SSB 10-K Fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2012

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission file number 001-12669

SCBT FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(800) 277-2175
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates was $512,650,000 based on the closing sale price of $35.25 per share on June 30, 2012. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, all directors and executive officers of the registrant have been deemed affiliates. The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 28, 2013 was 17,008,389.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the Registrant's Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10 - 14 of this form 10-K.

Table of Contents

SCBT Financial Corporation
Index to Form 10-K

1

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

The disclosures set forth in this Report are qualified by Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and the section captioned "Forward-Looking Statements" in Part II, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Report and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this Report.

SCBT Financial Corporation ("SCBT" or the "Company"), headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, is a bank holding company incorporated in 1985 under the laws of South Carolina. We provide a wide range of banking services and products to our customers through our wholly-owned subsidiary, SCBT ("the Bank"), a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank that opened for business in 1934. Effective July 1, 2012, the Bank converted its national charter to a state charter and changed its name from SCBT, National Association to SCBT. We operate as NCBT, a division of the Bank, in Mecklenburg County of North Carolina; Community Bank & Trust ("CBT"), a division of the Bank, in northeast Georgia; and The Savannah Bank ("TSB"), a division of the Bank, in coastal Georgia. Minis & Company, Inc., is a registered investment advisory firm and a subsidiary of the Bank which provides asset and wealth management services along with our trust and investment services group.

SCBT is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. We coordinate the financial resources of the consolidated enterprise and thereby maintain financial, operation and administrative systems that allow centralized evaluation of subsidiary operations and coordination of selected policies and activities. SCBT's operating revenues and net income are derived primarily from cash dividends received from our Bank.

Our Bank provides a full range of retail and commercial banking services, mortgage lending services, trust and investment services, and consumer finance loans through 82 financial centers in 19 South Carolina counties, in Mecklenburg County of North Carolina, in 10 counties in North Georgia, and in 2 coastal Georgia counties. Our Bank has served the Carolinas for more than 78 years. At December 31, 2012, we had approximately $5.1 billion in assets, $3.6 billion in loans, $4.3 billion in deposits, $507.5 million in shareholders' equity, and market capitalization of approximately $680.5 million.

We began operating in 1934 in Orangeburg, South Carolina and have maintained our ability to provide superior customer service while also leveraging our size to offer many products more common to super-regional banks. We have pursued a growth strategy that relies primarily on organic growth, supplemented by the acquisition of select financial institutions or branches in certain market areas.

In recent years, we have continued to grow the business under our guiding principles of soundness, profitability and growth. Below are highlights of our expansion efforts over the past three years:

•

On February 19, 2013, SCBT and First Financial Holdings, Inc. ("First Financial"), a bank holding company headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina, entered into an agreement for First Financial to merge into SCBT. Under the terms of the merger agreement, subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals and other customary conditions, First Financial shareholders will receive 0.4237 shares of SCBT common stock for each outstanding share of First Financial common stock, subject to the payment of cash in lieu of fractional shares, and each outstanding share of First Financial Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A ("First Financial Preferred Stock"), will be converted into the right to receive one share of preferred stock of SCBT, to be designated Series A Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock and having such rights, preferences and privileges as are not materially less favorable than the rights, preferences and privileges of the First Financial Preferred Stock.

2

Table of Contents

•

On December 13, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. ("Savannah"), of Savannah, Georgia, the bank holding company for The Savannah Bank, N.A., Bryan Bank and Trust, and Minis & Company, Inc., a registered investment advisory firm. As of February 9, 2013, the Company had successfully completed the operational conversion of Savannah.



•

On April 24, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of Peoples Bancorporation, Inc. ("Peoples"), of Easley, South Carolina, the bank holding company for The Peoples National Bank ("PNB"), Bank of Anderson ("BOA"), and Seneca National Bank ("SNB").



•

On July 29, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the deposits, certain other borrowings, and certain assets of BankMeridian, a full service community bank headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, in a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") -assisted transaction. The transaction initially added three banking locations in total in Columbia, Spartanburg, and Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.



•

On February 18, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the deposits, certain other borrowings, and certain assets of Habersham, a full service Georgia-state-chartered community bank headquartered in Clarkesville, Georgia in a FDIC-assisted transaction. The transaction initially added eight banking locations in Northeast Georgia.



•

In November 2010, the Spartanburg Wealth Management office expanded its services to include a full-service branch.



•

On January 29, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of all of the deposits excluding brokered deposits, certain other borrowings, and certain assets of CBT, a full service Georgia-state-chartered community bank headquartered in Cornelia, Georgia in a FDIC-assisted transaction. The transaction initially added 38 locations, including 36 banking, one trust office, and one loan production office ("LPO") in Northeast Georgia. CBT operates as a division of SCBT.

Our principal executive offices are located at 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Our mailing address at this facility is Post Office Box 1030, Columbia, South Carolina 29202 and our telephone number is (800) 277-2175.

Withstanding Market Turbulence

Despite the turbulence in financial markets and the financial services industry, we believe that our credit quality measures continue to outperform those of the majority of our primary competitors in North and South Carolina and Georgia. We attribute this historical performance to sound credit underwriting, small loan balances, and risk selection, as well as our approach of hiring experienced financial services professionals in the markets in which we operate. Generally, hiring bankers in the markets in which we operate has enabled us to further our growth without experiencing significant credit quality related losses like many other financial institutions of similar size or that operate in our market areas.

Available Information

We provide our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on our website at www.scbtonline.com. These filings are made accessible as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). These filings are also accessible on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. In addition, we make available on our website (www.scbtonline.com) the following: (i) Corporate Governance Guidelines, (ii) Code of Conduct & Ethics, which applies to our directors and all employees, and (iii) the charters of the Audit,

3

Table of Contents

Compensation, Executive, Wealth Management and Trust, and Corporate Governance & Nominating Committees of our board of directors. These materials are available to the general public on our website free of charge. Printed copies of these materials are also available free of charge to shareholders who request them in writing. Please address your request to: Financial Management Division, SCBT Financial Corporation, 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Statements of beneficial ownership of equity securities filed by directors, officers, and 10% or greater shareholders under Section 16 of the Exchange Act are also available through our website, www.scbtonline.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

Territory Served and Competition

We serve customers and conduct our business through the Bank from 82 financial centers in 19 South Carolina counties, Mecklenburg County of North Carolina, ten northeast Georgia counties, and two coastal Georgia counties. NCBT, CBT, and TSB are divisions of SCBT. NCBT operates from 3 financial centers in Mecklenburg County of North Carolina; CBT operates from 19 financial centers in ten Northeast Georgia counties; and TSB operates from 7 financial centers in two coastal Georgia counties.

We compete in the highly competitive banking and financial services industry. Our profitability depends principally on our ability to effectively compete in the markets in which we conduct business. We expect competition in the industry to continue to increase as a result of consolidation among banking and financial services firms. Competition may further intensify as additional companies enter the markets where we conduct business and we enter mature markets in accordance with our expansion strategy.

We experience strong competition from both bank and non-bank competitors in certain markets. Broadly speaking, we compete with national banks, super-regional banks, smaller community banks, and non-traditional internet-based banks. We compete for deposits and loans with commercial banks, and credit unions. In addition, we compete with other financial intermediaries and investment alternatives such as mortgage companies, credit card issuers, leasing companies, finance companies, money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, governmental and corporation bonds, and other securities firms. Many of these non-bank competitors are not subject to the same regulatory oversight, affording them a competitive advantage in some instances. In many cases, our competitors have substantially greater resources, can provide higher lending limits, and offer certain services that we are unable to provide to our customers.

We encounter strong competition in making loans and attracting deposits. We compete with other financial institutions to offer customers competitive interest rates on deposit accounts, competitive interest rates charged on loans and other credit, and reasonable service charges. We believe our customers also consider the quality and scope of the services provided, the convenience of banking facilities, and relative lending limits in the case of loans to commercial borrowers. Our customers may also take into account the fact that other banks offer different services from those that we provide. The large national and super-regional banks may have significantly greater lending limits and may offer additional products. However, by emphasizing customer service and by providing a wide variety of services, we believe that SCBT has been able to compete successfully with our competitors, regardless of their size.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, our Bank had 1,324 full-time equivalent employees compared to 1,071 as of the same date in 2011. We consider our relationship with our employees instrumental to the success of our business. We provide most of our employees with a comprehensive employee benefit program which includes the following: group life, health and dental insurance, paid vacation, sick leave, educational opportunities, a cash incentive plan, a stock purchase plan, stock incentive, deferred

4

Table of Contents

compensation plans for officers and key employees, a defined benefit pension plan for employees hired on or before December 31, 2005 (except for employees acquired in the SunBank acquisition in November of 2005), and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Regulation and Supervision

As a financial institution, we operate under a regulatory framework. The framework outlines a regulatory environment applicable to financial holding companies, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries. Below, we have provided some specific information relevant to SCBT. The regulatory framework under which we operate is intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund and not for the protection of our security holders and creditors. To the extent that the following information describes statutory and regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions.

General

The current regulatory environment for financial institutions includes substantial enforcement activity by the federal banking agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC, and other state and federal law enforcement agencies, reflecting an increase in activity over prior years. This environment entails significant potential increases in compliance requirements and associated costs.

We are a bank holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and are subject to the supervision of, and to regular inspection by, the Federal Reserve Board. Our Bank is organized as a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank. It is subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the South Carolina State Board of Financial Institutions (the "SCBFI") and the FDIC. In addition, SCBT and our Bank are subject to regulation (and in certain cases examination) by other federal regulatory agencies, the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks, and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. The following discussion summarizes certain aspects of banking and other laws and regulations that affect SCBT and our Bank.

Under the Bank Holding Company Act (the "BHC Act"), our activities and those of our Bank are limited to banking, managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for our Bank, or any other activity which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. The BHC Act requires prior Federal Reserve Board approval for, among other things, the acquisition by a bank holding company of direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all the assets of any bank, or for a merger or consolidation of a bank holding company with another bank holding company. The BHC Act also prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any company engaged in a non-banking business unless such business is determined by the Federal Reserve Board to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Further, under South Carolina law, it is unlawful without the prior approval of the SCBFI for any South Carolina bank holding company (i) to acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank or any other bank holding company, (ii) to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a bank or any other bank holding company, or (iii) to merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amended a number of federal banking laws affecting SCBT and our Bank. In particular, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act permits a bank holding company to elect to become a "financial holding company," provided certain conditions are met. A financial holding company, and the companies it controls, are permitted to engage in activities considered "financial in nature" as defined by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Federal Reserve Board interpretations (including, without limitation, insurance and securities activities), and therefore may engage in a broader range of activities

5

Table of Contents

than permitted by bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. We remain a bank holding company, but may at some time in the future elect to become a financial holding company.

Interstate Banking

In July 1994, South Carolina enacted legislation which effectively provided that, after June 30, 1996, out-of-state bank holding companies may acquire other banks or bank holding companies in South Carolina, subject to certain conditions. Further, pursuant to the Riegel-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the "Interstate Banking and Branching Act"), a bank holding company became able to acquire banks in states other than its home state, beginning in September 1995, without regard to the permissibility of such acquisition under state law, subject to certain exceptions. The Interstate Banking and Branching Act also authorized banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches, unless a state, prior to the July 1, 1997 effective date, determined to "opt out" of coverage under this provision. In addition, the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act authorized a bank to open new branches in a state in which it does not already have banking operations if such state enacted a law permitting such "de novo" branching.

Effective July 1, 1996, South Carolina law was amended to permit interstate branching through acquisitions but not de novo branching by an out-of-state bank.

North Carolina opted-in to the provision of the Interstate Banking and Branching Act that allows out-of-state banks to branch into their state by establishing a de novo branch in the state, but only on a reciprocal basis. This means that an out-of-state bank could establish a de novo branch in North Carolina only if the home state of such bank would allow North Carolina banks (including national banks with their home office in North Carolina) to establish de novo branches in that home state under substantially the same terms as allowed in North Carolina. Because some states imposed greater limits on de novo branching by out-of-state banks, prior to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), this provided a limited barrier of entry into the North Carolina banking market.

Georgia did not opt-in to the provision allowing out-of-state banks to branch into their state. Therefore, prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, interstate merger was the only method through which a bank located outside of Georgia could branch into Georgia, which in effect provided a limited barrier of entry into the Georgia banking market.

On July 21, 2010, the U.S. President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act removes previous state law restrictions on de novo interstate branching in states such as South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. This change effectively permits out-of-state banks to open de novo branches in states where the laws of the state where the de novo to be opened would permit a bank chartered by that sate to open a de novo branch.

Obligations of Holding Company to its Subsidiary Banks

Under the policy of the Federal Reserve Board, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary depository institutions and to commit resources to support such institutions in circumstances where it otherwise might not desire or be able to do so. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 ("FDICIA"), to avoid receivership of its insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any insured depository institution subsidiary that may become "undercapitalized" within the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal banking agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution's total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized, or (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

6

Table of Contents

In addition, the "cross-guarantee" provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended ("FDIA"), require insured depository institutions under common control to reimburse the FDIC for any loss suffered or reasonably anticipated by the FDIC as a result of the default of a commonly controlled insured depository institution or for any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled insured depository institution in danger of default. The FDIC's claim for damages is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its holding company, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institutions.

The FDIA also provides that amounts received from the liquidation or other resolution of any insured depository institution by any receiver must be distributed (after payment of secured claims) to pay the deposit liabilities of the institution prior to payment of any other general or unsecured senior liability, subordinated liability, general creditor or shareholder. This provision would give depositors a preference over general and subordinated creditors and shareholders in the event a receiver is appointed to distribute the assets of our Bank.

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

Government Actions

The Congress, Treasury and the federal banking regulators have taken broad actions since September 2008 to address the volatility and disruption in the U.S. banking system. Several regulatory and governmental actions have been announced including:

•

In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the "EESA") was enacted. The EESA authorized Treasury to purchase from financial institutions and their holding companies up to $700 billion in mortgage loans, mortgage-related securities and certain other financial instruments, including debt and equity securities issued by financial institutions and their holding companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (the "TARP"). The Treasury also allocated $250 billion towards the TARP Capital Purchase Program (the "CPP"), pursuant to which the Treasury purchased debt or equity securities from participating institutions. Participants in the CPP are subject to executive compensation limits and are encouraged to expand their lending and mortgage loan modifications. The EESA also temporarily increased FDIC deposit insurance on most accounts from $100,000 to $250,000.

On January 16, 2009, pursuant to the CPP, SCBT sold 64,779 shares of Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series T (the "Series T Preferred Stock") and a warrant to acquire 303,083 shares of common stock (the "Warrant") to the Treasury for aggregate consideration of $64.8 million. On May 20, 2009, we entered into a repurchase letter agreement with the Treasury, pursuant to which we repurchased all 64,779 shares of its Series T Preferred Stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $64.8 million, which included accrued and unpaid dividends of approximately $45,000. On June 24, 2009, we entered into an agreement with the Treasury to repurchase the Warrant for a purchase price of $1.4 million. As a result of the Warrant repurchase, we have repurchased all securities issued to the Treasury under the CPP.

•

On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "Recovery Act") was signed into law in an effort to, among other things, create jobs and stimulate growth in the United States economy. The Recovery Act specifies appropriations of approximately $787 billion for a wide range of Federal programs and will increase or extend certain benefits payable under the Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and nutrition assistance programs. The Recovery Act also reduces individual and corporate income tax collections and makes a

7

Table of Contents

variety of other changes to tax laws. The Recovery Act also imposes certain limitations on compensation paid by participants in TARP.

•

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC issued a final rule to require banks to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 and to increase assessment rates effective on January 1, 2011.



•

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

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

•

On July 21, 2010, the U.S. President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act is intended to effect a fundamental restructuring of federal banking regulation. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates a new independent federal regulator to administer federal consumer protection laws. Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have delayed effective dates and the legislation requires various federal agencies to promulgate numerous and extensive implementing regulations over the next several years. Although the substance and scope of these regulations cannot be completely determined at this time, it is expected that the legislation and implementing regulations will increase our operating and compliance costs. The following discussion summarizes certain significant aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act:



•

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to apply consolidated capital requirements to depository institution holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions. Under these standards, trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets such as SCBT. The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

8

Table of Contents

•

The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the maximum deposit insurance amount for financial institutions to $250,000 per depositor, and extends unlimited deposit insurance to noninterest bearing transaction accounts through December 31, 2012. The Dodd-Frank Act also broadens the base for FDIC insurance assessments. Assessments will now be based on the average consolidated total assets less tangible equity capital of a financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to increase the reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund from 1.15% to 1.35% of insured deposits by 2020 and eliminates the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. Effective as of July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts.



•

The Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the date of enactment and at least every three years thereafter and on so-called "golden parachute" payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The new legislation also authorizes the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow shareholders to nominate their own candidates using a company's proxy materials. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion, regardless of whether the institution is publicly traded or not. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.



•

Effective as of July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a depository institution from converting from a state to federal charter or vice versa while it is the subject of a cease and desist order or other formal enforcement action or a memorandum of understanding with respect to a significant supervisory matter unless the appropriate federal banking agency gives notice of the conversion to the federal or state authority that issued the enforcement action and that agency does not object within 30 days. The notice must include a plan to address the significant supervisory matter. The converting institution must also file a copy of the conversion application with its current federal regulator which must notify the resulting federal regulator of any ongoing supervisory or investigative proceedings that are likely to result in an enforcement action and provide access to all supervisory and investigative information relating hereto.



•

As noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes national and state banks to establish branches in other states to the same extent as a bank chartered by that state would be permitted to branch. Previously, banks could only establish branches in other states if the host state expressly permitted out-of-state banks to establish branches in that state. Accordingly, banks will be able to enter new markets more freely.



•

Effective as of July 21, 2012, the Dodd-Frank Act expands the definition of affiliate for purposes of quantitative and qualitative limitations of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act to include mutual funds advised by a depository institution or its affiliates. The Dodd-Frank Act applies Section 23A and Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (governing transactions with insiders) to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider. Any such transactions with affiliates must be fully secured. Historically, an exception has existed that exempts covered transactions between depository institutions and their financial subsidiaries from the 10% of capital and surplus limitation set forth in Section 23A. However, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated this exception for covered

9

Table of Contents

transactions entered into after July 21, 2012. Effective as of July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act also prohibits an insured depository institution from purchasing an asset from or selling an asset to an insider unless the transaction is on market terms and, if representing more than 10% of capital, is approved in advance by the disinterested directors.

•

The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. Effective on October 1, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set new caps on interchange fees at $0.21 per transaction, plus an additional five basis-point charge per transaction to help cover fraud losses. An additional $0.01 per transaction is allowed if certain fraud-monitoring controls are in place. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, such as SCBT, the new restrictions could negatively impact bank card services income for smaller banks if the reductions that are required of larger banks cause industry-wide reduction of swipe fees.



•

The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB will have examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Depository institutions with less than $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank, will be subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but will continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB will have authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages, including a determination of the borrower's ability to repay. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, financial institutions may not make a residential mortgage loan unless they make a "reasonable and good faith determination" that the consumer has a "reasonable ability" to repay the loan. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act will allow borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a "qualified mortgage" as defined by the CFPB. On January 10, 2013, the CFPB published final rules to, among other things, define "qualified mortgage" and specify the types of income and assets that may be considered in the ability-to-repay determination, the permissible sources for verification, and the required methods of calculating the loan's monthly payments. For example, the rules extend the requirement that creditors verify and document a borrower's "income and assets" to include all "information" that creditors rely on in determining repayment ability. The rules also provide further examples of third-party documents that may be relied on for such verification, such as government records and check-cashing or funds-transfer service receipts. The new rules will take effect on January 10, 2014. The Dodd-Frank Act also permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Although it is likely that further regulatory actions may arise as the federal government continues to attempt to address the economic situation, we cannot predict the effect that fiscal or monetary policies, economic control, or new federal or state legislation may have on our business and earnings in the future.

10

Table of Contents

Capital Adequacy

The various federal bank regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, have adopted risk-based capital requirements for assessing bank holding company and bank capital adequacy. These standards define what qualifies as capital and establish minimum capital standards in relation to assets and off-balance sheet exposures, as adjusted for credit risks. Capital is classified into tiers. For bank holding companies, Tier 1 or "core" capital consists primarily of common and qualifying preferred shareholders' equity, less certain intangibles and other adjustments ("Tier 1 Capital"). Tier 2 capital consists primarily of the allowance for possible loan losses (subject to certain limitations) and certain subordinated and other qualifying debt ("Tier 2 Capital"). Tier 3 capital consists primarily of qualifying unsecured subordinated debt. A minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.00% is required and Tier 1 Capital must be at least 50% of total capital. The Federal Reserve Board also has adopted a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to adjusted average total assets (not risk-weighted) of 3%. The 3% Tier 1 Capital to average total assets ratio constitutes the leverage standard for bank holding companies and national banks, and is used in conjunction with the risk based ratio in determining the overall capital adequacy of banking organizations.

The Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have emphasized that the foregoing standards are supervisory minimums and that an institution would be permitted to maintain such levels of capital only if it had a composite rating of "1" under the regulatory rating systems for bank holding companies and banks. All other bank holding companies are required to maintain a leverage ratio of 3% plus at least 1% to 2% of additional capital. These rules further provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels and comparable to peer group averages, without significant reliance on intangible assets. The Federal Reserve Board continues to consider a "tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio" in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities. The tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio is the ratio of a banking organization's Tier 1 Capital less all intangibles, to total assets, less all intangibles. The Federal Reserve Board has not advised us of any specific minimum leverage ratio applicable to SCBT.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, SCBT and the Bank had the following leverage ratios and total risk-based capital ratios:

As noted above, provisions within the Dodd-Frank Act prohibit institutions that had more than $15 billion in assets on December 31, 2009 from including trust preferred securities ("TRUPs") as Tier 1 capital beginning in 2013. One-third will be phased out over the next two years ending in 2015. Financial institutions with less than $15 billion in total assets, such as SCBT, may continue to include their TRUPs issued prior to May 19, 2010 in Tier 1 capital, but cannot include in Tier 1 capital TRUPs issued after such date.

11

Table of Contents

The FDICIA, among other items, identifies five capital categories for insured depository institutions (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized) and requires the respective Federal regulatory agencies to implement systems for "prompt corrective action" for insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements within such categories. The FDICIA also imposes progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified. Failure to meet the capital guidelines could also subject a banking institution to capital raising requirements. An "undercapitalized" bank must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee the undercapitalized bank's compliance with the plan (see "Obligations of Holding Company to its Subsidiary Banks," above). In addition, the FDICIA requires the various regulatory agencies to prescribe certain non-capital standards for safety and soundness relating generally to operations and management, asset quality, and executive compensation. The FDICIA permits regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

The various regulatory agencies have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five capital categories identified by the FDICIA, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital, and Tier 1 leverage ratios as the relevant capital measures. Such regulations establish various degrees of corrective action to be taken when an institution is considered undercapitalized. Under the regulations, an institution will be categorized as:

•

"Well-capitalized" if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any order or written directive by any such regulatory authority to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.



•

"Adequately-capitalized" if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater, and is not categorized as well-capitalized.



•

"Undercapitalized" if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0%, or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%.



•

"Significantly-undercapitalized" if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0%, or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%.



•

"Critically-undercapitalized" if the institution's tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets.

Under these guidelines, our Bank is considered "well capitalized."

Banking agencies have also adopted final regulations which mandate that regulators take into consideration (i) concentration of credit risk, (ii) interest rate risk (when the interest rate sensitivity of an institution's assets does not match the sensitivity of its liabilities or its off-balance-sheet position), and (iii) risks from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution's ability to manage those risks, when determining the adequacy of an institution's capital. That evaluation will be made as a part of the institution's regular safety and soundness examination. In addition, the banking agencies have amended their regulatory capital guidelines to incorporate a measure for market risk. In accordance with the amended guidelines, if we were to engage in significant trading activity (as defined in the amended capital guidelines) we must incorporate a measure for market risk in our respective regulatory capital calculations effective for reporting periods after January 1, 1998.

In December 2010, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international forum for cooperation on banking supervisory matters, announced the "Basel III" capital rules, which set new capital requirements for banking organizations. The Basel III final capital framework, among other things, (i) introduces as a new capital measure called "Common Equity Tier 1" ("CET1"), (ii) specifies

12

Table of Contents

that Tier 1 capital consist of CET1 and "Additional Tier 1 capital" instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) defines CET1 narrowly by requiring that most adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expands the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

If fully phased in on January 1, 2019, Basel III would require certain banks to maintain (i) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% "capital conservation buffer" (which is added to the 4.5% CET1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7% upon full implementation), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of Total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation) and (iv) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum leverage ratio of 3%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to balance sheet exposures plus certain off-balance sheet exposures (as the average for each quarter of the month-end ratios for the quarter).

Basel III also calls for a "countercyclical capital buffer," generally to be imposed when bank regulatory agencies determine that excess aggregate credit growth has become associated with a buildup of systemic risk, that would be a CET1 add-on to the capital conservation buffer in the range of 0% to 2.5% when fully implemented (potentially resulting in total buffers of between 2.5% and 5%).

The aforementioned capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

Upon the effective date of the Basel III capital rules, affected banking institutions will be required to meet the following minimum capital ratios:

•

3.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets;



•

4.5% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets; and



•

8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets.

Management believes that, as of December 31, 2012, SCBT and its Bank would have met all capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III capital framework on a fully phased-in basis if such requirements were currently effective.

The Basel III final framework provides for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1. Under current capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in capital are excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel III capital framework, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded, which could result in significant variations in level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of an institution's securities portfolio.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 is anticipated to begin on January 1, 2014 and to be phased-in over a five-year period (20% per year). The implementation of the

13

Table of Contents

capital conservation buffer is anticipated to begin on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and be phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019).

On June 7, 2012, the Federal Reserve requested comment on three proposed rules that, taken together, would establish an integrated regulatory capital framework implementing the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in the United States. The proposed rules indicated that the final rule would become effective on January 1, 2013, and the changes set forth in the final rules will be phased in from January 1, 2013 through January 1, 2019. However, due to the volume of public comments received, the final rule did not go into effect on January 1, 2013. The ultimate impact of the U.S. implementation of the new capital and liquidity standards on SCBT and the Bank is currently being reviewed and is dependent upon the terms of the final regulations, which may differ from the proposed regulations. At this point we cannot determine the ultimate effect that any final regulations, if enacted, would have upon our earnings or financial position. In addition, important questions remain as to how the numerous capital and liquidity mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act will be integrated with the requirements of Basel III.

Payment of Dividends

SCBT is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve Board's view that a bank holding company generally should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the holding company's net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company's capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve Board also indicated that it would be inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends. Funds for cash distributions to our shareholders are derived primarily from dividends received from our Bank. Our Bank is subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends. Any restriction on the ability of our Bank to pay dividends will indirectly restrict the ability of SCBT to pay dividends.

SCBT pays cash dividends to shareholders from its assets, which are mainly provided by dividends from the Bank. However, certain restrictions exist regarding the ability of its subsidiary to transfer funds to the Company in form of cash dividends, loans or advances. The approval of the South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions ("SCBFI") is required to pay dividends that exceed current year's net income. During 2012 and in conjunction with the acquisition of Peoples, the Bank paid a special dividend of $13.425 million to SCBT to allow for the redemption of Peoples preferred stock (TARP). This special dividend along with a special dividend used to pay certain obligations assumed from the Savannah acquisition resulted in the Bank paying dividends that almost exceeded current year net income. During January 2013, the Bank requested and received approval, from the SCBFI, to pay a special dividend of $5.0 million to SCBT in order to provide working capital and the funds needed to pay the quarterly dividend to its shareholders in February of 2013. It is expected that no special dividend approval will be needed from the SCBFI during the remainder of 2013. The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC have issued policy statements which provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

In addition to the foregoing, the ability of SCBT and the Bank to pay dividends may be affected by the various minimum capital requirements and the capital and non-capital standards established under the FDICIA, as described above. The right of SCBT, its shareholders, and its creditors to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of its subsidiary is further subject to the prior claims of creditors of our Bank.

14

Table of Contents

Certain Transactions by SCBT and its Affiliates

Various legal limitations place restrictions on the ability of the Bank to lend or otherwise supply funds to SCBT and its affiliate. The Federal Reserve Act limits a bank's "covered transactions," which include extensions of credit, with any affiliate to 10% of such bank's capital and surplus. Historically, an exception has existed that exempts covered transactions between depository institutions and their financial subsidiaries from the 10% of capital and surplus limitation. However, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated this exception for covered transactions entered into after July 21, 2012. All covered transactions with its affiliate cannot in the aggregate exceed 20% of a bank's capital and surplus. All covered and exempt transactions between a bank and its affiliate must be on terms and conditions consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and banks and their subsidiaries are prohibited from purchasing low-quality assets from the bank's affiliate. Effective as of July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act also prohibits an insured depository institution from purchasing an asset from or selling an asset to an insider unless the transaction is on market terms and, if representing more than 10% of capital, is approved in advance by the disinterested directors. In addition, the Federal Reserve Act requires that all of a bank's extensions of credit to an affiliate be appropriately secured by acceptable collateral, generally United States government or agency securities. In addition, the Federal Reserve Act limits covered and other transactions among affiliates to terms and circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same or at least as favorable to a bank holding company, a bank or a subsidiary of either as prevailing at the time for transactions with unaffiliated companies.

Insurance of Deposits

Deposits at our Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. The Deposit Insurance Fund is the successor to the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, which were merged effective March 31, 2006. As insurer, the FDIC imposes deposit insurance premiums and is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by FDIC insured institutions. It also may prohibit any FDIC insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious risk to the insurance fund.

In November 2009, the FDIC published a final rule to require FDIC insured banks to prepay the fourth quarter assessment and the next three years assessment by December 31, 2009. The calculation of the prepaid assessment provides for a 5% growth rate assumption in the deposit base and a 3 basis point increase in FDIC assessments in 2011 and 2012. Therefore, if deposits grow quicker than 5%, our quarterly expense in the future will increase compared to previous periods. At December 31, 2012, the Company had a prepaid assessment to the FDIC of $2.8 million compared to $3.4 million at December 31, 2011. During 2012, the balance increased due to the acquisition of both Peoples and Savannah by a total of $2.6 million. After March 30, 2013, any remaining prepaid assessment will be refunded by the FDIC on June 28, 2013.

FDIC insured institutions are required to pay a Financing Corporation assessment to fund the interest on bonds issued to resolve thrift failures in the 1980s. These assessments, which may be revised based upon the level of deposits, will continue until the bonds mature in the years 2017 through 2019.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including our Bank, if it determines after a hearing that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board. It also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of insurance, if the institution has no tangible capital. If insurance of accounts is terminated, the accounts at the institution at the time of the termination, less subsequent withdrawals, shall continue to be insured for a period of six months to two years, as determined by the FDIC. Management is not aware of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of the Bank's deposit insurance.

15

Table of Contents

International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

On October 26, 2001, the President signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 into law. This act contains the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (the "IMLAFA"). The IMLAFA contains anti-money laundering measures affecting insured depository institutions, broker-dealers, and certain other financial institutions. The IMLAFA requires U.S. financial institutions to adopt new policies and procedures to combat money laundering. Further, the Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to establish regulations and to impose requirements and restrictions on financial institution's operations. We have adopted policies and procedures to comply with the provisions of the IMLAFA.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC"), which is a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for helping to insure that United States entities do not engage in transactions with "enemies" of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC has sent, and will send, our banking regulatory agencies lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts. If the bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze such account, file a suspicious activity report and notify the FBI. The bank has appointed an OFAC compliance officer to oversee the inspection of its accounts and the filing of any notifications. The bank actively checks high-risk OFAC areas such as new accounts, wire transfers and customer files. The bank performs these checks utilizing software, which is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

Incentive Compensation

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

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

Other Laws and Regulations

Interest and certain other charges collected or contracted for by our bank is subject to state usury laws and certain federal laws concerning interest rates. Our bank's operations are also subject to certain federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as the following:

•

Federal Truth-In-Lending Act, which governs disclosures of credit terms to consumer borrowers,

16

Table of Contents

•

Community Reinvestment Act requiring financial institutions to meet their obligations to provide for the total credit needs of the communities they serve (which includes the investment of assets in loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers),



•

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



•

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



•

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



•

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



•

Rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing such federal laws.

The deposit operations of our bank is also subject to the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribes procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E issued by the Federal Reserve Board to implement that act, which govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers' rights and liabilities arising from the use of automated teller machines and other electronic banking services.

From time to time, bills come before the United States Congress and in the North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia state legislatures that in certain cases contain wide-ranging proposals for altering the structure, regulation, and competitive relationships of financial institutions. Among such bills are proposals to prohibit banks and bank holding companies from conducting certain types of activities, to subject banks to increased disclosure and reporting requirements, to alter the statutory separation of commercial and investment banking, and to further expand the powers of banks, bank holding companies and competitors of banks. We cannot predict whether or in what form any of these proposals will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected.

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Banking is a business that depends largely on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest we pay on our deposits and other borrowings, and the interest we receive on our loans and securities holdings, constitutes the major portion of our bank's earnings. Thus, our earnings and growth will be subject to the influence of economic conditions generally, both domestic and foreign, and also to the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States and its agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates, among other things, the supply of money through various means, including open-market dealings in United States government securities, the discount rate at which banks may borrow from the Federal Reserve Board, and the reserve requirements on deposits. We cannot predict the nature and timing of any changes in such policies and their impact on our business.

Proposed Legislation and Regulatory Action

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and

17

Table of Contents

the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or the Bank could have a material effect on the business of the Company.

Executive Officers of SCBT

Executive officers of SCBT are elected by the board of directors annually and serve at the pleasure of the board of directors. The executive officers and their ages, positions over the past five years, and terms of office as of February 28, 2013, are as follows:

None of the above officers are related and there are no arrangements or understandings between them and any other person pursuant to which any of them was elected as an officer, other than arrangements or understandings with the directors or officers of SCBT acting solely in their capacities as such.

18

Table of Contents

Our business operations and the value of securities issued by us may be adversely affected by certain risk factors, many of which are outside of our control. We believe the risk factors listed could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. We may also be adversely affected by additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that we currently believe are immaterial to our business operations. If any of such risks actually occur, you could lose part or all of your investment. This Report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.

General Business Risks

Negative developments in the financial industry, the domestic and international credit markets, and the economy in general may adversely affect our operations and results.

Negative developments that began in the latter half of 2007 and that have continued since then in the global credit and securitization markets have resulted in unprecedented volatility and disruption in the financial markets and a general economic downturn. As a result of this "credit crunch," commercial as well as consumer loan portfolio performances have shown deterioration at our Bank and at many other institutions and the competition for deposits and quality loans has increased significantly. In addition, the values of real estate collateral supporting many commercial loans and home mortgages have declined, however, we have seen some stability returning to the market place. Global securities markets, and financial institution and financial institution holding company stock prices in particular, have been negatively affected, as has the ability of financial institutions and their holding companies to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets. As a result, significant new federal laws and regulations relating to financial institutions, including, without limitation, the EESA, the Recovery Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act, have been adopted. There can be no assurance that these government actions will achieve their purpose. Furthermore, the potential exists for additional federal or state laws and regulations regarding, among other matters, lending and funding practices and liquidity standards, and bank regulatory agencies are expected to continue to be active in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations, including the issuance of additional formal enforcement orders. Negative developments in the financial industry, the domestic and international credit markets, and the economy in general and the impact of new legislation in response to those developments, may negatively impact our operations by restricting our business operations, including our ability to originate or sell loans, and materially and adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition. We can provide no assurance regarding the manner in which any new laws and regulations will affect us.

There can be no assurance that recently enacted legislation will help stabilize the U.S. financial system.

In response to the challenges facing the financial services sector, a number of regulatory and legislative actions have been enacted or announced. There can be no assurance that these government actions will achieve their purpose. The terms and costs of these activities, or the failure of these actions to help stabilize the financial markets, asset prices, market liquidity and a continuation or worsening of current financial market and economic conditions, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and the price of our common stock.

Our estimated allowance for loan losses may be inadequate and an increase in the allowance would reduce earnings.

We are exposed to the risk that our customers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans will not be sufficient to ensure full repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the lending business and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and ability to meet obligations. The volatility and deterioration in foreign and domestic markets may also increase our risk for credit losses. The composition of our loan

19

Table of Contents

portfolio, primarily secured by real estate, reduces loss exposure. At December 31, 2012, we had approximately 13,113 of non-acquired loans secured by real estate with an average loan balance of approximately $166,000. At December 31, 2012, we had approximately 24,978 total non-acquired loans with an average loan balance of approximately $102,000. We evaluate the collectability of our loan portfolio and provide an allowance for loan losses that we believe to be adequate based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: the risk characteristics of various classifications of loans, previous loan loss experience, specific loans that have loss potential, delinquency trends, estimated fair market value of the collateral, current economic conditions, the views of our regulators, and geographic and industry loan concentrations. If our evaluation is incorrect and borrower defaults cause losses that exceed our allowance for loan losses, our earnings could be significantly and adversely affected. These risks have been exacerbated by the recent developments in national and international financial markets and the economy in general. No assurance can be given that the allowance will be adequate to cover loan losses inherent in our portfolio. We may experience losses in our loan portfolios or perceive adverse conditions and trends that may require us to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses in the future, a decision that would reduce earnings.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, and events that negatively impact the real estate market could hurt our business.

A significant portion of our non-acquired loan portfolio is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2012, approximately 84.4% of our loans had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. We have identified credit concerns with respect to certain loans in our loan portfolio which are primarily related to the downturn in the real estate market. The real estate market has been substantially impacted by the current economic environment, increased levels of inventories of unsold homes, and higher foreclosure rates. As a result, property values for this type of collateral have declined substantially and market appraisal assumptions continue to trend downward significantly. These loans carry a higher degree of risk than long-term financing of existing real estate since repayment is dependent on the ultimate completion of the project or home and usually on the sale of the property or permanent financing. Slow housing conditions have affected some of these borrowers' ability to sell the completed projects in a timely manner, and we believe that these trends are likely to continue. In some cases, this downturn has resulted in impairment to the value of our collateral and our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure. Further deterioration in the real estate market may cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. Such a determination may lead to an additional increase in our provisions for loan losses, which could also adversely impact our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are exposed to higher credit risk by commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction lending.

Commercial real estate, commercial business and construction lending usually involves higher credit risks than that of single-family residential lending. These types of loans involve larger loan balances to a single borrower or groups of related borrowers. Commercial real estate loans may be affected to a greater extent than residential loans by adverse conditions in real estate markets or the economy because commercial real estate borrowers' ability to repay their loans depends on successful development of their properties, as well as the factors affecting residential real estate borrowers. These loans also involve greater risk because they generally are not fully amortizing over the loan period, but have a balloon payment due at maturity. A borrower's ability to make a balloon payment typically will depend on being able to either refinance the loan or sell the underlying property in a timely manner.

Risk of loss on a construction loan depends largely upon whether our initial estimate of the property's value at completion of construction equals or exceeds the cost of the property construction (including interest) and the availability of permanent take-out financing. During the construction phase,

20

Table of Contents

a number of factors can result in delays and cost overruns. If estimates of value are inaccurate or if actual construction costs exceed estimates, the value of the property securing the loan may be insufficient to ensure full repayment when completed through a permanent loan or by seizure of collateral.

Commercial business loans are typically based on the borrowers' ability to repay the loans from the cash flow of their businesses. These loans may involve greater risk because the availability of funds to repay each loan depends substantially on the success of the business itself. In addition, the collateral securing the loans have the following characteristics: (i) depreciate over time, (ii) difficult to appraise and liquidate, and (iii) fluctuate in value based on the success of the business.

Commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction loans are more susceptible to a risk of loss during a downturn in the business cycle. Our underwriting, review, and monitoring cannot eliminate all of the risks related to these loans.

As of December 31, 2012, our outstanding commercial real estate loans were equal to 118.3% of our total risk-based capital. The banking regulators are giving commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement enhanced underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

Repayment of our commercial business loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrower, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value.

Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower's cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor.

Our business is predominately in three states, South Carolina, Mecklenburg County of North Carolina, Northeast Georgia, and coastal Georgia; therefore, continuation of the economic downturn in South Carolina, this North Carolina County, Northeast Georgia, and coastal Georgia could negatively impact results from operations and our financial condition.

Because of our concentration of business in the Southeast, continuation of the economic downturn in this region could make it more difficult to attract deposits and could cause higher rates of loss and delinquency on our loans than if the loans were more geographically diversified. Adverse economic conditions in these regions, including, without limitation, declining real estate values, could cause our levels of non-performing assets and loan losses to increase. If the economic downturn continues or a prolonged economic recession occurs in the economy as a whole, borrowers will be less likely to repay their loans as scheduled. A continued economic downturn could, therefore, result in losses that materially and adversely affect our business.

21

Table of Contents

Liquidity needs could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The primary sources of our bank's funds are client deposits and loan repayments. While scheduled loan repayments are a relatively stable source of funds, they are subject to the ability of borrowers to repay the loans. The ability of borrowers to repay loans can be adversely affected by a number of factors, including changes in economic conditions, adverse trends or events affecting business industry groups, reductions in real estate values or markets, business closings or lay-offs, inclement weather, natural disasters, which could be exacerbated by potential climate change, and international instability. Additionally, deposit levels may be affected by a number of factors, including rates paid by competitors, general interest rate levels, regulatory capital requirements, returns available to clients on alternative investments and general economic conditions. Accordingly, we may be required from time to time to rely on secondary sources of liquidity to meet withdrawal demands or otherwise fund operations. Such sources include Federal Home Loan Bank advances, sales of securities and loans, and federal funds lines of credit from correspondent banks, as well as out-of-market time deposits. While we believe that these sources are currently adequate, there can be no assurance they will be sufficient to meet future liquidity demands, particularly if we continue to grow and experience increasing loan demand. We may be required to slow or discontinue loan growth, capital expenditures or other investments or liquidate assets should such sources not be adequate.

SCBT's acquisition of Savannah may present certain risks to SCBT's business and operations.

On December 13, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of Savannah, the bank holding company for The Savannah Bank, N.A. and Bryan Bank and Trust. The acquisition presents the following risks, among others:

•

the possibility that expected benefits may not materialize in the timeframe expected or at all, or may be more costly to achieve;



•

that SCBT's and Savannah's respective businesses may not perform as expected due to transaction-related uncertainty or other factors;



•

that the parties are unable to successfully implement integration strategies, due to challenges associated with integrating complex systems, technology, banking centers, and other assets of Savannah in a manner that minimizes any adverse effect on customers, suppliers, employees, and other constituencies and integrating Savannah's workforce while maintaining focus on providing consistent, high quality customer service;



•

reputational risks and the reaction of the companies' customers to the transaction; and



•

the acquisition may require diversion of the attention of SCBT's management and other key employees from ongoing business activities, including the pursuit of other opportunities that could be beneficial to SCBT.

We may make future acquisitions, which could dilute current shareholders' stock ownership and expose us to additional risks.

In accordance with our strategic plan, we regularly evaluate opportunities to acquire other banks and branch locations to expand SCBT, including potential acquisitions of assets and liabilities of target banks that are in receivership through the FDIC bid process for failed institutions as described below. Our acquisition activities could be material to SCBT. For example, as is the case of our proposed acquisition of First Financial announced on February 20, 2013, we could issue additional shares of common stock as consideration in an acquisition, which could dilute shareholders' ownership interest in SCBT. Acquisition activities could also require us to use a substantial amount of cash or other liquid assets or to incur debt. In addition, if goodwill recorded in connection with our prior or potential future acquisitions were determined to be impaired, then we would be required to recognize a charge

22

Table of Contents

against our earnings, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations during the period in which the impairment was recognized. Any potential charges for impairment related to goodwill would not impact cash flow, tangible capital or liquidity.

Our acquisition activities, including our proposed acquisition of First Financial, could involve a number of additional risks, including the risks of:

•

the possibility that expected benefits may not materialize in the timeframe expected or at all, or may be more costly to achieve;



•

incurring the time and expense associated with identifying and evaluating potential acquisitions and merger partners and negotiating potential transactions, resulting in management's attention being diverted from the operation of our existing business;



•

using inaccurate estimates and judgments to evaluate credit, operations, management, and market risks with respect to the target institution or assets;



•

incurring the time and expense required to integrate the operations and personnel of the combined businesses;



•

the possibility that we will be unable to successfully implement integration strategies, due to challenges associated with integrating complex systems, technology, banking centers, and other assets of the acquired bank in a manner that minimizes any adverse effect on customers, suppliers, employees, and other constituencies;



•

the possibility that the acquisition may not be timely completed, if at all;



•

creating an adverse short-term effect on our results of operations; and



•

losing key employees and customers as a result of an acquisition that is poorly received.

If we do not successfully manage these risks, our acquisition activities could have a material effect on our operating results and financial condition, including short and long-term liquidity.

Any acquisition of assets and liabilities of target banks that are in receivership through the FDIC bid process for failed institutions requires us, through our Bank, to enter into a Purchase & Assumption Agreement (the "P&A Agreement") with the FDIC. The P&A Agreement is a form document prepared by the FDIC, and our ability to negotiate the terms of this agreement is extremely limited. P&A Agreements typically provide for limited disclosure about, and limited indemnification for, risks associated with the target banks (as did the P&A Agreement related to our acquisition of deposits (excluding brokered deposits), certain other borrowings and certain assets from CBT, Habersham, and BankMeridian). There is a risk that such disclosure regarding, and indemnification for, the assets and liabilities of target banks will not be sufficient and we will incur unanticipated losses in connection with any acquisition of assets and liabilities of target banks that are in receivership through the FDIC bid process for failed institutions. In any future P&A Agreements, we may be required to make an additional payment to the FDIC under certain circumstances following the completion of an FDIC-assisted acquisition if, for example, actual losses related to the target bank's assets acquired are less than a stated threshold. The P&A Agreements related to our acquisitions of deposits (excluding brokered deposits), certain borrowings and certain assets from CBT, Habersham, and BankMeridian; include such a true-up provision.

In addition, the FDIC bid process for failed depository institutions is competitive. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be successful in bidding for any target bank or for other failed depository institutions in the future.

23

Table of Contents

We may be exposed to difficulties in combining the operations of acquired businesses into our own operations, which may prevent us from achieving the expected benefits from our acquisition activities.

We may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies that we anticipate in our acquisition activities, including our completed acquisition of Savannah and our proposed acquisition of First Financial. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired business. In addition, the markets and industries in which SCBT and our potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. We may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition. We also may lose key personnel from the acquired entity as a result of an acquisition. We may not discover all known and unknown factors when examining a company for acquisition during the due diligence period. These factors could produce unintended and unexpected consequences for us. Undiscovered factors as a result of acquisition, pursued by non-related third party entities, could bring civil, criminal, and financial liabilities against us, our management, and the management of those entities acquired. These factors could contribute to SCBT not achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions within desired time frames.

New or acquired banking office facilities and other facilities may not be profitable.

We may not be able to identify profitable locations for new banking offices. The costs to start up new banking offices or to acquire existing branches, and the additional costs to operate these facilities, may increase our non-interest expense and decrease our earnings in the short term. If branches of other banks become available for sale, we may acquire those offices. It may be difficult to adequately and profitably manage our growth through the establishment or purchase of additional banking offices and we can provide no assurance that any such banking offices will successfully attract enough deposits to offset the expenses of their operation. In addition, any new or acquired banking offices will be subject to regulatory approval, and there can be no assurance that we will succeed in securing such approval.

Our ability to continue to receive the benefits of our loss share arrangements with the FDIC is conditioned upon our compliance with certain requirements under the agreements.

We are the beneficiary of loss share agreements with the FDIC that call for the FDIC to fund a portion of our losses on a majority of the assets we acquired in connection with our recent FDIC-assisted transactions. To recover a portion of our losses and retain the loss share protection, we must comply with certain requirements imposed by the agreements. The requirements of the agreements relate primarily to our administration of the assets covered by the agreements, as well as our obtaining the consent of the FDIC to engage in certain corporate transactions that may be deemed under the agreements to constitute a transfer of the loss share benefits. For example, among other transactions, the following transactions require the consent of the FDIC:

•

any merger or consolidation of SCBT in which our shareholders will own less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66.66%) of the equity of the consolidated entity, or



•

any sale of shares of our common stock, or securities convertible into our common stock, by one or more shareholders that will effect a change in control of SCBT, as determined by the FDIC with reference to the standards under the Change in Bank Control Act.

When the consent of the FDIC is required under the loss share agreements, the FDIC may withhold its consent or may condition its consent on terms that we do not find acceptable. If the FDIC does not grant its consent to a transaction we would like to pursue, or conditions its consent on terms that we do not find acceptable, we may be unable to engage in a corporate transaction that might otherwise benefit our shareholders or we may elect to pursue such a transaction without obtaining the FDIC's consent, which could result in termination of our loss share agreements with the FDIC.

Additionally, the loss sharing agreements have limited terms; therefore, any charge-off of related losses after the term of the loss sharing agreements will not be reimbursed by the FDIC and will negatively impact our net income.

24

Table of Contents

Our loss sharing arrangements with the FDIC will not cover all of our losses on loans we acquired through the acquisition of CBT, Habersham and BankMeridian.

Although we have entered into loss share agreements with the FDIC that provide that the FDIC will bear a significant portion of losses related to specified loan portfolios that we acquired through the acquired banks, we are not protected for all losses resulting from charge-offs with respect to those specified loan portfolios. Additionally, the loss sharing agreements have limited terms (10 years for losses on single-family residential real estate loans, as defined by the FDIC, five years for losses on non-residential real estate loans, as defined by the FDIC, and eight years with respect to recoveries on non-residential real estate loans). Therefore, the FDIC will not reimburse us for any charge-off or related losses that we experience after the term of the loss share agreements, and any such charge-offs would negatively impact our net income. Moreover, the loss share provisions in the loss share agreement may be administered improperly, or the FDIC may interpret those provisions in a way different than we do. In any of those events, our losses could increase.

The FDIC requires that we make a "true-up" payment to the FDIC if our realized losses are less than expected.

The loss share agreements between the bank and the FDIC with respect to CBT, Habersham and BankMeridian each contain a provision that obligates us to make a "true-up" payment to the FDIC if the realized losses of each of these acquired banks are less than expected. The "true-up" calculation is scheduled to be made as of the 45th day following the last day of the calendar month of the tenth anniversary of the closing of the acquisitions of the acquired banks. Any such "true-up" payment that is materially higher than current estimates could have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to a need for additional capital resources for the future and these capital resources may not be available when needed or at all.

We may need to incur additional debt or equity financing in the future to make strategic acquisitions or investments or to strengthen our capital position. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired. In addition, if we decide to raise additional equity capital, our current shareholders' interests could be diluted.

Our net interest income may decline based on the interest rate environment.

We depend on our net interest income to drive profitability. Differences in volume, yields or interest rates and differences in income earning products such as interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities determine our net interest income. We are exposed to changes in general interest rate levels and other economic factors beyond our control. Net interest income may decline in a particular period if:

•

In a declining interest rate environment, more interest-earning assets than interest-bearing liabilities re-price or mature, or



•

In a rising interest rate environment, more interest-bearing liabilities than interest-earning assets re-price or mature, or



•

For acquired loans, expected total cash flows have decline.

25

Table of Contents

Our net interest income may decline based on our exposure to a difference in short-term and long-term interest rates. If the difference between the interest rates shrinks or disappear, the difference between rates paid on deposits and received on loans could narrow significantly resulting in a decrease in net interest income. In addition to these factors, if market interest rates rise rapidly, interest rate adjustment caps may limit increases in the interest rates on adjustable rate loans, thus reducing our net interest income. Also, certain adjustable rate loans re-price based on lagging interest rate indices. This lagging effect may also negatively impact our net interest income when general interest rates continue to rise periodically.

Our primary policy for managing interest rate risk exposure involves monitoring exposure to interest rate increases and decreases of as much as 200 basis points ratably over a 12-month period. As of December 31, 2012, the earnings simulations indicated that the impact of a 200 basis point increase in rates over 12 months would result in an approximate 2.1% increase in net interest income—as compared with a forward-rate curve interest rate scenario as the base case. As a result of the current rate environment with federal funds rates between zero and 25 basis points, simulation analysis does not produce a realistic scenario for the impact of a 200 basis point decrease in rates. These results indicate that our rate sensitivity is somewhat asset sensitive to the indicated change in interest rates over a one-year horizon.

We may not be able to adequately anticipate and respond to changes in market interest rates.

We may be unable to anticipate changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control including but not limited to inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, monetary policy, and other changes that affect financial markets both domestic and foreign. Our net interest income is affected not only by the level and direction of interest rates, but also by the shape of the yield curve and relationships between interest sensitive instruments and key driver rates, as well as balance sheet growth, customer loan and deposit preferences, and the timing of changes in these variables. In the event rates increase, our interest costs on liabilities may increase more rapidly than our income on interest earning assets, thus a deterioration of net interest margins. As such, fluctuations in interest rates could have significant adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the possibility that more prepayments may be made by customers to pay down loan balances, which could reduce our interest income and profitability.

Prepayment rates stem from consumer behavior, conditions in the housing and financial markets, general United States economic conditions, and the relative interest rates on fixed-rate and adjustable-rate loans. Therefore, changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Recognition of deferred loan origination costs and premiums paid in originating these loans are normally recognized over the contractual life of each loan. As prepayments occur, the rate at which net deferred loan origination costs and premiums are expensed will accelerate. The effect of the acceleration of deferred costs and premium amortization may be mitigated by prepayment penalties paid by the borrower when the loan is paid in full within a certain period of time, which varies between loans. If prepayment occurs after the period of time when the loan is subject to a prepayment penalty, the effect of the acceleration of premium and deferred cost amortization is no longer mitigated. We recognize premiums paid on mortgage-backed securities as an adjustment from interest income over the expected life of the security based on the rate of repayment of the securities. Acceleration of prepayments on the loans underlying a mortgage-backed security shortens the life of the security, increases the rate at which premiums are expensed and further reduces interest income. We may not be able to reinvest loan and security prepayments at rates comparable to the prepaid instrument particularly in a period of declining interest rates.

26

Table of Contents

Our historical operating results may not be indicative of our future operating results.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, and, consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations, and competition, may also impede our ability to expand our market presence. If we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected because a high percentage of our operating costs are fixed expenses.

We are exposed to a possible loss of our employees and critical management team.

We are dependent on the ability and experience of a number of key management personnel who have substantial experience with our operations, the financial services industry, and the markets in which we offer products and services. The loss of one or more senior executives or key managers may have an adverse effect on our operations. Also, as we continue to grow operations, our success depends on our ability to continue to attract, manage, and retain other qualified middle management personnel. We cannot guarantee that we will continue to attract or retain such personnel.

If we are unable to offer our key management personnel long-term incentive compensation, including options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We have historically granted equity awards, including non-qualified options and restricted stock awards, to key management personnel as part of a competitive compensation package. Our ability to grant equity compensation awards as a part of our total compensation package has been vital to attracting, retaining and aligning shareholder interest with a talented management team in a highly competitive marketplace.

In the future, we will be required to ask our shareholders to approve additional issuances of equity awards in order for the equity component of our compensation packages to remain competitive in the industry. Shareholder advisory groups have implemented guidelines and issued voting recommendations related to how much equity companies should be able to grant to employees. These advisory influence shareholder votes regarding approval of a company's request for approval of equity compensation arrangements. The factors used to formulate these guidelines and voting recommendations include the volatility of a company's share price and are influenced by broader macro-economic conditions that can change year to year. The variables used by shareholder advisory groups to formulate equity plan recommendations may limit our ability to obtain approval to issue additional equity awards or adopt a new equity plan. If we are limited in our ability to grant equity compensation awards, we would need to explore offering other compelling alternatives to supplement our compensation, including long-term cash compensation plans or significantly increased short-term cash compensation, in order to continue to attract and retain key management personnel. If we used these alternatives to long-term equity awards, our compensation costs could increase and our financial performance could be adversely affected. If we are unable to offer key management personnel long-term incentive compensation, including options and restricted stock, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We may be adversely affected by the lack of soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to

27

Table of Contents

credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by SCBT cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to SCBT. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We could experience a loss due to competition with other financial institutions.

The banking and financial services industry is very competitive. Legal and regulatory developments have made it easier for new and sometimes unregulated competitors to compete with us. The financial services industry has and is experiencing an ongoing trend towards consolidation in which fewer large national and regional banks and other financial institutions are replacing many smaller and more local banks. These larger banks and other financial institutions hold a large accumulation of assets and have significantly greater resources and a wider geographic presence or greater accessibility. In some instances, these larger entities operate without the traditional brick and mortar facilities that restrict geographic presence. Some competitors are able to offer more services, more favorable pricing or greater customer convenience than SCBT. In addition, competition has increased from new banks and other financial services providers that target our existing or potential customers. As consolidation continues among large banks, we expect other smaller institutions to try to compete in the markets we serve. This competition could reduce our net income by decreasing the number and size of the loans that we originate and the interest rates we charge on these loans. Additionally, these competitors may offer higher interest rates, which could decrease the deposits we attract or require us to increase rates to retain existing deposits or attract new deposits. Increased deposit competition could adversely affect our ability to generate the funds necessary for lending operations which could increase our cost of funds.

The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can merge as part of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting) and merchant banking. Technological developments have allowed competitors, including some non-depository institutions, to compete more effectively in local markets and have expanded the range of financial products, services and capital available to our target customers. If we are unable to implement, maintain and use such technologies effectively, we may not be able to offer products or achieve cost-efficiencies necessary to compete in the industry. In addition, some of these competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and lower cost structures.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about clients and counterparties.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, we may assume that a customer's audited financial statements conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. Our earnings are significantly affected by our ability to properly originate, underwrite and service loans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we incorrectly assess the creditworthiness of our borrowers, fail to detect or respond to deterioration in asset quality in a timely manner, or rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

28

Table of Contents

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected because we are exposed to conditions or assumptions different from the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosure in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions, and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, included in this document, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that are considered "critical" by us because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially impact our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, such events or assumptions could have a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

We are exposed to the possibility of technology failure and a disruption in our operations may adversely affect our business.

We rely on our computer systems and the technology of outside service providers. Our daily operations depend on the operational effectiveness of their technology. We rely on our systems to accurately track and record our assets and liabilities. If our computer systems or outside technology sources become unreliable, fail, or experience a breach of security, our ability to maintain accurate financial records may be impaired, which could materially affect our business operations and financial condition. In addition, a disruption in our operations resulting from failure of transportation and telecommunication systems, loss of power, interruption of other utilities, natural disaster, fire, global climate changes, computer hacking or viruses, failure of technology, terrorist activity or the domestic and foreign response to such activity or other events outside of our control could have an adverse impact on the financial services industry as a whole and/or on our business. Our business recovery plan may not be adequate and may not prevent significant interruptions of our operations or substantial losses. The number of cyber attacks during the past year has further heightened our attention to this risk. As such, we are in the process of implementing additional security software and hiring additional persons to monitor and assist with the mitigation of this ever increasing risk.

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

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Information security risks for financial institutions such as ours have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As client, public, and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operational systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions, and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting and data processing systems, or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be electrical or telecommunications outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics; events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts; and, as described below, cyber attacks.

As noted above, our business relies on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software, and networks to conduct its operations. Although we have information security procedures

29

Table of Contents

and controls in place, our technologies, systems, networks, and our clients' devices may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our or our clients' confidential, proprietary and other information, or otherwise disrupt our or our clients' or other third parties' business operations. Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, or vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, and other third parties, including the South Carolina Department of Revenue, which had records exposed in a 2012 cyber attack, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

While we have disaster recovery and other policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of the evolving nature of these threats. As a result, cybersecurity and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a focus for us. As threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and clients, or cyber attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our clients use to access our products and services could result in client attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, result of operations and financial condition.

We regularly review and update our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely impact our financial condition.

Our deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain deposit insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, we are required to pay quarterly deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. Although we cannot predict what the insurance assessment rates will be in the future, either deterioration in our risk-based capital ratios or adjustments to the base assessment rates could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Negative public opinion surrounding our company and the financial institutions industry generally could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings.

Reputation risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion surrounding our company and the financial institutions industry generally, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance and acquisitions, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public

30

Table of Contents

opinion can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract clients and employees and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Although we take steps to minimize reputation risk in dealing with our clients and communities, this risk will always be present given the nature of our business.

Legal and Regulatory Risks

We are subject to extensive regulation that could restrict our activities, have an adverse impact on our operations, and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business.

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. SCBT is subject to Federal Reserve Board regulation, and our Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, and by the SCBFI. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the "FHLB"), the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. Our Bank's activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Further, changes in laws, regulations and regulatory practices affecting the financial services industry could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

Financial reform legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress, and further changes in regulation to which we are exposed, will result in additional new laws and regulations that are expected to increase our costs of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act has and will continue to significantly change bank regulatory structure and affect the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies are given significant discretion in drafting the implementing rules and regulations, and consequently, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for many months or years.

The Dodd-Frank Act also created the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and gives it broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks and savings institutions, including the authority to prohibit "unfair, deceptive or abusive" acts and practices. Additionally, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has examination and enforcement authority over all banks and savings institutions with more than $10 billion in assets.

Proposals for further regulation of the financial services industry are continually being introduced in the Congress of the United States of America. The agencies regulating the financial services industry also periodically adopt changes to their regulations. It is possible that additional legislative proposals may be adopted or regulatory changes may be made that would have an adverse effect on our business.

31

Table of Contents

In addition, it is expected that such regulatory changes will increase our operating and compliance cost. We can provide no assurance regarding the manner in which any new laws and regulations will affect us.

We are exposed to declines in the value of qualified pension plan assets or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern pension plan funding, which could require us to provide significant amounts of funding for our qualified pension plan.

As a matter of course, we anticipate that we will make material cash contributions to our qualified defined benefit pension plan in the near and long term. A significant decline in the value of qualified pension plan assets in the future or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern pension plan funding could materially change the timing and amount of required pension funding. As a result, we may be required to fund our qualified defined benefit pension plan with a greater amount of cash from operations, perhaps by an additional material amount.

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

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced an agreement to a strengthened set of capital requirements for internationally active banking organizations in the U.S. and around the world, known as Basel III. On June 7, 2012, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would implement sections of the Dodd-Frank Act that encompass certain aspects of Basel III with respect to capital and liquidity. On November 9, 2012, following a public comment period, the U.S. federal banking agencies announced that the originally proposed January 1, 2013 effective date for the proposed rules was being delayed so that the agencies could consider operational and transitional issues identified in the large volume of public comments received. The propose rules, if adopted, would lead to significantly higher capital requirements and more restrictive leverage and liquidity ratios than those currently in place.

Various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act increase the capital requirements of bank holding companies, such as SCBT, and non-bank financial companies that are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. The leverage and risk-based capital ratios of these entities may not be lower than the leverage and risk-based capital ratios for insured depository institutions. In particular, bank holding companies, many of which have long relied on trust preferred securities as a component of their regulatory capital, will no longer be permitted to issue new trust preferred securities that count toward their Tier 1 capital. While the Basel III changes and other regulatory capital requirements will likely result in generally higher regulatory capital standards, it is difficult at this time to predict how new standards will ultimately be applied to SCBT and our Bank.

In addition, in the current economic and regulatory environment, regulators of banks and bank holding companies have become more likely to impose capital requirements on bank holding companies and banks that are more stringent than those required by applicable existing regulations.

The application of more stringent capital requirements for SCBT and the Bank could, among other things, result in lower returns on invested capital, require the issuance of additional capital, adversely affect our ability to pay dividends, require us to reduce business levels and result in regulatory actions if we were to be unable to comply with such requirements.

We are party to various lawsuits incidental to our business. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties such that the expenses and ultimate exposure with respect to many of these matters cannot be ascertained.

From time to time, customers and others make claims and take legal action pertaining to our performance of fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal actions are legitimate or

32

Table of Contents

unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in our favor, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of us and our products and services as well as impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to an Investment in Our Common Stock

Our ability to pay cash dividends is limited, and we may be unable to pay future dividends even if we desire to do so.

Our ability to pay cash dividends may be limited by regulatory restrictions, by our Bank's ability to pay cash dividends to our holding company and by our need to maintain sufficient capital to support our operations. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve Board's policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization's capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve's policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. Under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of SCBT to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

Since SCBT is legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and does not conduct stand-alone operations, its ability to pay dividends depends on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the SCBFI or the Commissioner of Banking, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the SCBFI. The Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC have issued policy statements which provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. In addition, under Federal Reserve Board regulations, a dividend cannot be paid by the Bank if it would be less than well-capitalized after the dividend. The Federal Reserve Board may also prevent the payment of a dividend by the Bank if it determines that the payment would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

If our Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to our holding company, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors. Although we have historically paid cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors could reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future.

We may issue additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities that will dilute the percentage ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock and adversely affect the terms on which we may obtain additional capital.

Our authorized capital includes 40,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of December 31, 2012, we had 16,937,464 shares of common stock outstanding and had reserved for issuance 340,140 shares underlying options that are or may become exercisable at an average price of $31.79 per share. In addition, as of December 31, 2012, we had the ability to issue

33

Table of Contents

1,660,440 shares of common stock pursuant to options and restricted stock that may be granted in the future under our existing equity compensation plans. Further, in connection with the planned merger with First Financial, which was announced on February 20, 2013, we intend to issue approximately 7,002,384 shares of our common stock and shares of our preferred stock, to be designated Series A Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Stock and having such rights, preferences and privileges as are not materially less favorable than the rights, preferences and privileges of First Financial's Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, to First Financial's shareholders. The transaction, which is expected to close in the third quarter of 2013, is subject to, among other things, required regulatory approvals and the affirmative vote of both the Company's and First Financial's shareholders. As of December 31, 2012, we had no shares of preferred stock outstanding.

Subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of any authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose, including issuance of equity-based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans. We may seek additional equity capital in the future as we develop our business and expand our operations. Any issuance of additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities will dilute the percentage ownership interest of our shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock. Shares we issue in connection with any such offering will increase the total number of outstanding shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

Our stock price may be volatile, which could result in losses to our investors and litigation against us.

Our stock price has been volatile in the past and several factors could cause the price to fluctuate substantially in the future. These factors include but are not limited to: actual or anticipated variations in earnings, changes in analysts' recommendations or projections, our announcement of developments related to our businesses, operations and stock performance of other companies deemed to be peers, new technology used or services offered by traditional and non-traditional competitors, news reports of trends, concerns, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, and other issues related to the financial services industry. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in the future, and these fluctuations may be unrelated to our performance. General market declines or market volatility in the future, especially in the financial institutions sector, could adversely affect the price of SCBT's common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices.

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for our investors to resell their common stock when they desire and at prices they find attractive. Moreover, in the past, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against some companies following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We could in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management's attention and resources from our normal business.

Future sales of our stock by our shareholders or the perception that those sales could occur may cause our stock price to decline.

Although our common stock is listed for trading in The NASDAQ Global Select Market ^SM , the trading volume in our common stock is lower than that of other larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the relatively low trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that those sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or to be lower than it otherwise might be in the absence of those sales or perceptions.

34

Table of Contents

The existence of outstanding stock options issued to our current or former executive officers, directors, and employees may result in dilution of your ownership and adversely affect the terms on which we can obtain additional capital.

As of December 31, 2012, we had outstanding options to purchase 340,140 shares of our common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $31.79 per share. All of these options are held by our current or former executive officers, directors, and employees. Also, as of December 31, 2012, we had the ability to issue options and restricted stock to purchase an additional 1,660,440 shares of our common stock. The issuance of shares subject to options under the equity compensation plans will result in dilution of our shareholders' ownership of our common stock.

The exercise of stock options could also adversely affect the terms on which we can obtain additional capital. Option holders are most likely to exercise their options when the exercise price is less than the market price for our common stock. They profit from any increase in the stock price without assuming the risks of ownership of the underlying shares of common stock by exercising their options and selling the stock immediately.

State law and provisions in our articles of incorporation or bylaws could make it more difficult for another company to purchase us, even though such a purchase may increase shareholder value.

In many cases, shareholders may receive a premium for their shares if we were purchased by another company. State law and our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for anyone to purchase us without the approval of our board of directors. For example, our articles of incorporation divide the board of directors into three classes of directors serving staggered three-year terms with approximately one-third of the board of directors elected at each annual meeting of shareholders. This classification of directors makes it more difficult for shareholders to change the composition of the board of directors. As a result, at least two annual meetings of shareholders would be required for the shareholders to change a majority of the directors, whether or not a change in the board of directors would be beneficial and whether or not a majority of shareholders believe that such a change would be desirable.

Our articles of incorporation provide that a merger, exchange or consolidation of SCBT with, or the sale, exchange or lease of all or substantially all of our assets to, any person or entity (referred to herein as a "Fundamental Change"), must be approved by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock if the board of directors does not recommend a vote in favor of the Fundamental Change. The articles of incorporation further provide that a Fundamental Change involving a shareholder that owns or controls 20% or more of our voting stock at the time of the proposed transaction (a "Controlling Party") must be approved by the holders of at least (i) 80% of our outstanding voting stock, and (ii) 67% of our outstanding voting stock held by shareholders other than the Controlling Party, unless (x) the transaction has been recommended to the shareholders by a majority of the entire board of directors or (y) the consideration per share to be received by our shareholders generally is not less than the highest price per share paid by the Controlling Party in the acquisition of its holdings of our common stock during the preceding three years. The approval by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock is required to amend or repeal these provisions contained in our articles of incorporation. Finally, in the event that any such Fundamental Change is not recommended by the board of directors, the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock must attend a meeting called to address such transaction, in person or by proxy, in order for a quorum for the conduct of business to exist. If the 80% and 67% vote requirements described above do not apply because the board of directors recommends the transaction or the consideration is deemed fair, as applicable, then pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina Business Corporation Act, the Fundamental Change generally must be approved by two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast with respect thereto.

35

Table of Contents

Consequently, a takeover attempt may prove difficult, and shareholders may not realize the highest possible price for their securities.

None.

Our corporate headquarters are located in a four-story facility, located at 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina. The main offices of SCBT and the Midlands region lead branch are also located in this approximately 57,000 square-foot building. NCBT, a division of SCBT, leases approximately 13,000 square feet in a building located at 6525 Morrison Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina. The main offices of CBT, a division of SCBT, are located in a 12,000 square-foot facility at 448 North Main Street, Cornelia, Georgia. The main offices of The Savannah Bank, a division of SCBT, are located in a 17,000 square-foot facility at 25 Bull Street, Savannah, Georgia. The main offices of Minis & Company are also located in this building. Including these main locations, our bank owns seventy properties and leases thirty-four properties, all of which are used, substantially, as branch locations or for housing other operational units in North and South Carolina and Georgia.

Although the properties owned and leased are generally considered adequate, we have a continuing program of modernization, expansion, and when necessary, occasional replacement of facilities.

As of December 31, 2012 and the date of this form 10-K, we believe that we are not a party to, nor is any of our property the subject of, any pending material proceeding other than those that may occur in the ordinary course of our business, except for those described below.

Arnette Lawsuit. On January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc. , Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064 (the "Arnette Lawsuit"). The Complaint names as defendants Peoples, the members of Peoples' board of directors immediately prior to the completion of the merger between SCBT and Peoples (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Peoples common stock and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the merger between SCBT and Peoples, and also alleges that SCBT aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the completion of the merger, an accounting to determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. SCBT believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of SCBT.

On April 17, 2012, SCBT entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Peoples MOU") with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of the Complaint. Under the terms of the Peoples MOU, SCBT, Peoples, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Arnette Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Peoples merger, subject to approval by the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the Peoples MOU, the Arnette Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the Peoples MOU, SCBT and Peoples have made available additional information to Peoples shareholders in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 18, 2012. In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Arnette Lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with the Arnette Lawsuit. If the

36

Table of Contents

Peoples MOU is finally approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the Peoples MOU will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Peoples merger, the Peoples merger agreement and any disclosures made in connection therewith. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Peoples MOU may be terminated.

Rational Lawsuit. On October 11, 2012, a purported shareholder of Savannah filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H. Demere, Jr. et al., No. 653566/2012 (the "Rational Lawsuit"), naming Savannah, members of Savannah's board of directors and SCBT as defendants. This lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Savannah's common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the proper class representative. The Rational Lawsuit alleges that Savannah, Savannah's directors and SCBT breached duties and/or aided and abetted such breaches by failing to disclose certain material information about the proposed merger between Savannah and SCBT. Among other relief, the Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger. SCBT believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of SCBT.

On November 23, 2012, SCBT, Savannah and the other named defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Rational MOU") with the Plaintiff regarding a settlement of the Rational Lawsuit. Pursuant to the Rational MOU, Savannah made available additional information concerning the Savannah merger to Savannah shareholders in a Current Report on Form 8-K. The Rational MOU provides that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Savannah's shareholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the settlement will resolve and release all claims in the action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Savannah merger, the Savannah merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, and that the action will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Rational MOU may be terminated.

Not applicable.

37

Table of Contents

(a)   The table below describes historical information regarding our common equity securities:

Quarterly Common Stock Price Ranges and Dividends

As of February 28, 2013, we had issued and outstanding 17,008,389 shares of common stock which were held by approximately 7,300 shareholders of record. Our common stock trades in The NASDAQ Global Select Market ^SM under the symbol "SCBT."

SCBT is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve Board's view that a bank holding company generally should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the holding company's net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company's capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve Board also indicated that it would be inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends.

38

Table of Contents

We pay cash dividends to SCBT shareholders from our assets, which are provided primarily by dividends paid to SCBT by our Bank. Certain restrictions exist regarding the ability of our subsidiary to transfer funds to SCBT in the form of cash dividends, loans or advances. The approval of the SCBFI is required to pay dividends in excess of the bank's net income for the current year. For the year ended December 31, 2012, our bank paid dividends of approximately $31.3 million to SCBT. Subsequent to year end, the Bank received approval from the SCBFI to pay a $5.0 million dividend in excess of the bank's net income. We anticipate that we will continue to pay comparable cash dividends from our bank to SCBT in the future without needing SCBFI approval. Dividends paid to our shareholders are evaluated each quarter by the board of directors.

Cumulative Total Return Performance

The performance graph above compares SCBT's cumulative total return over the most recent five-year period with the NASDAQ Composite and the SNL Southeast Bank Index, a banking industry performance index for the Southeastern United States. Returns are shown on a total return basis, assuming the reinvestment of dividends and a beginning stock index value of $100 per share. The value of SCBT's stock as shown in the graph is based on published prices for transactions in SCBT stock.

(b)   Not applicable.

39

Table of Contents

(c)   Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities:

In February 2004, we announced a program with no formal expiration date to repurchase up to 250,000 of our common shares. The following table reflects share repurchase activity during the fourth quarter of 2012:

40

Table of Contents

The following table presents selected financial and quantitative data for the five years ended December 31 for SCBT Financial Corporation:

41

Table of Contents

The table below provides a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP for the five years ended December 31:

Operating earnings is a non-GAAP measure and excludes the after-tax effects of gains on acquisitions, gains or losses on sales of securities, other-than-temporary impairment ("OTTI"), merger and conversion related expense, termination of group insurance, and FHLB prepayment fees. The tangible measures above are non-GAAP measures and exclude the effect of period end or average balance of intangible assets. The tangible return on equity measures also adds back the after-tax amortization of intangibles to GAAP basis net income. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures provide additional information that is useful to investors in evaluating the Company's performance and capital and that may facilitate comparisons with others in the banking industry as well as period-to-period comparisons. Non-GAAP measures should not be considered as an alternative to any measure of performance or financial condition as promulgated under GAAP, and investors should consider the company's performance and financial condition as reported under GAAP and all other relevant information when assessing the performance or financial condition of the company. Non-GAAP measures have limitations as analytical tools, are not audited, and may not be comparable to other similarly titled financial measures used by other companies. Investors should not consider non-GAAP measures in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of the company's results or financial condition as reported under GAAP.

42

Table of Contents

The following table presents selected financial data for the five years ended December 31: