

The ReportThis report is submitted by the Human Resources Committee of the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.

Dale W. Tremblay, ChairmanChair

Frederick B. Hegi, Jr.Elysia Holt Ragusa

Steven P. Rosenberg

2015, 2014 and 20132018 Summary Compensation Table*

20152018 All Other Compensation Table*Table

20152018 Grants of Plan Based Awards Table*