This October 27, 2025, report provides a comprehensive examination of Renasant Corporation (RNST), assessing its business model, financial health, historical returns, and future growth to determine a fair value estimate. Our analysis benchmarks RNST against key competitors like Hancock Whitney Corporation (HWC), Trustmark Corporation (TRMK), and Cadence Bank (CADE), distilling the findings through the investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
Negative. A massive, unexpected provision for credit losses raises serious concerns about the quality of the bank's loans. Renasant consistently underperforms its peers with volatile earnings and lower profitability. Lacking a strong competitive advantage, its future growth outlook appears muted amid intense competition. The bank's valuation does not offer much safety given its performance issues and high Price to Tangible Book ratio. Furthermore, a flat dividend and recent shareholder dilution undermine potential investor returns. This stock carries significant risk, and investors should wait for clear signs of improved credit quality and performance.
US: NASDAQ
Renasant Corporation is a regional financial institution with a straightforward business model focused on community banking across the Southeastern United States, primarily in Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The company's core operations revolve around attracting deposits from individuals and businesses and then using those funds to make loans. Its main revenue streams are generated from the interest rate spread—the difference between the interest it earns on loans and the interest it pays on deposits—and noninterest income from a variety of fee-based services. The bank offers a comprehensive suite of products including commercial and consumer loans, deposit accounts, mortgage lending, wealth management, and insurance services, catering to the financial needs of its local communities.
The largest contributor to Renasant's revenue is its lending operation, funded by its deposit base, which generates net interest income. This segment includes various types of loans: commercial real estate (CRE), commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to businesses, residential real estate mortgages, and consumer loans. Net interest income typically accounts for 75-80% of the bank's total revenue. The market for regional bank lending in the Southeast is large but highly fragmented and competitive, growing roughly in line with the region's GDP. Profitability, measured by Net Interest Margin (NIM), is heavily influenced by Federal Reserve interest rate policy. Renasant competes with a wide array of banks, from large national players like Bank of America to other regional banks like Synovus Financial and Pinnacle Financial Partners, as well as smaller community banks. The bank's customers are local individuals seeking mortgages and small to medium-sized businesses needing capital for operations or expansion. The relationship-based model creates some customer stickiness, as switching banks can be a hassle for a business with established credit lines and treasury management services. Renasant's competitive moat in lending is based on its local market knowledge and personalized customer service rather than scale or product innovation, making it a narrow and contestable advantage.
Fee-based services, which generate noninterest income, are another critical part of Renasant's business, contributing the remaining 20-25% of revenue. This income is diversified across several areas, with mortgage banking being a significant, albeit cyclical, component. Other key fee streams include wealth management, which provides investment advisory and trust services to high-net-worth individuals, insurance services sold through a subsidiary, and standard service charges on deposit accounts. The markets for these services are also competitive, with specialized independent firms and larger banks often having more scale and brand recognition. For example, the wealth management space is crowded, and while Renasant's offering helps deepen relationships with existing banking clients, it doesn't have the scale of a major brokerage. Customers for these services range from homebuyers to affluent individuals and businesses. The stickiness varies; wealth management relationships are typically very sticky, while mortgage origination is more transactional. The moat in these businesses is limited. While an integrated model offers cross-selling opportunities, Renasant doesn't have a dominant brand or scale advantage in any single fee category, making this income stream helpful for diversification but not a source of a strong competitive edge.
Renasant's competitive positioning is that of a traditional, relationship-focused community bank. Its primary advantage, or moat, is built on a stable, low-cost core deposit franchise. By fostering long-term relationships in smaller towns and suburban markets, the bank attracts a loyal base of retail and small business depositors who are less sensitive to interest rate changes and less likely to move their money for a slightly better yield. This provides Renasant with a cheaper and more reliable source of funding for its loans compared to banks that rely more on wholesale funding or high-cost certificates of deposit. This funding advantage is the most durable aspect of its business model.
However, this moat is narrow and faces significant threats. The banking industry is undergoing a digital transformation, and larger competitors have much bigger budgets for technology, marketing, and developing innovative products. This puts pressure on Renasant's ability to attract and retain younger customers. Furthermore, its geographic concentration in the Southeast makes it highly dependent on the economic health of that region. While its relationship model is a strength, it does not have a unique, specialized lending niche that would provide pricing power or protect it from competition. Ultimately, Renasant's business model is resilient within its established footprint but lacks the significant, durable competitive advantages that would allow it to consistently generate superior returns over the long term. It is a solid operator in a highly competitive industry.
A detailed review of Renasant Corporation's financial statements reveals a bank in a state of significant transition, marked by aggressive growth and emerging credit risks. The income statement highlights robust top-line performance, with Net Interest Income (NII) growing substantially from $134.2 million in Q1 2025 to $218.86 million in Q2 2025. This indicates the bank is successfully leveraging a larger asset base and a favorable interest rate environment to expand its core revenue stream. This growth appears linked to a major balance sheet expansion, with total assets jumping from $18.3 billion to $26.6 billion in the same period, likely due to an acquisition.
However, this growth story is severely clouded by a major red flag in its most recent quarter. The bank recorded an enormous $81.32 million provision for credit losses in Q2 2025, a stark increase from $4.75 million in the prior quarter and $9.27 million for the entire previous fiscal year. This action erased nearly all of the quarter's profits, resulting in net income of only $1.02 million. Such a large provision suggests management anticipates significant future loan defaults, raising serious questions about underwriting standards or the quality of assets acquired. This concern is further amplified by the negative operating cash flow of -$77.29 million in the same quarter.
From a balance sheet perspective, the bank's foundation shows some resilience. The tangible common equity to total assets ratio stands at a respectable 8.2%, and the loans-to-deposits ratio is a healthy 84.7%, suggesting solid funding and a reasonable capital cushion. The debt-to-equity ratio is also low at 0.27. Despite these strengths, the overarching concern is credit quality. While the revenue engine is performing well, the potential for significant loan losses presents a material risk to the bank's financial stability and future profitability. Therefore, the bank's current financial foundation appears risky until there is more clarity on the source and extent of these credit issues.
An analysis of Renasant Corporation's performance over the last five fiscal years (FY2020–FY2024) reveals a track record marked by volatility and underperformance relative to key regional banking peers. While the bank has expanded its asset base, this growth has not consistently translated into strong or stable profitability for shareholders. The company's earnings per share (EPS) have followed an erratic path, swinging from a 48.6% decline in FY2020 to a 110.8% rebound in FY2021, followed by two years of declines before another recovery in FY2024. This choppiness suggests a vulnerability to economic and interest rate cycles that more resilient peers have managed better.
The company's core profitability metrics are a significant area of weakness. Over the five-year period, Renasant's Return on Equity (ROE) has fluctuated between a low of 3.93% and a high of 8.1%, never reaching the levels of competitors like Hancock Whitney (11%) or First Horizon (9%). This indicates that the bank is less effective at generating profit from its shareholders' capital. Similarly, efficiency has been inconsistent. The efficiency ratio improved from a high of 70.1% in FY2020 to 62.3% in FY2022, but then worsened again to 69.5% in FY2023 before improving, showing a lack of sustained cost discipline.
From a shareholder return perspective, the record is uninspiring. The dividend has remained stagnant at $0.88 per share annually since 2020, offering no growth for income-focused investors. More concerning is the capital allocation strategy, which shifted from modest share repurchases in FY2020 and FY2021 to significant share issuance in FY2024, causing a 5.85% increase in share count and diluting existing shareholders. While loan and deposit growth has been positive on a multi-year basis, the year-over-year figures have been uneven, reflecting a less consistent organic growth engine.
In conclusion, Renasant's historical performance does not inspire confidence. The bank has demonstrated stability in its credit reserves, which is a positive, but this has been overshadowed by volatile earnings, subpar profitability, and a shareholder-unfriendly shift in capital returns. The track record suggests that Renasant has struggled to execute consistently and create durable value compared to the stronger, more efficient regional banks it competes against.
The regional banking industry is in a state of mature, slow growth, with expected expansion closely tracking regional GDP, likely in the 2-4% range annually. The next 3–5 years will be defined by several key shifts. First, ongoing consolidation will continue as smaller banks struggle with rising compliance costs and the need for technology investment, making M&A a primary growth driver. Second, the digital transformation is accelerating. Customer preference for mobile and online banking is forcing banks to invest heavily in technology to remain relevant, which strains the budgets of mid-sized players like Renasant. Third, the interest rate environment will remain a critical variable; a 'higher for longer' scenario will continue to pressure deposit costs and lending demand, while a return to a lower rate environment could reignite mortgage activity but compress lending margins. Competitive intensity is likely to increase. While high regulatory hurdles make new bank charters rare, competition from non-bank fintech lenders and large national banks with massive technology budgets is intensifying. The most successful regional banks will be those that can either achieve sufficient scale through acquisition or carve out a defensible, high-value niche.
Renasant's primary service, commercial lending, which includes Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and Commercial Real Estate (CRE) loans, faces a challenging environment. Current consumption is constrained by high interest rates, which deter businesses from taking on new debt for expansion or investment. This is compounded by economic uncertainty, making businesses more cautious. The market for quality commercial loans is incredibly competitive, with Renasant vying against larger banks that can offer more sophisticated treasury services and smaller community banks with deep local ties. Over the next 3–5 years, loan growth is expected to be slow. Any increase will likely come from winning market share from smaller competitors or through targeted expansion in high-growth Southeastern metro areas. A potential catalyst could be a significant drop in interest rates, but this is not guaranteed. Customers choose between banks based on relationships, loan terms, and the quality of treasury management services. Renasant can outperform by leveraging its relationship model with small-to-medium-sized businesses but is unlikely to win against larger players on price or technology. The risk of a regional economic downturn is medium; a slowdown in the Southeast would directly hit loan demand and credit quality, potentially leading to higher loan loss provisions and reduced earnings. Another medium risk is a prolonged downturn in the CRE market, particularly office space, which could lead to defaults and write-downs on that portion of their portfolio.
The bank's mortgage banking division is another key revenue contributor but is highly cyclical and currently constrained. The current usage is low due to mortgage rates being at multi-decade highs, which has decimated both new purchase originations and refinancing volumes. The primary factor limiting consumption is affordability. Over the next 3-5 years, consumption will increase significantly if and when the Federal Reserve begins to lower interest rates, which would unlock pent-up demand. The market for mortgage originations in the U.S. is vast, but Renasant holds a very small share. Competition is fierce, not just from other banks but from large non-bank lenders like Rocket Mortgage and United Wholesale Mortgage, who leverage scale and technology to offer competitive rates and fast processing. Customers in this space are highly price-sensitive, often choosing the lender with the lowest rate. Renasant is unlikely to win on price and competes by cross-selling to its existing banking customers. The number of mortgage lenders may decrease through consolidation as smaller players struggle with profitability in the current low-volume environment. A key risk for Renasant is prolonged high rates (a medium probability), which would keep mortgage volumes depressed and render this business line a drag on earnings. This would hit customer consumption by keeping potential homebuyers on the sidelines.
Renasant's fee-based services, particularly wealth management and insurance, represent a potential growth area but face significant hurdles. Current consumption is limited by the bank's scale and brand recognition in these fields. While they can effectively cross-sell to existing banking customers, they face difficulty attracting new, standalone clients who might prefer specialized firms like Charles Schwab or larger bank-owned brokerages. Over the next 3-5 years, consumption in this area is targeted for growth as the bank aims to deepen customer relationships and generate more stable, noninterest income. The primary drivers would be successful cross-selling efforts and potentially hiring experienced advisors from competitors. However, the market for wealth management, with an estimated growth of 4-6% annually, is crowded. Competitors are numerous, from independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) to global banks. Customers often choose advisors based on reputation, performance, and personal trust. Renasant's advantage is the convenience of integrated banking and wealth services, but it is unlikely to win share from established wealth management leaders. A medium-probability risk is the failure to effectively execute its cross-selling strategy, leading to stagnant growth in assets under management and fee income. This would manifest as a lower-than-expected attach rate of wealth services to its high-value deposit customers.
As of October 27, 2025, Renasant Corporation's (RNST) stock price of $34.54 requires a careful look to determine its fair value. A triangulated valuation using several methods suggests the bank is likely trading within a reasonable range, though it doesn't present a clear bargain. Based on a price of $34.54 versus a fair value range of $34.00–$38.00, the stock is considered fairly valued, but it is a watchlist candidate due to the limited upside.
A multiples approach compares RNST's valuation multiples to those of its peers. RNST’s trailing twelve-month (TTM) P/E ratio is 15.59, which appears high, distorted by a very low-profit second quarter. A more useful metric is the forward P/E of 10.8, which is slightly below the regional bank average. The Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value (P/TBV) ratio is a core metric, and RNST's P/TBV stands at 1.50x. Peer banks with similar profitability often trade in a 1.3x to 1.6x range, suggesting its current price is reasonable if profitability improves.
A cash-flow/yield approach looks at the direct returns to shareholders. RNST pays an annual dividend of $0.88 per share, for a yield of 2.52%, which is slightly below the average for regional banks. The TTM payout ratio of 39.33% is healthy, meaning the dividend is well-covered by earnings and has room to grow. However, a simple dividend discount model suggests a much lower valuation, indicating that investors are valuing RNST for its potential earnings growth and asset base rather than its dividend.
For banks, the most relevant asset-based valuation is the P/TBV. A P/TBV of 1.50x means investors are willing to pay a 50% premium over the bank's tangible net worth. This premium is typically justified by a high Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE), but RNST's TTM ROTCE is approximately 8.25%. Since a common benchmark is at least 10% to justify trading above 1.5 times tangible book, the multiple appears slightly stretched unless a strong rebound in profitability is imminent. A triangulation of these methods points to a fair value range of approximately $34.00 - $38.00, with the current price making the stock appear fairly valued, but without a significant margin of safety.
Bill Ackman would likely view Renasant Corporation as an underperforming and undifferentiated regional bank that fails to meet his high standards for business quality. Ackman's thesis demands dominant franchises with high returns on capital, and Renasant's Return on Equity of around 6% is far too low, indicating it may not even be earning its cost of capital. He would note that the bank lacks the scale and superior profitability of competitors like First Horizon or the unique, high-return niche of a standout operator like International Bancshares. The only potential interest for Ackman would be from an activist perspective, viewing Renasant as a potential acquisition target for a larger, more efficient bank that could extract significant cost savings, but its current valuation at a P/E ratio of 12x doesn't present a compelling bargain for such a play. For retail investors, the takeaway is that Ackman would see this as a 'pass,' as it is a low-return business in a competitive industry without a clear catalyst for value creation. A significant decline in its stock price, making it an undeniable takeover bargain, would be required for him to reconsider.
Warren Buffett would likely view Renasant Corporation as an unremarkable and ultimately uninteresting investment in 2025. His investment thesis for banks centers on finding simple franchises with a durable moat, evidenced by a consistent ability to generate high returns on equity (ROE) from a low-cost deposit base. Renasant's simple community banking model is easy to understand, but its mediocre ROE of around 6% and ROA of 0.7% fall far short of the high-quality compounders Buffett seeks, suggesting it lacks a true competitive advantage. Furthermore, its valuation, with a Price-to-Earnings ratio of 12x, offers no margin of safety for a business with such average returns. For retail investors, the key takeaway is that Buffett would pass on Renasant in favor of superior banks that are more profitable and better managed, such as International Bancshares (IBOC) with its 16% ROE or Hancock Whitney (HWC) with its 11% ROE. Buffett's decision would only change if the price fell to a deep discount to its tangible book value, but even then, he would prefer to buy a wonderful business at a fair price rather than a fair business at a wonderful price.
Charlie Munger would view Renasant Corporation as a textbook example of an average business to be avoided, not a hidden gem. His investment thesis in banking centers on finding institutions with a durable, low-cost deposit franchise, a culture of risk aversion, and high returns on equity, which are hallmarks of a true moat; Renasant fails this test with a meager return on equity (ROE) of around 6%, which barely covers its cost of capital. This low profitability indicates it lacks any significant competitive advantage, a fatal flaw for a long-term compounder. While the bank operates a simple, understandable community banking model, its mediocre financial performance and valuation of 1.2x tangible book value offer no margin of safety for the lack of quality. For Munger, the mental model is simple: why own a low-return bank when superior alternatives are readily available? He would suggest investors look at exceptional operators like International Bancshares (IBOC), which boasts a 16% ROE at a 7x P/E ratio, or even better-run direct peers like Hancock Whitney (HWC) with an 11% ROE at a 9x P/E ratio and First Horizon (FHN) with a 9% ROE and a 4% dividend yield. Renasant is a clear pass for any investor following the Munger framework. A significant price collapse to well below 0.7x tangible book might attract a value-oriented investor, but Munger would likely still prefer to pay a fair price for the wonderful business instead.
Renasant Corporation operates in the highly fragmented and competitive regional banking industry, where scale, efficiency, and credit quality are paramount. Its position is that of a mid-sized player, focused on traditional banking services in the Southeastern United States. This geographic concentration can be both a strength, fostering deep community ties and local market expertise, and a weakness, exposing it to regional economic downturns more severely than its more diversified national counterparts. The bank's strategy hinges on relationship-based lending and steady organic growth, supplemented by occasional strategic acquisitions to expand its footprint and service offerings.
When measured against its competition, Renasant's performance reveals a company navigating a difficult middle ground. It is larger than small community banks but lacks the scale and efficiency of larger regional players like First Horizon or Regions Financial. This often translates into a higher efficiency ratio, meaning it costs Renasant more to generate a dollar of revenue compared to larger, more technologically advanced rivals. While the bank is fundamentally sound, its path to generating superior shareholder returns is challenging, as it must constantly fight for market share against competitors who may have deeper pockets for marketing, technology investment, and attracting top talent.
The primary challenge for Renasant is achieving superior profitability. Key metrics like Net Interest Margin (NIM), the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits, and Return on Assets (ROA) are often average or slightly below the median for its peer group. This indicates that while the bank is competently managed, it lacks a significant competitive advantage or 'moat' to command premium pricing or operate at a significantly lower cost base. Future success will depend heavily on management's ability to prudently manage credit risk, optimize its branch network, and invest wisely in digital banking technologies to improve efficiency and attract a younger customer base.
Hancock Whitney Corporation is a larger and more profitable regional bank operating in similar Gulf South markets, making it a formidable competitor to Renasant. With a larger asset base and market capitalization, Hancock Whitney benefits from greater economies of scale, which is reflected in its superior profitability and efficiency metrics. While both banks follow a community-focused model, Hancock Whitney's stronger financial performance, higher dividend yield, and more attractive valuation on a price-to-earnings basis present a more compelling investment case. Renasant appears to be a step behind, struggling to match the profitability and operational efficiency of its larger rival.
In terms of business and moat, Hancock Whitney has a distinct edge. Both banks build their brand on community trust, but Hancock Whitney's larger scale translates to greater market presence and brand recognition in key coastal regions. Its total assets of approximately $35 billion dwarf Renasant's $17 billion, providing significant scale advantages. Switching costs are comparable for both, rooted in customer relationships, but Hancock Whitney's broader network of over 200 financial centers provides a stronger network effect than Renasant's approximately 190 locations, especially in overlapping territories. Regulatory barriers are high for any new entrant, benefiting both incumbents. Overall Winner for Business & Moat: Hancock Whitney Corporation, due to its superior scale and stronger market penetration in its core markets.
Financially, Hancock Whitney demonstrates clear superiority. Its revenue growth has been more robust over the past few years. More importantly, its key profitability metrics are stronger, with a Return on Assets (ROA) of around 1.1% compared to Renasant's 0.7%, and a Return on Equity (ROE) of 11% versus Renasant's 6%. This means Hancock Whitney is significantly more effective at generating profits from its assets and shareholder capital. Its efficiency ratio is also consistently lower (better) than Renasant's. On liquidity, both are well-capitalized, but Hancock Whitney's stronger earnings provide a thicker cushion. Overall Financials Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, based on its decisively better profitability and efficiency.
Looking at past performance, Hancock Whitney has delivered stronger results for shareholders. Over the last five years, Hancock Whitney has generally posted higher earnings per share (EPS) growth and has maintained more stable margins. Its total shareholder return (TSR), including dividends, has outperformed Renasant's over 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year periods. In terms of risk, both stocks exhibit similar volatility (beta around 1.2-1.4), but Hancock Whitney's stronger balance sheet and earnings power suggest a lower fundamental risk profile. Winner for growth, margins, and TSR is Hancock Whitney. Overall Past Performance Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, due to its superior track record of shareholder value creation and financial execution.
For future growth, both banks face similar macroeconomic headwinds, including interest rate sensitivity and concerns over credit quality. However, Hancock Whitney's larger platform gives it more options for organic growth and the capacity for larger, more impactful acquisitions. It has a well-defined strategy focused on growing its loan portfolio in high-growth markets along the Gulf Coast. Renasant's growth prospects are more modest, relying on incremental gains in its existing footprint. Analyst consensus generally projects slightly higher long-term earnings growth for Hancock Whitney, giving it the edge. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, due to its larger scale and demonstrated ability to capitalize on growth opportunities more effectively.
From a valuation perspective, Hancock Whitney often trades at a more attractive multiple despite its superior performance. It typically has a lower Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio, around 9x compared to Renasant's 12x. Both trade at similar Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiples, around 1.2x-1.3x. However, given Hancock Whitney's higher ROE, its valuation seems more reasonable; you are paying less for a higher-quality earnings stream. Its dividend yield of 3.6% is also typically higher than Renasant's 3.2%. The market appears to be offering a more profitable, faster-growing bank at a cheaper earnings multiple. Overall, Hancock Whitney is better value today, as its modest valuation does not seem to fully reflect its superior financial strength.
Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation over Renasant Corporation. This verdict is based on Hancock Whitney's consistent outperformance across nearly every key financial and operational metric. Its key strengths are its superior profitability, with an ROE near 11% versus RNST's 6%, and greater operational efficiency. Its larger scale provides a durable competitive advantage that Renasant struggles to overcome. Renasant's primary weakness is its inability to generate comparable returns from its asset base, leading to weaker shareholder returns over the long term. While both banks face risks from economic cycles, Renasant's lower profitability gives it less of a buffer in a downturn. Hancock Whitney is a more robust, efficient, and financially rewarding investment.
Trustmark Corporation is a very close competitor to Renasant, with a similar asset size, geographic focus in the Southeastern U.S., and a comparable community banking model. The two banks are often neck-and-neck in performance, but Trustmark frequently maintains a slight edge in core banking profitability, particularly its Net Interest Margin (NIM). While Renasant has pursued growth more aggressively through acquisitions in the past, Trustmark has focused on steady, organic growth and maintaining a conservative credit culture. For an investor, the choice between the two is subtle, but Trustmark often presents as a slightly more conservative and profitable operator.
On business and moat, the two are almost evenly matched. Both have established brands that are over a century old, commanding strong loyalty in their local communities. Their scale is nearly identical, with both managing around $17-$18 billion in total assets, meaning neither has a significant scale advantage over the other. Switching costs are moderate and similar for both, driven by personal relationships. Network effects are also comparable, with both operating extensive branch networks across the Southeast. Regulatory barriers are identical for both. It is difficult to declare a clear winner here as their business models and market positions are so similar. Overall Winner for Business & Moat: Tie, as neither possesses a discernible, durable competitive advantage over the other.
Financially, Trustmark typically demonstrates slightly better core profitability. Its Net Interest Margin (NIM), a key driver of bank earnings, often trends higher, recently around 3.4% compared to Renasant's 3.0%. This indicates Trustmark earns more from its core lending and deposit-gathering activities. Trustmark's Return on Assets (ROA) of 0.8% and Return on Equity (ROE) of 8% are also modestly better than Renasant's figures. Renasant sometimes shows faster loan growth, but this hasn't consistently translated into superior profitability. Both maintain strong capital ratios. Overall Financials Winner: Trustmark Corporation, due to its consistently stronger Net Interest Margin and slightly better profitability ratios.
An analysis of past performance shows a mixed but slightly favorable picture for Trustmark. Over a five-year period, both stocks have delivered similar, often volatile, total shareholder returns, reflecting the cyclical nature of the banking industry. Trustmark's earnings have been slightly more stable, while Renasant's have been more influenced by M&A activity. Trustmark's focus on a stable, rising dividend has been a consistent feature. In terms of risk, Trustmark's more conservative underwriting has historically led to steadier credit quality metrics during economic downturns, giving it a slight edge on risk-adjusted returns. Overall Past Performance Winner: Trustmark Corporation, based on its greater earnings stability and more conservative risk profile.
Looking ahead, both banks share a similar growth outlook, tied to the economic health of the Southeast. Both are investing in digital platforms to improve efficiency and customer experience. Neither has articulated a major strategic pivot, suggesting growth will be incremental and organic. Analyst expectations for future earnings growth are typically very close for both companies, often within the low-to-mid single digits. Neither appears to have a breakout growth catalyst on the horizon that the other lacks. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Tie, as both are mature banks with similar, modest growth prospects.
Valuation for these two banks is almost always tightly clustered. They typically trade at similar Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios (around 11x-12x) and Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiples (around 1.0x-1.2x). Trustmark's dividend yield is often slightly higher, recently around 3.5% versus Renasant's 3.2%, which may appeal to income-focused investors. Given Trustmark's slightly superior profitability metrics, its valuation can be seen as marginally more attractive. An investor is getting a slightly better-performing bank for a very similar price. Trustmark is better value today, as you get a higher dividend yield and better ROE for a comparable valuation.
Winner: Trustmark Corporation over Renasant Corporation. The verdict, though narrow, favors Trustmark due to its marginal but consistent superiority in core profitability and its more conservative risk profile. Its key strength is a consistently higher Net Interest Margin, which at around 3.4% demonstrates better execution in the fundamental business of banking compared to RNST's 3.0%. Renasant's notable weakness in this comparison is its lower efficiency and profitability despite a more aggressive growth history. Both face the primary risk of a regional economic slowdown, but Trustmark's slightly stronger financial footing gives it a better defensive position. For an investor seeking a stable regional bank, Trustmark offers a slightly more compelling combination of income and stability.
Cadence Bank is a significantly larger regional bank than Renasant, created through a merger that combined banks with footprints in Texas and the Southeast. This scale gives Cadence a substantial advantage in terms of operational leverage, diversification, and the ability to invest in technology. While both compete in the Southeastern U.S., Cadence's larger size and presence in the dynamic Texas market provide it with more robust growth opportunities. Renasant, by contrast, is a smaller, more traditional community-focused bank that appears less dynamic and less efficient than its larger peer.
Regarding business and moat, Cadence Bank holds a clear advantage. Its brand is present across a more diverse and faster-growing geographic footprint. The most significant difference is scale; with total assets approaching $50 billion, Cadence is nearly three times the size of Renasant. This scale allows for greater efficiency and the ability to serve larger commercial clients. Switching costs are similar for both, but Cadence's wider array of wealth management and treasury services may create stickier relationships with commercial customers. Cadence's larger network of around 400 branches provides a stronger network effect. Regulatory barriers are a wash. Overall Winner for Business & Moat: Cadence Bank, due to its superior scale and more attractive geographic diversification.
From a financial standpoint, Cadence generally outperforms Renasant. Its revenue base is much larger, and it has achieved better operating efficiency post-merger. Cadence's Return on Assets (ROA) is typically higher at around 0.9%, and its Return on Equity (ROE) is also superior at 8.5% compared to Renasant's 6%. Furthermore, Cadence often has a more attractive Net Interest Margin (NIM) and a better efficiency ratio. While merger integrations can create short-term challenges, the long-term financial profile of the combined Cadence entity is structurally more profitable than Renasant's. Overall Financials Winner: Cadence Bank, based on its stronger profitability metrics and efficiency driven by scale.
In reviewing past performance, Cadence's history is complicated by its significant merger-of-equals. However, the legacy performance of its constituent banks and the post-merger entity's results point to a stronger growth trajectory than Renasant. Cadence has been more aggressive in pursuing scale to drive shareholder value, while Renasant's growth has been more sedate. Total shareholder returns can be volatile due to M&A activity, but Cadence's strategic positioning suggests a higher potential for long-term capital appreciation. Renasant's performance has been steadier but less inspiring. Overall Past Performance Winner: Cadence Bank, as its strategic actions have created a stronger platform for future growth, even if historical comparisons are imperfect.
Future growth prospects appear brighter for Cadence Bank. Its significant exposure to high-growth markets in Texas and Florida provides a powerful tailwind that Renasant, with its more concentrated presence in slower-growing states, lacks. Cadence is also better positioned to win larger commercial and industrial (C&I) loans due to its larger balance sheet. Analyst expectations generally favor Cadence for higher loan and earnings growth in the coming years. Renasant's growth is likely to remain steady but unspectacular, closely tied to the GDP growth of its core territories. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Cadence Bank, due to its superior geographic footprint and greater scale to compete for larger deals.
From a valuation perspective, Cadence often presents better value. It frequently trades at a lower P/E ratio, around 10x versus Renasant's 12x, and a lower P/TBV multiple, around 1.1x versus 1.2x. This means investors can buy into a larger, more profitable bank with better growth prospects at a cheaper price. Furthermore, Cadence typically offers a higher dividend yield, recently near 3.8%, making it more attractive for income investors as well. Renasant's valuation appears less compelling given its weaker performance metrics. Cadence is better value today because you get superior scale and growth potential for a lower multiple.
Winner: Cadence Bank over Renasant Corporation. The decision is straightforward, based on Cadence's significant advantages in scale, profitability, and growth prospects. Its key strengths are its $48 billion asset base and its strategic presence in high-growth markets like Texas, which Renasant cannot match. This translates directly into better profitability metrics like an ROE of 8.5% compared to RNST's 6%. Renasant's main weakness is its lack of scale, which limits its operating efficiency and growth potential relative to larger competitors. The primary risk for Cadence is execution risk related to its merger integration, but this appears to be well-managed. Cadence is simply a larger, more efficient, and better-positioned bank available at a more attractive valuation.
First Horizon Corporation is a major regional bank and a dominant player in Tennessee, with a significant presence across the Southeast. It is substantially larger than Renasant, with an asset base that positions it in a different league of regional banks. This scale provides First Horizon with significant competitive advantages, including a lower cost of funding, broader service capabilities (especially in capital markets and wealth management), and greater operating leverage. For Renasant, First Horizon is an aspirational competitor; it demonstrates the benefits of scale and market leadership that Renasant currently lacks.
First Horizon's business and moat are considerably wider than Renasant's. Its brand is a household name in its core market of Tennessee, where it commands a leading deposit market share of around 15%. Its scale is the most differentiating factor, with total assets of over $80 billion, more than four times Renasant's. This allows it to service large corporate clients that are out of Renasant's reach. While switching costs are similar in retail banking, First Horizon's sophisticated treasury management and capital markets services create very high switching costs for its commercial clients. Its network of approximately 400 banking centers provides a powerful network effect. Overall Winner for Business & Moat: First Horizon Corporation, due to its commanding market share, massive scale advantage, and more diverse business mix.
Financially, First Horizon is a much stronger performer. Its large and stable low-cost deposit base contributes to a healthy Net Interest Margin (NIM) of around 3.1%, and its diverse fee-income streams provide revenue stability. Profitability is robust, with a Return on Assets (ROA) of 0.9% and a Return on Equity (ROE) of 9%, both comfortably exceeding Renasant's metrics. Most notably, its efficiency ratio is significantly better, reflecting the cost advantages of its scale. First Horizon also generates substantial non-interest income, which is less sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, making its earnings more durable. Overall Financials Winner: First Horizon Corporation, based on its superior profitability, efficiency, and more diversified revenue streams.
An examination of past performance confirms First Horizon's superior position. Over the last decade, it has successfully executed a strategic transformation, shedding non-core assets and focusing on its core banking franchise, which has led to a significant improvement in its financial performance. Its total shareholder return has consistently outpaced Renasant's over multi-year periods. First Horizon's EPS growth has been more consistent and its dividend has grown at a faster pace. From a risk perspective, its larger size and diversification make it a more resilient institution through economic cycles. Overall Past Performance Winner: First Horizon Corporation, reflecting a successful strategic execution that has created significant shareholder value.
Looking to the future, First Horizon's growth prospects are strong. The bank is well-positioned to capitalize on the continued economic growth in the Southeast. Its specialized banking verticals, such as healthcare and music industry financing, provide unique growth avenues that smaller banks like Renasant cannot easily replicate. While its sheer size means growth may be at a more moderate percentage rate, the absolute dollar growth in earnings is expected to be substantial. Analyst consensus forecasts steady growth, supported by its strong market position. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: First Horizon Corporation, given its diversified growth engines and dominant position in attractive markets.
In terms of valuation, First Horizon typically trades at a valuation that reflects its higher quality, yet it can still represent good value. Its P/E ratio is often around 10x, which is lower than Renasant's 12x. It trades at a slightly higher P/TBV multiple (around 1.3x), which is justified by its much higher ROE. The most compelling valuation metric is its dividend yield, which is frequently above 4.0%—a significant premium to Renasant's 3.2%. Investors get a higher-quality, larger, and more profitable bank with a superior dividend yield, often at a lower earnings multiple. First Horizon is better value today, as its valuation does not fully capture its superior quality and income potential.
Winner: First Horizon Corporation over Renasant Corporation. This is a clear victory for First Horizon, which operates on a different level of scale and profitability. Its defining strengths are its massive $80 billion asset base and dominant market share in key states, which drive superior efficiency and an ROE of 9%. Renasant's primary weakness is its small scale in comparison, which prevents it from competing for larger clients and achieving the same level of profitability. The main risk for First Horizon is its sensitivity to the broader economy, but its resilient business model mitigates this. First Horizon is unequivocally a higher-quality institution that offers investors better growth prospects and a more generous dividend.
Simmons First National Corporation is a regional bank with a similar growth-by-acquisition strategy to Renasant, but it operates across a different, more Midwest-focused footprint in addition to some Southeastern states. With a larger asset base than Renasant, Simmons has achieved greater scale, but its profitability has recently been challenged, putting its performance more in line with Renasant's. This makes for an interesting comparison between two banks that have used M&A to grow but are facing similar pressures on profitability and efficiency. For investors, the choice depends on their view of management's ability to integrate acquisitions and navigate the interest rate environment.
In the realm of business and moat, Simmons has a slight edge due to its larger scale. Its brand is well-established in its home state of Arkansas and has been extended into neighboring states through acquisitions. With total assets of around $27 billion, Simmons is significantly larger than Renasant, giving it an advantage in operational leverage. Switching costs are comparable for both banks' community-focused models. Simmons' network of over 200 branches provides a solid network effect in its territories. Regulatory hurdles are the same for both. Overall Winner for Business & Moat: Simmons First National Corporation, primarily due to its superior scale which provides a foundation for better long-term efficiency.
The financial comparison is very close, with both banks exhibiting weaknesses. Simmons' revenue growth has been driven by acquisitions, similar to Renasant's historical path. However, both have recently struggled with profitability. Their Return on Assets (ROA) of around 0.6% and Return on Equity (ROE) of 6% are nearly identical and lag behind top-tier peers. Both also have similar Net Interest Margins (NIM) near 2.9% - 3.0%. Simmons has been working through merger integration costs, which have weighed on its efficiency ratio, but its underlying scale should eventually allow for better performance. It's a close call, as both are currently underperforming. Overall Financials Winner: Tie, as both are posting very similar, and somewhat disappointing, profitability metrics.
Past performance reveals two different paths to a similar result. Simmons has been more aggressive with M&A in recent years, leading to faster balance sheet growth. Renasant's major deals are further in the past. Total shareholder returns for both have been volatile and have often underperformed the broader regional bank index. Neither has demonstrated a consistent ability to generate alpha. Simmons' EPS has been lumpier due to acquisition-related expenses. Renasant's performance has been less eventful but also less inspiring. Neither stands out as a strong historical performer. Overall Past Performance Winner: Tie, as neither has a compelling track record of outperformance over the other.
Future growth prospects for both banks depend on their ability to improve organic growth and profitability. Simmons' management is focused on realizing cost savings from its recent large acquisition and improving its efficiency ratio. If successful, this could unlock significant earnings growth. Renasant's path to growth is less clear, likely relying on incremental market share gains. Simmons' slightly larger scale and potential for merger synergies give it a marginally higher potential for earnings upside, albeit with higher execution risk. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Simmons First National Corporation, due to the clearer, albeit riskier, path to earnings improvement through synergy realization.
From a valuation standpoint, Simmons often trades at a discount to Renasant, which reflects its recent profitability challenges. Simmons' Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) is frequently below 1.0x, suggesting the market is pessimistic about its ability to earn its cost of capital. Renasant trades at a premium, around 1.2x P/TBV. Simmons also offers a significantly higher dividend yield, often near 4.0%, compared to Renasant's 3.2%. For a value-oriented investor, Simmons could be more appealing. You are buying a larger bank at a discount to its tangible net worth, with a higher dividend yield, betting on a recovery. Simmons is better value today for investors willing to take on the execution risk for a potential turnaround.
Winner: Simmons First National Corporation over Renasant Corporation. This is a contrarian verdict favoring Simmons based on its valuation and recovery potential. Its key strength lies in its discounted valuation, with a P/TBV often below 1.0x, and a superior dividend yield near 4.0%. While its current profitability is weak and matches Renasant's low ROE of 6%, its larger $27 billion asset base provides a platform for significant operating leverage if management can successfully execute its efficiency plans. Renasant's notable weakness is its premium valuation relative to its mediocre performance. The primary risk for Simmons is failing to realize merger synergies, but the valuation provides a margin of safety that Renasant's stock does not. For investors with a longer time horizon, Simmons offers a more compelling risk/reward proposition.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Renasant Corporation operates as a traditional regional bank in the Southeastern U.S., with its business model centered on gathering local deposits to fund loans. The bank's primary strength is its solid base of low-cost core deposits, which provides a stable funding advantage. However, it lacks a distinct competitive moat, operating as a generalist lender without a specialized niche and facing intense competition from both larger and smaller banks. Its fee income is not as diversified as top-tier peers, and its branch network efficiency is average. The overall investor takeaway is mixed; Renasant is a functional community bank but does not possess strong, durable advantages to consistently outperform competitors.
Renasant generates a meaningful amount of fee income, but its contribution to overall revenue is not exceptionally high and is partly reliant on the cyclical mortgage market.
Noninterest income provides a crucial buffer when lending margins are tight. For Renasant, this income stream accounted for 22.5% of total revenue in the first quarter of 2024. While this provides some diversification, it is not at a level that would be considered a major strength compared to more fee-oriented peers, where this figure can exceed 30%. A significant portion of its fee income comes from mortgage banking, which is highly cyclical and dependent on interest rates and the housing market. While the bank also generates more stable fees from wealth management and service charges, the overall mix does not fully insulate it from economic cycles. The fee income is a helpful contributor but is not large or stable enough to be considered a strong competitive advantage.
Renasant's community banking model fosters a healthy mix of granular retail and small business deposits, reducing its reliance on more volatile funding sources.
A diversified deposit base is crucial for financial stability. Renasant's focus on relationship-based community banking naturally leads to a well-balanced mix of customers. The bank primarily serves individuals (retail) and local small-to-medium-sized businesses, creating a granular deposit base that is less risky than being dependent on a few large corporate clients. This structure means no single depositor can have an outsized impact on the bank's liquidity. Importantly, Renasant has minimal reliance on brokered deposits—funds sourced through third-party intermediaries—which are known to be less stable and more costly. By cultivating a broad base of local, relationship-driven customers, the bank has built a stable and diversified funding profile that reduces concentration risk and enhances its resilience.
The bank operates as a generalist lender, lacking a specialized, defensible niche that would provide pricing power or a distinct competitive edge.
Excelling in a specific lending niche, like SBA or agriculture loans, can create a strong moat through specialized expertise and deep customer relationships. Renasant, however, does not possess such a focus. Its loan portfolio is diversified across standard categories like commercial real estate, C&I, and residential mortgages. For instance, its largest segment is CRE, which is a common focus for most community and regional banks and is a highly competitive space. The bank does not report significant or market-leading production in specialized areas like SBA lending. While being a competent generalist lender is a viable business model, it means Renasant must compete primarily on service and price, without the benefit of a differentiated expertise that would create a durable competitive advantage and protect it from competitors.
The bank possesses a solid and valuable base of low-cost core deposits, which provides a durable funding advantage and supports profitability.
A community bank's greatest asset is its ability to attract and retain stable, low-cost funding. Renasant performs well on this front. As of the first quarter of 2024, noninterest-bearing deposits made up 24.9% of its total deposits. This is a strong figure, as these deposits cost the bank nothing and represent a loyal customer base. Furthermore, its overall cost of total deposits was 2.37%, which remains competitive in a rising rate environment. The bank also maintains a manageable level of uninsured deposits at around 34%, a key risk metric that suggests a limited threat of large-scale deposit flight during market stress. This sticky, low-cost deposit franchise is a clear strength and the most significant component of Renasant's moat, providing a reliable and cheap source of funds to support its lending operations.
Renasant's branch network provides a physical presence in its key markets, but its efficiency in gathering deposits per branch is average and does not constitute a significant competitive advantage.
A bank's branch network is the backbone of its deposit-gathering and relationship-building efforts. For Renasant, its 194 branches are key touchpoints in its Southeastern markets. However, a key measure of efficiency, deposits per branch, stands at approximately $72.7 million (based on $14.1 billion in total deposits). This figure is not particularly strong and is generally in line with or slightly below many of its regional bank peers, indicating an average, rather than superior, operational leverage from its physical footprint. While the bank maintains a solid presence in its core markets, it lacks the scale and density of larger competitors and doesn't demonstrate the high efficiency that would signal a strong moat derived from its network. Therefore, the branch network is a functional part of its business but not a source of distinct competitive strength.
Renasant Corporation's recent financial performance presents a conflicting picture for investors. On one hand, the bank shows very strong growth in its core earnings, with Net Interest Income surging 75% year-over-year in the latest quarter to $218.86 million. However, this strength was completely overshadowed by a massive $81.32 million provision for credit losses, which decimated net income to just $1.02 million. While capital levels appear adequate, the sudden spike in expected loan losses raises significant concerns about the quality of its loan book, especially following a recent large expansion of its balance sheet. The investor takeaway is mixed to negative, as the severe credit concerns currently outweigh the positive revenue trends.
Renasant maintains solid capital and liquidity levels, with a healthy loans-to-deposits ratio and an adequate tangible equity buffer to absorb potential shocks.
The bank's capital and liquidity metrics appear sound. The tangible common equity to total assets ratio, a key measure of loss-absorbing capital, was 8.2% in the most recent quarter. This is generally considered in line with the 8-9% average for regional banks and provides a reasonable cushion. Furthermore, its liquidity position looks strong, with a loans-to-deposits ratio of 84.7% ($18.27 billion in net loans vs. $21.58 billion in deposits). A ratio below 100% indicates that the bank is funding its lending primarily through stable customer deposits rather than more volatile wholesale borrowing, which is a significant strength. While data on uninsured deposits is unavailable, the available metrics suggest a resilient balance sheet capable of supporting its operations and weathering stress.
A massive and unexpected increase in the provision for credit losses in the latest quarter signals a significant potential deterioration in loan quality, creating a major red flag for investors.
This is the most concerning area of Renasant's financial statements. In Q2 2025, the bank booked a provision for credit losses of $81.32 million. This figure is alarming when compared to just $4.75 million in the prior quarter and $9.27 million for the entire 2024 fiscal year. A provision of this magnitude indicates that management expects a substantial increase in future loan defaults. While its allowance for credit losses as a percentage of gross loans is 1.57%, which is a respectable reserve level, the sudden need to bolster it so aggressively overshadows the current size of the reserve. This action single-handedly wiped out the quarter's profitability and raises serious questions about the health of the loan portfolio, particularly following a large-scale expansion of the balance sheet. This development is a clear warning sign of brewing credit problems.
The bank is benefiting from higher interest rates, as shown by strong net interest income growth, while the negative impact of unrealized securities losses on its equity appears manageable.
Renasant appears to be effectively managing its assets and liabilities in the current rate environment. The most compelling evidence is the 75% year-over-year growth in Net Interest Income in Q2 2025, which demonstrates a strong ability to reprice assets like loans higher than its funding costs. However, the bank is not immune to the negative effects of higher rates on its bond portfolio. The balance sheet shows -$114.04 million in 'Comprehensive Income and Other', which largely reflects unrealized losses on investment securities. This represents about 5.2% of the bank's tangible common equity ($2.195 billion), a noticeable but not critical level of erosion. While specific data on the portfolio's duration or the mix of fixed vs. variable rate loans is not provided, the strong income performance suggests positive overall sensitivity to higher rates, justifying a passing grade.
The bank's core earnings engine is performing exceptionally well, with very strong year-over-year growth in net interest income driven by its expanded asset base.
Renasant's ability to generate core earnings from its lending and investment activities is a significant strength. In the most recent quarter (Q2 2025), Net Interest Income (NII)—the difference between interest earned on assets and interest paid on liabilities—grew by a remarkable 75.05% year-over-year. This powerful growth shows the bank is effectively capitalizing on its larger scale and the current interest rate environment. The absolute NII also jumped sharply quarter-over-quarter from $134.2 million to $218.86 million. While a precise Net Interest Margin (NIM) percentage is not provided, this level of NII growth is a clear indicator of a healthy and expanding earnings spread, forming a strong foundation for profitability, provided that credit losses are contained.
The bank operates with a reasonable efficiency ratio that has shown recent improvement, indicating disciplined cost management even as the company has grown significantly.
Renasant demonstrates adequate control over its expenses. In Q2 2025, its efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided by total revenue) was 60.9%. This is an improvement from 66.3% in the prior quarter and is approaching the sub-60% level often considered strong for regional banks. Noninterest expenses did jump significantly in Q2 to $162.73 million from $113.16 million in Q1, but this was matched by even stronger revenue growth, likely related to a recent acquisition. The ability to keep the efficiency ratio in check during a period of major expansion is a positive sign. It suggests that management is integrating new operations without letting costs spiral out of control, which is crucial for long-term profitability.
Renasant Corporation's past performance has been inconsistent and generally lags its peers. While the bank has managed to grow its balance sheet and maintain stable credit quality, its earnings have been very volatile, with an average Return on Equity (ROE) between 6% and 8% that is well below competitors. The dividend has been flat at $0.88 per share for years, and a recent shift from share buybacks to significant shareholder dilution in FY2024 is a concern. Overall, the historical record shows a lack of consistent execution and shareholder value creation, leading to a negative investor takeaway.
The bank has achieved moderate loan and deposit growth over the last five years, but the path has been inconsistent with periods of contraction.
Over the analysis period of FY2020-FY2024, Renasant's balance sheet growth has been unsteady. Gross loans grew from $10.9 billion to $12.9 billion, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 4.1%, but this included a decline in FY2021. Similarly, total deposits grew from $12.1 billion to $14.6 billion (a 4.8% CAGR), but also experienced a dip in FY2022. This lumpy growth suggests that the bank's expansion is not purely organic and may be reliant on market conditions or acquisitions rather than consistent market share gains.
The loan-to-deposit ratio has also been volatile, dropping from 90.7% in FY2020 to a low of 72.1% in FY2021 during a period of high deposit inflows, before climbing back to a more stable 88.4% in FY2024. While the recent stability is positive, the historical inconsistency points to a less predictable business trajectory compared to peers who demonstrate steadier growth.
The bank's efficiency has been inconsistent and generally mediocre, while its net interest income has shown signs of stalling recently.
Renasant has struggled to achieve consistent improvements in its operational efficiency and core interest-based earnings. Net Interest Income (NII), the primary source of revenue for a bank, fell from $519.3 million in FY2023 to $512.2 million in FY2024, a negative sign in a growing loan environment. This suggests pressure on its Net Interest Margin (NIM), which competitor analysis places around 3.0%, below more profitable peers like Trustmark.
Its efficiency ratio, which measures non-interest expenses as a percentage of revenue, has been erratic. After improving from a poor 70.1% in FY2020 to a better 62.3% in FY2022, it regressed to 69.5% in FY2023 before improving again to 62.6% in FY2024. Consistently strong banks drive this ratio down steadily over time. Renasant's inability to maintain its efficiency gains points to challenges in controlling costs relative to the revenue it generates, making it less profitable than its more disciplined competitors.
Earnings per share have been extremely volatile year-to-year, and the bank's core profitability consistently lags that of its stronger peers.
Renasant's earnings track record is defined by inconsistency. Over the past five years, annual EPS growth has been a rollercoaster: -48.6% in FY2020, +110.8% in FY2021, -5.5% in FY2022, -13.2% in FY2023, and +27.7% in FY2024. Such wild swings make it difficult for investors to have confidence in the company's ability to generate steady earnings through different economic conditions.
Furthermore, the bank's fundamental profitability is weak. Its Return on Equity (ROE) has consistently hovered in the 6% to 8% range (excluding the FY2020 trough of 3.93%). This is significantly below the performance of numerous competitors like Hancock Whitney (11%), First Horizon (9%), and International Bancshares (16%). A low ROE indicates that the company is not efficiently using its equity capital to generate profits, a critical flaw in the banking business model.
The bank has maintained a stable allowance for credit losses relative to its loan book, suggesting a consistent and prudent approach to managing credit risk.
Renasant's management of credit risk appears to be a point of stability in its historical performance. After a large provision for loan losses of $86.85 million in FY2020, which was common across the industry due to the pandemic, provisions have normalized. The bank's allowance for credit losses (ACL) as a percentage of its gross loans has remained in a tight and healthy range. The ACL-to-gross loans ratio was 1.61% in FY2020 and 1.57% in FY2024, with minimal fluctuation in between.
This consistency indicates that management has maintained its underwriting discipline and has been appropriately reserving for potential loan losses as the portfolio has grown. While specific data on net charge-offs and non-performing loans is not provided, the stable reserve coverage provides a good proxy for credit quality management. This steady approach to credit risk is a key strength for any bank.
The company has provided a stable but completely flat dividend for the past five years and recently pivoted from share buybacks to significant shareholder dilution.
Renasant's record on capital returns is poor. While the dividend has been reliable, it has shown no growth, remaining at $0.88 per share annually from FY2020 through FY2024. For investors seeking income growth, this is a significant drawback. A stagnant dividend can signal management's lack of confidence in future earnings growth or a decision to retain capital for other purposes.
More concerning is the trend in shares outstanding. After modest share repurchases in FY2020 (-$24.57M) and FY2021 (-$21.32M), the company's share count increased by 5.85% in FY2024, backed by a $217M issuance of common stock. This is highly dilutive to existing shareholders, meaning each share now represents a smaller piece of the company. A history of consistent buybacks is a sign of financial strength and a commitment to shareholder value; a shift to dilution without a clear, compelling strategic rationale is a major red flag.
Renasant Corporation's future growth outlook appears muted and heavily reliant on the economic health of the Southeastern U.S. The primary tailwind is the potential for steady, albeit slow, regional economic expansion. However, significant headwinds include intense competition from larger banks with superior technology and more nimble regional peers, along with persistent pressure on net interest margins from the high-rate environment. Compared to more dynamic competitors, Renasant lacks a clear, differentiated strategy to accelerate growth in loans or fee income. The investor takeaway is mixed to negative, as the bank is positioned for stability rather than significant shareholder value creation over the next 3–5 years.
The bank's outlook for loan growth is muted, reflecting broader economic headwinds and intense competition, with no clear catalyst for acceleration.
Management guidance and industry trends point toward low-single-digit loan growth for the foreseeable future. High interest rates are dampening demand for both commercial and consumer loans across the industry. Renasant has not highlighted a particularly strong loan pipeline or an outsized presence in a high-growth niche that would allow it to buck this trend. Its primary markets in the Southeast are healthy but also intensely competitive. Without a clear path to accelerating loan originations beyond the market average, the bank's core revenue engine is set for slow growth. This conservative outlook fails to provide investors with a compelling reason to expect significant earnings expansion from its primary business.
While Renasant utilizes share buybacks, its M&A strategy appears opportunistic rather than programmatic, limiting its potential as a primary driver for transformative growth.
For a bank of Renasant's size, M&A is one of the few avenues for step-change growth in earnings and market presence. The company maintains a solid capital position, with a CET1 ratio comfortably above regulatory minimums, providing the capacity for acquisitions. However, management has not signaled a strong appetite for transformative deals, and its recent history does not show a pattern of being a serial acquirer. While the company does have a share repurchase program in place, which can support earnings per share, this is more of a capital return tool than a growth strategy. In an industry where scale is increasingly important, a lack of a clear and aggressive M&A plan suggests Renasant may be more of a future seller than a buyer, which does not point to strong standalone growth.
The bank is pursuing standard branch consolidation but has not articulated a clear, aggressive digital strategy or cost-saving targets that would suggest future outperformance.
Renasant is engaged in optimizing its physical footprint, a common theme among regional banks, by closing and consolidating branches to reduce operating costs. However, the company has not provided specific, forward-looking targets for cost savings or a detailed plan for reinvesting those savings into its digital platform. While digital adoption is crucial for competing with larger banks and fintechs, Renasant's public disclosures lack ambitious goals for digital user growth or specific enhancements that would create a competitive advantage. Without clear targets, it is difficult for investors to assess the effectiveness of its strategy, making it appear more reactive than proactive. This lack of a clearly defined and communicated plan represents a weakness in its future growth strategy.
Like its peers, Renasant faces significant pressure on its Net Interest Margin (NIM) due to rising deposit costs, which is expected to constrain profitability.
The bank's profitability is highly sensitive to its Net Interest Margin. While Renasant has benefited from a solid base of low-cost core deposits, the industry-wide trend of rising deposit costs is unavoidable and is compressing margins. Management's forward-looking guidance will likely reflect continued NIM pressure as funding costs catch up to asset yields. Although a portion of its loan book is variable-rate, it is unlikely to be enough to fully offset the escalating cost of deposits. This margin compression is a direct headwind to net interest income growth, which is the largest component of Renasant's revenue. This unfavorable outlook for its core profitability metric is a significant concern for future earnings growth.
Renasant lacks a clear strategy or ambitious targets to significantly grow its noninterest income, leaving it heavily dependent on cyclical net interest income.
Fee income provides a stable and diversified revenue stream, yet Renasant's proportion of noninterest income to total revenue remains average at around 22.5%. A significant portion of this is derived from mortgage banking, which is highly volatile and currently suppressed by high interest rates. The company has not laid out specific growth targets for more stable fee businesses like wealth management or treasury services. Without a stated ambition to, for example, grow wealth management assets by a certain percentage or increase the fee income mix to over 30%, it appears this is not a primary focus for management. This reliance on traditional spread income in a challenging rate environment is a strategic weakness and limits its growth potential compared to more diversified peers.
As of October 27, 2025, with a stock price of $34.54, Renasant Corporation (RNST) appears to be fairly valued with a slight risk of being overvalued. The bank's valuation presents a mixed picture for investors. On one hand, its forward P/E ratio of 10.8 suggests the market anticipates a strong earnings recovery, making it look attractive. On the other hand, its Price to Tangible Book (P/TBV) ratio of 1.50x seems high given its recent profitability, and a significant increase in outstanding shares raises concerns about shareholder dilution. The stock is currently trading just above the midpoint of its 52-week range of $26.97 to $40.40. The overall investor takeaway is neutral; the potential for an earnings rebound is balanced by a valuation that already prices in much of that recovery, offering a limited margin of safety.
The stock trades at 1.50x its tangible book value, a premium valuation that is not currently supported by its modest Return on Tangible Common Equity of 8.25%.
Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) is a crucial metric for evaluating banks, as it compares the company's market price to its hard, tangible assets. Renasant's current price of $34.54 is 1.50 times its tangible book value per share of $23.10. Paying a 50% premium to a bank's tangible net worth is only justified when the bank demonstrates high profitability. The key measure of profitability in this context is Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE). A higher ROTCE indicates that management is effectively generating profits from its core capital. Renasant's calculated TTM ROTCE is approximately 8.25%. Generally, a bank trading at 1.5x P/TBV or higher should be generating a ROTCE well above 10%, with premium banks often achieving 15% or more. Since Renasant's profitability currently falls short of this level, its valuation on this core metric appears stretched.
The company's low TTM Return on Equity (~4.95%) does not justify its Price-to-Book ratio of 0.88, suggesting a misalignment between profitability and valuation.
A bank's Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio should ideally be aligned with its Return on Equity (ROE), which measures how much profit the company generates for each dollar of shareholder equity. A higher ROE typically warrants a higher P/B multiple. Renasant's P/B ratio is 0.88, which means it trades at a 12% discount to its accounting book value. While this may seem cheap, it is important to consider the large amount of goodwill on its balance sheet from past acquisitions. The more important figure is the company's profitability. Its calculated TTM ROE is approximately 4.95%, a figure dragged down by the recent poor quarter. A bank generating an ROE below 5% would typically trade at a much steeper discount to its book value. While the more relevant Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE) is higher at 8.25%, this level of profitability still does not provide strong support for the current valuation, particularly the 1.50x P/TBV multiple. There is a clear mismatch where the valuation is pricing in a level of profitability that the bank has not recently demonstrated.
The forward P/E ratio of 10.8 is attractive, as it indicates the market expects a strong earnings recovery from a recent slump.
This factor passes because the valuation, when looking at expected earnings, appears reasonable. The trailing twelve-month (TTM) P/E ratio of 15.59 is elevated, but this is due to unusually low earnings in the second quarter of 2025, which were impacted by a significant provision for loan losses. A backward-looking metric like the TTM P/E can be misleading in such cases. A better indicator is the forward P/E ratio, which stands at 10.8. This much lower figure implies that analysts expect earnings per share (EPS) to rebound significantly over the next year. A forward P/E below 12.0x for a regional bank is generally considered attractive, suggesting that the stock may be undervalued if it successfully achieves these projected earnings. This provides a clear rationale for potential investment, assuming the expected recovery materializes.
The dividend yield is acceptable, but significant shareholder dilution from a large increase in shares outstanding severely undermines total shareholder return.
Renasant Corporation offers a dividend yield of 2.52%, which provides a modest income stream for investors. The dividend appears sustainable, with a payout ratio of 39.33% of trailing twelve-month earnings, meaning the company retains a majority of its profits for growth. However, the capital return picture is severely damaged by shareholder dilution. The number of shares outstanding has increased dramatically, from roughly 63.6 million at the end of fiscal year 2024 to 95.0 million in the most recent quarter. This represents a nearly 50% increase in the share count, which means each share now represents a smaller piece of the company. This level of dilution is a major headwind for per-share value growth and is a significant negative for existing shareholders.
Compared to regional bank peers, Renasant does not appear discounted; its P/TBV is elevated and its dividend yield is below average.
When stacked against its peers in the regional and community banking sector, Renasant Corporation's valuation does not signal a clear discount. Its forward P/E ratio of 10.8 is slightly more attractive than the industry average, which is typically between 11x and 12x. However, this is offset by other key metrics. The company's Price to Tangible Book (P/TBV) ratio of 1.50x is likely at or above the median for regional banks, which often trade closer to a 1.1x to 1.5x P/TBV multiple. Furthermore, its dividend yield of 2.52% is less compelling than the average yield for regional banks, which is frequently in the 3.0% to 3.5% range. Overall, the combination of a slightly high P/TBV and a lower-than-average dividend yield suggests the stock is not undervalued relative to its competitors.
The primary macroeconomic risk for Renasant is the 'higher-for-longer' interest rate environment. While higher rates can increase the income earned from loans, they also significantly raise the bank's funding costs as it must pay more for customer deposits to remain competitive. This dynamic puts sustained pressure on its Net Interest Margin (NIM)—the crucial gap between interest income and interest expense—which is a core driver of bank profitability. Furthermore, Renasant's loan portfolio is concentrated in the Southeastern United States. Any regional economic downturn could weaken the ability of its commercial and retail customers to repay their debts, leading to a rise in nonperforming loans and forcing the bank to set aside more money for potential losses, directly impacting its bottom line.
Within the banking industry, Renasant faces a challenging competitive landscape. It is caught between giant national banks, which leverage massive marketing budgets and advanced technology platforms, and smaller, specialized fintech firms that offer innovative, user-friendly products. This intense competition makes it difficult to grow market share and puts pressure on pricing for both loans and deposits. On the regulatory front, the entire regional banking sector is under increased scrutiny following the turmoil in 2023. Renasant could face stricter capital and liquidity requirements in the future, which might increase compliance costs and limit its ability to deploy capital for growth or shareholder returns.
A key company-specific risk is Renasant's historical reliance on acquisitions for growth. While mergers can accelerate expansion, they come with significant integration risks, such as clashing corporate cultures, unexpected costs, and difficulties merging technology systems. A poorly executed acquisition could fail to deliver projected benefits and destroy shareholder value. Investors should also monitor the composition of the bank's loan book, particularly its exposure to vulnerable sectors like commercial real estate (CRE), specifically office properties. A downturn in these specific markets could lead to a disproportionate increase in credit losses. Finally, keeping pace with the rapid digital transformation in banking requires continuous and substantial investment, posing a risk if the bank falls behind competitors in its mobile and online offerings.
Click a section to jump