Title

Presentation

Operator: Greetings. Welcome to BOK Financial Corporation’s First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question and answer session. Simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. And if you would like to withdraw that question, again, press star one. Thank you. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the presentation over to Heather King, Director of Investor Relations for BOK Financial Corporation. Please proceed.

Heather King: Good afternoon, and thank you for joining our discussion of BOK Financial Corporation’s first quarter 2026 financial results. Our CEO, Stacy Kymes, will provide opening comments. Scott Grauer, Executive Vice President of Wealth Management, will cover our fee-based results, and our CFO, Martin Grunst, will then discuss financial performance for the quarter as well as our forward guidance. We refer you to the disclaimers on Slide 2 regarding any forward-looking statements made during this call. The slide presentation and press release are available on our website at bokf.com. I will now turn the call over to Stacy Kymes, who will begin on Slide 4.

Stacy Kymes: Thank you, Heather. We appreciate you joining the call this afternoon. We reported earnings of $155.8 million, or EPS of $2.58 per diluted share, for the first quarter. What stood out this quarter was the consistency of execution across the company and how our teams continue to build on the momentum we established in 2025. During the quarter, total loans grew $536 million, or 2.1% sequentially. That growth was well distributed across the portfolio. We saw strong momentum last year, and we are encouraged to see that continue. Pipelines remain solid, and business activity across our footprint and customer base has been constructive, even with more macroeconomic uncertainty. Growth was also well balanced geographically across our franchise, with Texas growing $[inaudible] or 8% on an annualized basis, Oklahoma posting growth of $163 million or approximately 9%, and Arizona increasing by $236 million.

Our fee-based businesses also performed well, even in an environment with elevated uncertainty and a rapidly changing macroeconomic backdrop. The revenue exceeded three of the past four quarters, reflecting the diversification and underlying strength of those platforms. Expenses declined meaningfully this quarter, reflecting our continued focus on managing our core cost structure. Over the past several quarters, we have worked to better align expenses with market opportunities and customer needs. This quarter illustrates that progress. Expenses were down $6.9 million and we posted an efficiency ratio of 63.2%. Importantly, this quarter provides a clean view of a more typical expense profile, with prior actions now embedded and temporary items less meaningful.

Capital levels remain very strong, with tangible common equity at 9.3% and CET1 at 12.6%. Slide 6 provides a closer look at our loan portfolio. Total outstanding loans grew 2.1% this quarter, with strong growth across our core C&I portfolio, energy, and commercial real estate. Our core C&I loan portfolio, which represents our combined services and general business portfolios, grew 2.1% sequentially. This is the fourth consecutive quarter of growth in this portfolio, reflecting long-term, sustained customer relationships. Health care loans decreased 1.3%. Loan production in this segment remains at record highs with a very strong pipeline. This business has also supported our fee income lines with strong syndication fees generated during the quarter.

The reduction in loan balances this quarter is primarily related to cyclical payoff activity. We believe we are well positioned to grow this portfolio throughout the remainder of the year. Energy loans grew this quarter, increasing 4.3%. This marks another reversal of the payoff trends we discussed last year. We are not currently seeing clients seeking to add production capacity yet. Our CRE business increased 3.7% compared to the prior quarter. We remain well within our concentration limits for this segment, which allows us to be selective about opportunities and deploy capital where structure, terms, and returns make sense. Mortgage finance loans totaled $228 million, an increase of $50 million from the fourth quarter. We are happy with the progress this business is making.

It is important to note that the loan growth exhibited in the first quarter was driven by our existing businesses. Moving to Slide 7, I will keep my comments short again this quarter. Credit quality remains strong. NPAs not guaranteed by the U.S. government decreased $14 million to $52 million. The resulting nonperforming assets to period-end loans and repossessed assets decreased six basis points to 20 basis points. Committed criticized assets decreased this quarter, remaining very low relative to historical standards. We had net charge-offs of just $1.9 million during the quarter, averaging three basis points over the last twelve months. I will reiterate that the limited charge-offs we have seen show no patterns or concentrations that raise concerns about specific business lines or geographies.

I would also note proactively we have virtually no exposure to private credit facilities. Over the long term, we do expect credit metrics to normalize. In the near term, we continue to expect net charge-offs to remain below historical average. No provision was required this quarter. Our provision benefited from the favorable impact of higher projected oil prices in our energy portfolio, offset by loan growth, improved overall credit quality, and a modest downward revision to economic forecast assumptions. Our combined allowance for credit losses is a healthy $323 million, or 1.23% of outstanding loans. Overall credit performance this quarter was exceptionally strong. With that, I will turn the call over to Scott.

Scott Grauer: Thank you, Stacy. Turning to our operating results for the quarter on Slides 9 and 10. Fee income remained solid this quarter, despite the volatile market environment and macroeconomic backdrop. Fees declined $5.1 million sequentially following a very strong fourth quarter. Fee income totaled $209.8 million, exceeding three of the past four quarters and underscoring the underlying strength of our fee-based business in any market environment. Total trading revenue, which includes trading-related net interest income, increased modestly to $34.7 million from $34.1 million in the prior quarter. Customer hedging revenue grew $1.1 million as our energy customers predictably increased their hedging activity when higher short-term crude oil prices presented themselves.

Investment banking revenue, which includes investment banking and syndication fees, decreased $4.1 million after delivering two outstanding quarters. Results reflect the normal seasonality of this business, with a quieter first quarter before activity begins to build in the second quarter. I would note that 2026 is the strongest first-quarter syndication activity on record. This result represents a 40% increase from the same quarter a year ago. Mortgage banking revenue grew $2.0 million linked quarter with higher production and refinance activity. Turning to Slide 10 to discuss our asset management and transactions business. Fiduciary and asset management revenue delivered strong results, contributing $66.5 million to revenue. This was the second strongest quarter on record, only surpassed by the prior quarter.

As a reminder, the prior quarter included higher-than-usual transaction-related fees. AUMA declined $3 billion to $123.6 billion, driven by lower market valuations and normal seasonality. Transaction card revenue continued its trend of record-setting results, contributing $32.0 million to revenue. These results demonstrate the strength of this franchise, which has been created through sustained momentum and reliable execution. Taken together, our fee income performance this quarter reflects disciplined execution and the strength of these businesses, even amid shifting market conditions. The overall foundation remains solid and continues to support consistent fee generation. With that, I will hand the call over to Marty to cover the financials.

Martin Grunst: Thank you, Scott. Turning to Slide 12. Net interest income decreased $2.7 million and reported net interest margin declined eight basis points. Excluding trading, core net interest income decreased $4.8 million and core margin decreased seven basis points. We continue to expect margin expansion over the course of 2026. Fixed-rate asset repricing and loan growth were positive drivers for this quarter and are expected to persist. However, we saw several small negatives impacting the quarter all at the same time. Noninterest DDA declined, with Q1 being the seasonal low point. Day count, of course, played a role. Loan fees were down sequentially. SOFR spreads were abnormally wide in Q4 and we benefited from that, but spreads returned to normal in Q1 and drove some compression sequentially.

Funding costs for counterparty margin posted to exchanges for energy derivatives had a small negative effect. Lastly, we saw the full-quarter impact of the sub debt issued last November. Each of those items had a one or two basis point negative effect individually, which accumulated to overcome the positives of loan growth and fixed-rate asset repricing in the first quarter. Turning to Slide 13. Total expenses decreased $6.9 million, producing an efficiency ratio of 63.2% for the quarter. Personnel expenses were down $11.6 million. Normal increases from payroll taxes and merit increases were more than offset by lower incentive compensation as well as the benefits of the realignment we took in late 2025. Nonpersonnel expense increased $4.7 million; however, during the fourth quarter, we experienced a $9.5 million benefit from the updated FDIC special assessment.

Excluding that prior-quarter benefit, nonpersonnel expense decreased $4.8 million, largely related to lower professional fees. Slide 14 provides our outlook for full year 2026. On loan growth, we continue to produce strong results. We expect to see loan growth near 10% for full year 2026. Our guidance for total revenue has not changed. We expect growth to be in the mid-single-digit range. The mix of that revenue between NII and fees is somewhat rate-curve dependent, as trading income can shift between the two. Our current forecast reflects no rate cuts in 2026 versus the two cuts reflected in our prior guidance. Our NII expectations for 2026 are now slightly lower at $1.42 to $1.45 billion, and our fee income expectations are now similarly higher at $820 to $845 million.

We continue to anticipate the growth rate for expenses to be in the low single digits. This should result in a 2026 full-year average efficiency ratio in the 63% area. We expect 2026 provision expense to be in the $15 to $35 million range. Portfolio credit quality continues to be exceptionally strong, and we see no tangible evidence of credit normalization. Our guide does allow for some amount of normalization later in the year. Lastly, I will note that Visa announced on April 13 that its second exchange program for Visa Class B shares has officially commenced. This allows us to monetize 50% of our remaining Visa B shares. We currently hold the equivalent of approximately 190 thousand common shares, and monetizing half that position would equate to roughly a $29 million pretax benefit based on Visa’s April 13 closing price of $309 per share.

While this potential gain is not reflected in our guidance, we expect to participate in the exchange and recognize a gain based on the market value at the time of the exchange or disposition. With that, I would like to hand the call back to the operator for Q&A, which will be followed by closing remarks from Stacy. Thank you.

Operator: We will now open the call for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one. Your first question comes from Michael Rose with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts

Michael Rose: Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe, Marty, if we can go back to the margin. It seems like there was just a confluence of factors this quarter that drove the compression, but I think if I heard you right, you would expect margin expansion from here. Can you give us some details behind that—what you would expect in terms of deposit betas as we move forward, loan pricing, and fixed asset repricing opportunities—just the puts and takes as we contemplate no rate cuts this year? And then as a follow-up, you mentioned the Visa Class B program has commenced. I think you said about half of that position would equate to roughly a $29 million pretax benefit. Is the plan to monetize half of that, and would you look to potentially repurchase shares with the proceeds?

Martin Grunst: You bet. As you think about each of those factors, the one that has been durable and will continue to be durable is the fixed-rate asset repricing. You will see both the bond portfolio and fixed-rate loan portfolio continue to pick up spread there. On deposit betas, deposit competition in the market is kind of like it has been for the last few quarters. Without rate moves, I do not think you will see a lot in the betas. To the extent that we have incremental rate moves, our cumulative down beta has been 66% in deposits, and we would continue to see that play out as it would relate to future rate moves to the extent you have them. A couple of the things that affected this quarter were loan fees and DDA. What is typical is to see growth in those two components in the back half of the year, so you will see some support there as we get into the third quarter.

Loan competition is always competitive. We have seen some incrementally competitive behavior at the high end of the credit size and the very strong end of the credit quality spectrum in investment-grade territory, but not enough to really move the needle this quarter. All those components give us confidence in the trajectory of margin. One thing I might add on margin: if you think long term, you can take our 2.90% margin that we printed this quarter and rerun both the available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities portfolios at their mature rates—where we are replacing at about 4.50%—and that would recast our margin at just a little over 3.15%. While it will take some time to get there, that gives you perspective on the big picture and what the long run looks like for our margin expansion story.

On Visa, our expectation is that the program will officially start transacting shares later this quarter, and we would be able to recognize that gain in Q2. We have not yet determined exactly what we will do with the proceeds, but all those avenues are on the table for us, including potentially repurchasing shares or paying down debt. At this point, we look forward to being able to capture that gain.

Stacy Kymes: Michael, this is Stacy. We will let the year play out and see what may unfold to reinvest those gains. If you recall, when we did the Visa exchange before, there were attractive opportunities in our investment portfolio to get really good IRRs by selling securities at losses and using those gains to keep our run-rate earnings relatively flat. That equation is not as compelling this time. The IRRs are not very good relative to where they were before. Obviously, the unrealized losses in the portfolio are much smaller today than they were when we had this opportunity before. We have also looked historically at contributing those to our foundation, but changes to corporate tax policy make that a little more challenging to do and get the tax benefit.

For now, it is an all-of-the-above set of options, including doing nothing. We will see as the year unfolds whether we want to invest that gain or if we do not see an opportunity that merits the return profile we should consider.

Michael Rose: Alright. Appreciate the color and context. I will step back. Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jon Arfstrom with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Jon Arfstrom: Hey, thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. Stacy, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the loan growth environment. Can you talk about the general business balance drivers? And then on energy, you used the term “not yet” in describing clients seeking to add production. What do you think needs to happen there for that to show more of a growth profile? And then for Marty, a follow-up on deposit costs—you had a nice step down in the interest-bearing deposit costs this quarter. How much more room do you think you have in an environment without any further cuts?

Stacy Kymes: Sure. The loan growth was broad based by geography and by loan type. We have been exerting significant effort around core C&I and are really excited to see that expansion continue. We continue to invest there and are excited about the future. It has been nice to see a bounce back on the energy side. We troughed around this time last year and have been stable to increasing since then. For folks to continue to drill, you need to look at the strip. People often focus on the prompt month or spot price, but it is really the strip price out two to three years—really three years—that creates the incentive for people to drill for oil. If you look at three years, oil is below $70, and I think $70 is kind of a magic number.

My view is you will not see folks drilling unless they can lock in a return with oil above $70 out that long. Things are volatile and the curve has moved a lot, but it is more important to look at the curve three years out than the prompt month in terms of driller behavior. The rig counts reflect that there is no impetus right now for folks to drill given the backwardation of the curve. That could change, but we are not seeing that today.

Martin Grunst: On interest-bearing deposit costs, there is probably still a little bit of room, but as we have been chipping away at that over the quarters, it is a situation of declining returns. There is still a bit more there, but not as much as there was a year ago relative to where short rates are.

Jon Arfstrom: Okay. Thank you very much.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Peter Winter with D.A. Davidson. Please go ahead.

Peter Winter: Thanks. Good afternoon. Stacy, there has been a lot of merger activity in your markets. Are you seeing opportunities for team lift-outs—something that you have done successfully in the past? And then, Marty, you have always maintained really strong capital levels. Could you quantify the estimated impact and benefits from the new regulatory proposals?

Stacy Kymes: As you know, that is a strategy for us. Some of the periods of most rapid growth in our history have been when there has been broad dislocation created from mergers and acquisitions. You have both employees and clients of those institutions who did not choose to be a part of that institution, and they may select to go somewhere else. We see it, it is prevalent in our footprint, and you can assume that we are being very active in prospecting for both employees and customers in this environment. Nothing specific to report today.

Martin Grunst: Peter, we do not have a number yet, but it is definitely going to be a benefit to us, both on the loan book—particularly in the real estate-secured loan book, given those LTV parameters—and in the trading book. You know how we underwrite. Because of where our LTVs and FICOs and so forth are, that is going to be a benefit to us on RWAs in the loan book. In the trading book, we will get a little benefit there too based on our read at this point.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of David Chiaverini with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

David Chiaverini: Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Back on deposits, I think you mentioned that the noninterest-bearing DDA deposits should bottom in the first quarter. What is the driver of the rebound in the second quarter and potentially the magnitude? And should this rebound continue through the year? And then on mortgage finance, we saw balances grow nicely on a percentage basis. Previously, you mentioned getting to $1 billion in commitments by the end of this year. With a higher-for-longer environment, are you still comfortable with that commitment level?

Martin Grunst: A little context on DDA. DDA was pretty steady for us last year, and that rate-seeking behavior you had seen in prior years had come to an end. We typically see a seasonal increase at the end of the fourth quarter, which we did see, and then a seasonal decrease in the first quarter, which we also saw. We also saw a little bit of our commercial middle-market customers deploy some of their cash into their businesses, which is healthy for business growth. It has been several years since you have had a nice “normal” DDA pattern to look at, but what is typical for us—and to some extent the industry—is to see DDA climb more in the back half of the year than the front half as people build cash flows. That is our expectation for the year.

Stacy Kymes: On mortgage finance, I think what we talked about was being at $1 billion in commitments by the end of the year, with roughly 50% of that committed amount outstanding. Given where we are in the newness of the business for us, I still feel good about that. There will be some seasonality; the second and third quarters tend to be pretty good, and it will track the broader mortgage business. We will not be perfect on the timing, but I still feel good about the target.

David Chiaverini: Very helpful. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Matt Olney with Stephens. Please go ahead.

Matt Olney: Thanks. I want to go back to the liability side of the balance sheet. In the deck, you mentioned you moved from wholesale deposits into more wholesale borrowings this past quarter. Can you expand on that strategy? And as a follow-up, how should we think about funding the loan growth from here in terms of core funding, wholesale deposits, versus borrowings?

Martin Grunst: Good question. If you go back to Q4, after a couple of rate cuts and some market dislocation, we were able to find some deposits—technically deposits, but wholesale in the way we source them—at prices that were actually better than wholesale funding, which is rare. We put on a little over $1 billion of those deposits in Q4. We mentioned on the last call that would probably run off in Q1, and it did. That run-off is the main driver of the deposit decline from Q4 to Q1; it was an opportunistic wholesale deposit trade we did in Q4 running off. Going forward, at the loan-to-deposit ratio we have, we certainly have flexibility in how we fund. Our expectation is to see loan growth consistent with our guidance and history.

Deposit growth will probably be a little bit less than that, but we do expect deposit growth this year. We can end with a slightly higher loan-to-deposit ratio at year-end. Generally, loan growth and deposit growth will be somewhat aligned, while knowing we have flexibility to let that float around a bit.

Matt Olney: Yep. Makes sense. Thanks, Marty.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jared Shaw with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Jared Shaw: Hey, everybody. Thank you. Marty, can you give the dollar impact of the loan fee reduction quarter over quarter that you called out? Also, are the trends you are seeing in customer hedging activity as we go through 2Q staying pretty strong? And finally, on the provision guidance for the year, should we think about equal contribution over the next three quarters, or is it a little more back-end weighted with growth?

Martin Grunst: The loan fee impact is basically two basis points quarter over quarter. There is always a bit of noise, but broadly speaking that is a good growth area for us year over year. On provision cadence, you do not want to get too cute with quarterly, but given how the portfolio looks today, it is logical to think there is a little back-end weighting. The portfolio looks very clean today. You can usually have a little visibility into the next quarter or two; after that it is harder. That is the right way to think about provision.

Scott Grauer: On customer hedging activity, with the volatility in the global setting, we have seen spurts of activity on the energy side. We have seen less activity on interest-rate hedging given a relatively stable rate environment, but we continue to see good demand across hedging opportunities, with the biggest focus being on energy.

Jared Shaw: Great. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Woody Lay with KBW. Please go ahead.

Woody Lay: Hey, thanks for taking my question. On expenses, they are very well managed, and it was good to see the run rate come in following some of the actions you took in the fourth quarter. You touched on the efficiency ratio being down a little bit. Is there conviction that you could be on the lower end of the stated range, or is it too early to tell given some of the hiring question marks? And then one more for me: you mentioned oil prices factored into the ACL. Can you walk through how that is included in your CECL model, and is there any risk that if oil prices normalize lower, it could require a catch-up provision in the future?

Martin Grunst: We feel really good about how Q1 turned out in terms of a clean run rate for expenses. Looking into Q2, you will have a little bit as the rest of the merit increase flows through, with an offset from how payroll taxes play out. We are always looking to hire producers, as you know, but those are the main puts and takes. We feel pretty good about the guidance of the efficiency ratio in the 63% area. On CECL and oil, higher oil prices are supportive for the energy loan book—both collateral valuation and borrower cash flows—so that is a positive. There is also the impact of higher input prices on parts of the broader C&I book, which we recognize as an offset. Those are natural offsets in how we manage CECL. There is not a lot of risk, on a net basis, of that being a driver of an adverse future outcome if oil normalizes lower.

Woody Lay: Got it. Makes sense. Thanks for taking my question.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brett Rabatin with Stonex. Please go ahead.

Brett Rabatin: Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Back to guidance on fee income. I get that the change is partly a function of interest rates and how you account for the income, but the $820 to $845 million range—given the seasonal investment banking in the first quarter—it seems like that could have been higher. Are there any other businesses you are expecting not to grow this year, or other factors in that outlook? And then, Stacy, you talked about producer adds and possibly adding people with disruption. Do you have a net producer add number for the quarter? Lastly, on the decrease in provisioning for the year despite slightly better loan growth expectations—does that reflect better visibility that 2026 will continue to be fairly benign?

Martin Grunst: We feel very good about the fee businesses. The trajectory is really good, and we are confident in the history and outlook across the board. One thing to remember is that in the trading business, part of that revenue shows up in the fee line and part shows up in the NII line. You really have to combine those when you think about the strength of the fee businesses. If you are looking at multiyear trends, some of that revenue may move into the NII line; you should recombine that to evaluate the business.

Stacy Kymes: On talent, that is not the way we think about it. We think about adding A-level talent. We do not have a goal around adding a set number of net new producers each quarter. We have a perpetual goal of adding the best talent in every market we are in. Those discussions have been ongoing for years in many cases. As we have an opportunity to add talent, we do it. If it is not the A talent in the market, then we do not. We do not track it that way, so I do not have anything to report. On provision guidance, the reduction is pretty small and really just a reflection that we have already got one quarter behind us now. When I was in credit, I used to say the crystal ball is pretty good for three to six months, and then it gets foggy. With one quarter in the bag, we have a little more visibility, so we brought guidance down just a bit. It is not that different, really.

Brett Rabatin: Great. Appreciate the color, guys.

Operator: That concludes our question and answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to Stacy for closing comments.

Stacy Kymes: To wrap up, the first quarter has set the stage with solid core operating results. Diversified loan growth, resilient fee performance, excellent credit quality, and disciplined expense management have us off to a strong start in 2026, and we are well positioned for growth as the year progresses. We appreciate your interest in BOK Financial Corporation and your willingness to spend time with us this afternoon. Please reach out to Heather King if you have any further questions at h.king@bokf.com.

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts