TRUSTMARK CORP - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-K

for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

or

Commission file number 000-3683

TRUSTMARK CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☑    No  ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.    ☐

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

Based on the closing sales price at June 28, 2019, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the shares of common stock held by nonaffiliates of the registrant was approximately $1.217 billion.

As of January 31, 2020, there were issued and outstanding 63,843,049 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for Trustmark’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held April 28, 2020 are incorporated by reference into Part III of the Form 10-K report.

TRUSTMARK CORPORATION

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  You can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “may,” “hope,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “seek,” “continue,” “could,” “would,” “future” or the negative of those terms or other words of similar meaning.  You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss our future expectations or state other “forward-looking” information.  These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements relating to anticipated future operating and financial performance measures, including net interest margin, credit quality, business initiatives, growth opportunities and growth rates, among other things, and encompass any estimate, prediction, expectation, projection, opinion, anticipation, outlook or statement of belief included therein as well as the management assumptions underlying these forward-looking statements.  You should be aware that the occurrence of the events described under the caption Item 1A. Risk Factors in this report could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.  Should one or more of these risks materialize, or should any such underlying assumptions prove to be significantly different, actual results may vary significantly from those anticipated, estimated, projected or expected.

Risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations of Management include, but are not limited to, changes in the level of nonperforming assets and charge-offs, local, state and national economic and market conditions, including potential market impacts of efforts by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to reduce the size of its balance sheet, conditions in the housing and real estate markets in the regions in which Trustmark operates and the extent and duration of the current volatility in the credit and financial markets as well as crude oil prices, changes in our ability to measure the fair value of assets in our portfolio, material changes in the level and/or volatility of market interest rates, the performance and demand for the products and services we offer, including the level and timing of withdrawals from our deposit accounts, the costs and effects of litigation and of unexpected or adverse outcomes in such litigation, our ability to attract noninterest-bearing deposits and other low-cost funds, competition in loan and deposit pricing, as well as the entry of new competitors into our markets through de novo expansion and acquisitions, economic conditions, including the potential impact of issues related to the European financial system and monetary and other governmental actions designed to address credit, securities, and/or commodity markets, the enactment of legislation and changes in existing regulations or enforcement practices or the adoption of new regulations, changes in accounting standards and practices, including changes in the interpretation of existing standards, that affect our consolidated financial statements, changes in consumer spending, borrowings and savings habits, technological changes, changes in the financial performance or condition of our borrowers, changes in our ability to control expenses, greater than expected costs or difficulties related to the integration of acquisitions or new products and lines of business, cyber-attacks and other breaches which could affect our information system security, natural disasters, environmental disasters, acts of war or terrorism, and other risks described in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.  Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of this information, whether as the result of new information, future events or developments or otherwise.

PART I

The Corporation

Description of Business

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark), a Mississippi business corporation incorporated in 1968, is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.  Trustmark’s principal subsidiary is Trustmark National Bank (TNB), initially chartered by the State of Mississippi in 1889.  At December 31, 2019, TNB had total assets of $13.496 billion, which represented approximately 99.99% of the consolidated assets of Trustmark.

Through TNB and its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and other financial solutions through 193 offices and 2,844 full-time equivalent associates (measured at December 31, 2019) located in the states of Alabama, Florida (primarily in the northwest or “Panhandle” region of that state, which is referred to herein as Trustmark’s Florida market), Mississippi, Tennessee (in the Memphis and Northern Mississippi regions, which are collectively referred to herein as Trustmark’s Tennessee market), and Texas (primarily in Houston, which is referred to herein as Trustmark’s Texas market).  The principal products produced and services rendered by TNB and Trustmark’s other subsidiaries are as follows:

3

Trustmark National Bank

Commercial Banking – TNB provides a full range of commercial banking services to corporations and other business customers.  Loans are provided for a variety of general corporate purposes, including financing for commercial and industrial projects, income producing commercial real estate, owner-occupied real estate and construction and land development.  TNB also provides deposit services, including checking, savings and money market accounts and certificates of deposit as well as treasury management services.

Consumer Banking – TNB provides banking services to consumers, including checking, savings, and money market accounts as well as certificates of deposit and individual retirement accounts.  In addition, TNB provides consumer customers with installment and real estate loans and lines of credit.

Mortgage Banking – TNB provides mortgage banking services, including construction financing, production of conventional and government insured mortgages, secondary marketing and mortgage servicing.

Insurance – TNB provides a competitive array of insurance solutions for business and individual risk management needs.  Business insurance offerings include services and specialized products for medical professionals, construction, manufacturing, hospitality, real estate and group life and health plans.  Individual customers are also provided life and health insurance, and personal line policies.  TNB provides these services through Fisher Brown Bottrell Insurance, Inc. (FBBI), a Mississippi corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of TNB, which is based in Jackson, Mississippi.

Wealth Management and Trust Services – TNB offers specialized services and expertise in the areas of wealth management, trust, investment and custodial services for corporate and individual customers.  These services include the administration of personal trusts and estates as well as the management of investment accounts for individuals, employee benefit plans and charitable foundations.  TNB also provides corporate trust and institutional custody, securities brokerage, financial and estate planning and retirement plan services.  TNB’s Wealth Management Segment is also assisted by Trustmark Investment Advisors, Inc. (TIA), a SEC-registered investment adviser and a wholly-owned subsidiary of TNB.  TIA provides customized investment management services to TNB’s Wealth Management Segment, which in turn relies upon that advice to provide investment management services to TNB’s wealth management customers.

New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) – TNB provides an intermediary vehicle for the provision of loans or investments in Low-Income Communities (LICs) through its subsidiary Southern Community Capital, LLC (SCC).  SCC is a Mississippi single member limited liability company, a certified Community Development Entity (CDE) and a wholly-owned subsidiary of TNB.  The primary mission of SCC is to provide investment capital for LICs, as defined by Section 45D of the Internal Revenue Code, or for Low-Income Persons (LIPs).  As a certified CDE, SCC is able to apply to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) to receive NMTC allocations to offer investors in exchange for equity investments in qualified projects.

Capital Trust

Trustmark Preferred Capital Trust I (the Trust) is a Delaware trust affiliate and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trustmark formed in 2006 to facilitate a private placement of $60.0 million in trust preferred securities.  As defined in applicable accounting standards, the Trust is considered a variable interest entity for which Trustmark is not the primary beneficiary.  Accordingly, the accounts of the Trust are not included in Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements.

Strategy

Trustmark seeks to be a premier diversified financial services company in its markets, providing a broad range of banking, wealth management and insurance solutions to its customers.  Trustmark’s products and services are designed to strengthen and expand customer relationships and enhance the organization’s competitive advantages in its markets as well as to provide cross-selling opportunities that will enable Trustmark to continue to diversify its revenue and earnings streams.

4

The following table sets forth summary data regarding Trustmark’s securities, loans, assets, deposits, equity and revenue over the past five years ($ in thousands):

For additional information regarding the general development of Trustmark’s business, see Part II. Item 6. – Selected Financial Data and Item 7. – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report.

Overview of Lending Business

Trustmark categorizes loans on its balance sheet into three categories.  These categories are described in more detail in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

The following discussion briefly summarizes Trustmark’s lending business by focusing on LHFI and LHFS, and includes a discussion of the risks inherent in these loans, Trustmark’s underwriting policies for its loans and the characteristics of the real estate loan component of these loans.  Acquired loans and covered loans are excluded from this summary, as Trustmark did not underwrite those loans at inception.  Discussion of Trustmark’s acquired loans, including covered loans, is contained elsewhere in this report.

As a general matter, extending credit to businesses and consumers exposes Trustmark to credit risk, which is the risk that the principal balance and any related interest may not be collected according to the original terms due to the inability or unwillingness of the borrower to repay the loan.  Trustmark mitigates credit risk through a set of internal controls, which includes adherence to

5

conservative lending practices and underwriting guidelines, collateral monitoring, and oversight of its borrower’s financial performance and collateral.  The risks inherent in specific subsets of lending are discussed below.

LHFI Secured by Construction, Land Development, and Other Land – Construction and land development loans include loans for both commercial and residential properties to builders/developers, other commercial borrowers and consumers.  This category also includes loans secured by vacant land, except land known to be used or usable for agricultural purposes, such as crop and livestock production.  Repayment is normally derived from the sale of the underlying property or from permanent financing, which refinances Trustmark’s initial loan.  Trustmark’s engagement in this type of lending is generally extended to those builders and developers exhibiting the highest credit quality with significant equity invested in the project and is primarily restricted to projects within Trustmark’s geographic markets.  The underwriting process for these loans includes analysis of the financial position and strength of both the borrower and guarantor, experience with similar projects in the past, market demand and prospects for successful completion of the proposed project within the established budget and schedule, values of underlying collateral and availability of permanent financing.  Risk within this portfolio is mitigated through adherence to policies and lending limits, periodic target credit reviews of the different segments of this portfolio, inspection of projects throughout the life of the loan and routine monitoring of financial information and collateral values as they are updated.

Inherent in real estate construction lending is the risk that the full value of the collateral does not exist at the time the loan is granted.  Construction lending also inherently includes the risk associated with a borrower’s ability to successfully complete a proposed project on time and within budget.  Further, adverse changes in the market occurring between the start of construction and completion of the projects can result in slower sales or rental rates and lower sales prices than originally anticipated which could impact the underlying real estate collateral values and timely and full repayment of these loans.  Rising interest rates can adversely affect the cost of construction and the financial viability of real estate projects.  Higher interest rates may also result in higher capitalization rates, thereby reducing a property’s value.  As a result of this risk profile, LHFI secured by construction, land development and other land are considered to be higher risks than other real estate loans.

LHFI and LHFS Secured by Residential Properties – Residential real estate loans consist of first and junior liens on residential properties that are extended in the geographic markets in which Trustmark operates as well as mortgage products, originated and purchased, that are underwritten to secondary market standards.  Credit underwriting standards include evaluation of the borrower’s credit history and repayment capacity, including verification of income and valuation of collateral.  Portfolio performance is continuously evaluated through updated credit bureau scores and monitoring of repayment performance.

Credit performance of consumer residential real estate loans is highly dependent on housing values and household income which, in turn are highly dependent on national, regional and local economic factors.  Rising interest rates, rising unemployment rates and other adverse changes in these economies may have a negative effect on the ability of Trustmark’s borrowers to repay these loans and negatively affect value of the underlying residential real estate collateral.

LHFI Secured by Nonfarm, Nonresidential Properties – Trustmark provides financing for both owner-occupied commercial real estate as well as income-producing commercial real estate.  Trustmark seeks to maintain a balance of owner-occupied and income-producing real estate loans that moderates its risk to the specific risks of each type of loan.  Commercial real estate term loans are typically collateralized by liens on real property.  Both types of commercial real estate loans are underwritten to lending policies that include maximum loan-to-value ratios, minimum equity requirements, acceptable amortization periods and minimum debt service coverage requirements, based on property type.  Income-producing commercial real estate loans also generally require substantial equity and are subject to exposure limits for a single project.  All exceptions to established guidelines are subject to stringent internal review and require specific approval.  As with commercial loans, the borrower’s financial strength and capacity to repay their obligations remain the primary focus of underwriting.  Financial strength is evaluated based upon analytical tools that consider historical and projected cash flows and performance in addition to analysis of the proposed project for income-producing properties.  Additional support offered by guarantors is also considered.

Risk for owner-occupied commercial real estate is driven by the creditworthiness of the underlying borrowers, particularly cash flow from the borrowers’ business operations as well as the risk of a shortfall in collateral.  Credit performance of loans secured by commercial income-producing real estate can be negatively affected by national, regional and local economic conditions, which may result in deteriorating tenant credit profiles, tenant losses, reduced rental/lease rates and higher than anticipated vacancy rates, all contributing to declines in value or liquidity of the underlying real estate collateral.  Other factors, such as increasing interest rates, may result in higher capitalization rates, thereby reducing a property’s value.

Commercial and Industrial LHFI – Commercial loans (other than commercial loans related to real estate assets, which are summarized above) are made to many types of businesses for various purposes, such as short-term working capital loans that are usually secured by accounts receivable and inventory, equipment and fixed asset purchases that are secured by those assets and term financing for those within Trustmark’s geographic markets.  Trustmark’s credit underwriting process for commercial loans includes analysis of historical and projected cash flows and performance, evaluation of financial strength of both borrowers and guarantors as

6

reflected in current and detailed financial information and evaluation of underlying collateral to support the credit.  Credit risk within the commercial loan portfolio is managed through adherence to specific commercial lending policies and internally established lending authorities, diversification within the portfolio and monitoring of the portfolio on a continuing basis.

Credit risk in commercial and industrial loans can arise due to fluctuations in borrowers’ financial condition, deterioration in collateral values and changes in market conditions.  The credit risk inherent in these loans depends on, to a significant degree, the general economic conditions of these areas.  Further, credit risk can increase if Trustmark’s loans are concentrated to borrowers engaged in the same or similar activities, or to groups of borrowers who may be uniquely or disproportionately affected by market or economic conditions.

Consumer LHFI – Consumer credit includes loans to individuals for household and personal items, automobile purchases, unsecured loans, personal lines of credit and credit cards.  All consumer loans are subject to a standardized underwriting process through Trustmark’s consumer loan center, which uses a custom credit scoring model with emphasis placed upon the borrower’s credit evaluation and historical performance, income evaluation and valuation of collateral (where applicable).  Updated credit bureau scores are obtained on all existing consumer loans/lines on a periodic basis in order to monitor portfolio credit quality changes and mitigate risk.

Similar to residential real estate loan portfolios, an inherent risk factor in consumer loans is that they are dependent on national, regional and local economic factors that affect employment in the markets where these loans are originated.  Generally, consumer loan portfolios consist of a large number of relatively small-balance loans, some of which are originated as unsecured credit (credit cards and some personal lines of credit), and as such, do not have collateral as a secondary source of repayment.  Consumer loans generally pose heightened risks of collectability and loss when compared to other loan types.

Other LHFI – Other loans primarily consist of loans to non-depository financial institutions, such as mortgage companies, finance companies and other financial intermediaries, loans to state and political subdivisions, and loans to non-profit and charitable organizations.  These loans are underwritten based on the specific nature or purpose of the loan and underlying collateral with special consideration given to the specific source of repayment for the loan.

Similar to commercial and industrial loans, inherent risk in other loans can arise due to fluctuations in borrowers’ financial condition, deterioration in collateral values and changes in market and economic conditions.  Loans to state and political subdivisions have the added inherent risk of being somewhat dependent on the ability and capacity of those entities to generate tax and other revenue to repay the loans.  Loans to non-profit and charitable organizations are dependent on those organizations’ ability to generate revenue through their fundraising efforts and other forms of financial support, which can be susceptible to economic downturns.

Recent Economic and Industry Developments

The economy continued to show moderate signs of improvement during 2019; however, economic concerns remain as a result of the cumulative weight of volatility in crude oil prices and uncertain growth prospects in emerging markets, combined with uncertainty regarding the potential monetary policy changes by the FRB, the consequences of the decision of the United Kingdom to exit the European Union, the potential impact on the economy of the current United States presidential administration’s policies and United States trade relations, particularly with China.  Doubts surrounding the near-term direction of global markets, and the potential impact of these trends on the United States economy, are expected to persist for the near term.  While Trustmark’s customer base is wholly domestic, international economic conditions affect domestic conditions, and thus may have an impact upon Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

In the January 2020 “Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve Districts,” the twelve Federal Reserve Districts’ reports suggested national economic activity expanded at a modest pace during the reporting period.  Reports by the twelve Federal Reserve Districts noted loan volumes were mostly characterized as steady to expanding moderately, home sales trend varied widely but were flat overall, residential rental markets strengthened, new residential construction expanded modestly, commercial real estate activity varied substantially and little change in activity in the energy sector.  Reports by the twelve Federal Reserve Districts also noted employment was steady to rising modestly, though labor markets remained tight throughout the nation, wages rose at a modest to moderate pace and prices continued to rise at a modest pace.  Most Federal Reserve Districts cited widespread labor shortages as a factor constraining job growth.  Reports by the twelve Federal Reserve Districts noted tariffs and trade uncertainty continued to weigh on some businesses, but expectations for the near-term outlook remained modestly favorable across the nation.  

The Federal Reserve’s Sixth District, Atlanta (which includes Trustmark’s Alabama, Florida and Mississippi market regions), reported that economic activity expanded at a modest pace, labor markets remained tight and wage pressures persisted for lower-skilled positions, residential real estate conditions continued to improve as lower mortgage rates increased demand for housing, commercial real estate leasing and sales activity was steady and financial conditions at banking institutions within the District remained healthy,

7

noting improved earnings as increases in noninterest income helped to offset ongoing declines in the net interest margin, asset quality remained stable and moderate loan growth.  The Federal Reserve’s Eighth District, St. Louis (which includes Trustmark’s Tennessee market region), reported that economic conditions improved slightly, employment levels were unchanged, as labor markets remained tight, and moderate growth in wages, residential real estate activity declined slightly and residential construction activity increased slightly while builders remain confident that housing demand will remain robust due to low mortgage rates, commercial construction activity increased modestly, and banking conditions improved modestly as outstanding loan volumes increased by 4.0% during the fourth quarter compared to one year ago.  The Federal Reserve’s Eleventh District, Dallas (which includes Trustmark’s Texas market region), reported economic activity expanded solidly, moderate employment growth and upward wage pressures continued, home sales increased broadly with demand exceeding expectations in some areas due to healthy job growth and low mortgage rates, apartment demand remained healthy, activity in the office market was mixed in Houston, increased growth in loan demand, growth in loan volumes was broad based with both commercial and residential real estate lending continuing to lead the growth and loan pricing continued to decline.  The Federal Reserve’s Eleventh District also reported that drilling activity was up slightly, though the energy sector remains distressed as access to capital was limited, particularly for small firms, and bankruptcies could likely rise; however, U.S. crude oil production is projected to grow in 2020.

During October 2019, the FRB lowered the target range for the federal funds rate for the third time in 2019 as anticipated.  While recently-released FRB minutes indicate that a majority of the Board believe that there is not a need to cut rates further, the level of future rates will likely depend upon the performance of the economy. Interest rates remain within a low range that, when combined with the extended period of historically low interest rates in recent years, continue to place pressure on net interest margins for Trustmark (as well as its competitors).  Any further declines in interest rates will place additional competitive pressure on net interest margins.  Conversely, any increases in interest rates will place competitive pressures on the deposit cost of funds.  It is not possible to predict the pace and magnitude of changes to interest rates, or the impact rate changes will have on Trustmark’s results of operations.

For additional discussion of the impact of the current economic environment on the financial condition and results of operations of Trustmark and its subsidiaries, see Part II. Item 7. – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report.

Competition

There is significant competition within the banking and financial services industry in the markets in which Trustmark operates.  Changes in regulation, technology and product delivery systems have resulted in an increasingly competitive environment.  Trustmark expects to continue to face increasing competition from online and traditional financial institutions seeking to attract customers by providing access to similar services and products.

Trustmark and its subsidiaries compete with national and state chartered banking institutions of comparable or larger size and resources and with smaller community banking organizations.  Trustmark has numerous local, regional and national nonbank competitors, including savings and loan associations, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, finance companies, financial service operations of major retailers, investment brokerage and financial advisory firms and mutual fund companies.  Because nonbank financial institutions are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions as banks and bank holding companies, they can often operate with greater flexibility and lower cost structures.  Currently, Trustmark does not face meaningful competition from international banks in its markets, although that could change in the future.

At June 30, 2019, Trustmark’s deposit market share ranked within the top three positions in 55% of the 56 counties served and within the top five positions in 71% of the counties served.  The table below presents FDIC deposit data regarding TNB’s deposit market share by state as of June 30, 2019.  The FDIC deposit market share data presented below does not align with Trustmark’s reported geographic market regions, which in some instances cross state lines, and Trustmark’s geographic coverage within certain states presented below is not statewide (see the section captioned “Description of Business” above).

Services provided by the Wealth Management Segment face competition from many national, regional and local financial institutions.  Companies that offer broad services similar to those provided by Trustmark, such as other banks, trust companies and full-service brokerage firms, as well as companies that specialize in particular services offered by Trustmark, such as investment advisors and mutual fund providers, all compete with Trustmark’s Wealth Management Segment.

8

Trustmark’s insurance subsidiary faces competition from local, regional and national insurance companies, independent insurance agencies as well as from other financial institutions offering insurance products.

Trustmark’s ability to compete effectively is a result of providing customers with desired products and services in a convenient and cost-effective manner.  Customers for commercial, consumer and mortgage banking as well as wealth management and insurance services are influenced by convenience, quality of service, personal contacts, availability of products and services and competitive pricing.  Trustmark continually reviews its products, locations, alternative delivery channels, and pricing strategies to maintain and enhance its competitive position.  While Trustmark’s position varies by market, Management believes it can compete effectively as a result of the quality of Trustmark’s products and services, local market knowledge and awareness of customer needs.

Supervision and Regulation

The following discussion sets forth material elements of the regulatory framework applicable to bank holding companies and their subsidiaries and provides specific information relevant to Trustmark.  The discussion is a summary of detailed statutes, regulations and policies.  The descriptions are not intended to be complete summaries of the statutes, regulations and policies referenced therein.  Such statutes, regulations and policies are continually under the review of the United States Congress and state legislatures as well as federal and state regulatory agencies.  A change in statutes, regulations or policies could have a material impact on the business of Trustmark and its subsidiaries.

Regulation of Trustmark

Trustmark is a registered bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act).  Trustmark and its nonbank subsidiaries are therefore subject to the supervision, examination, enforcement and reporting requirements of the BHC Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), the regulations of the FRB and certain of the requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), as amended by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA).

Federal Oversight Over Mergers and Acquisitions, Investments and Branching

The BHC Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before: (i) it may acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if, after such acquisition, the bank holding company will directly or indirectly own or control 5.0% or more of the voting shares of the bank; (ii) it or any of its subsidiaries, other than a bank, may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank; or (iii) it may merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company.  The BHC Act further provides that the FRB may not approve any such transaction that would result in a monopoly or would be in furtherance of any combination or conspiracy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any section of the United States, or the effect of which may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any section of the country, or that in any other manner would be in restraint of trade, unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed by the public interest in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.  The FRB is also required to consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding companies and banks concerned and the convenience and needs of the community to be served.  The FRB is also required to take into account in evaluating such a transaction the effectiveness of the parties in combatting money laundering activities.  Consideration of financial resources generally focuses on capital adequacy, and consideration of convenience and needs issues includes the parties’ performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA).  Provisions of the FDI Act known as the Bank Merger Act impose similar approval standards for an insured depository institution to merge with another insured depository institution.

The BHC Act also generally requires FRB approval for a bank holding company’s acquisition of a company that is not an insured depository institution.  Bank holding companies generally may engage, directly or indirectly, only in banking and such other activities as are determined by the FRB to be closely related to banking.  The FRB must generally consider whether performance of the activity by a bank holding company can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, or unsound banking practices.  The FRB has express statutory authority to also consider the “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system” when reviewing the acquisition of such a company by a bank holding company.

The BHC Act, as amended by the interstate banking provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal Act), permits a bank holding company, such as Trustmark, to acquire a bank located in any other state, regardless of state law to the contrary, subject to certain deposit-percentage, aging requirements, and other restrictions, if the company is well-capitalized.  The Riegle-Neal Act also generally permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states, if the resulting institution would be well-capitalized and well-managed.

9

The CRA requires an insured depository institution’s appropriate federal banking regulator to evaluate the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, and to consider this record in its evaluation of certain applications to banking regulators, such as an application for approval of a merger or the establishment of a branch.  A rating of less than “Satisfactory” may provide a basis for denial of such an application.  As of its last examination from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), TNB received a CRA rating of “Satisfactory.”  On December 12, 2019, the OCC and the FDIC released a proposal that would, among other things, establish a new evaluation framework to assess the distribution of an institution’s retail loans in major retail lending business lines within each assessment area and the value of the institution’s qualifying CRA activities relative to its retail domestic deposits, and would clarify the types of loans, investments, and services that are qualifying CRA activities.  Management is reviewing the potential impact of the proposal on TNB.

Under provisions of the BHC Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule,” limitations are placed on the ability of certain insured depository institutions, insured depository institution holding companies and their affiliates (“banking entities”), including Trustmark and TNB, to acquire or retain ownership interests in, or act as sponsor to, certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds.  The Volcker Rule also places restrictions on proprietary trading by a banking entity.  In October 2019, five federal financial agencies finalized revisions to the Volcker Rule to simplify and tailor compliance requirements relating to the rule.  The revisions replace the Volcker Rule’s compliance program requirements for a banking entity with trading assets and liabilities of less than $1 billion, including Trustmark and TNB, with a rebuttable presumption of the entity’s compliance with the rule, and simplify compliance requirements associated with exempt market making, underwriting and risk-mitigating hedging activities for such an entity.  The revisions also changed the “short-term intent” prong of the Volcker Rule’s definition of “trading account” by replacing the prong's presumption that financial instruments held for fewer than 60 days are for the trading account with a new presumption that financial instruments held for 60 days or more are not for the trading account.  Finally, the revisions adopt an exclusion for customer-driven swaps and matched swaps from the proprietary trading restrictions of the Volcker Rule.  Management is reviewing the potential impact of the revisions on Trustmark and TNB.  The revisions became effective on January 1, 2020, with a compliance date of January 1, 2021, but banking organizations may voluntarily comply with the revisions earlier than the compliance date.

The OCC has the authority to approve applications by national banks to establish de novo branches, including, under the Riegle-Neal Act, in states other than the bank’s home state if the law of the State in which the branch is located, or is to be located, would permit establishment of the branch if the bank were a State bank chartered by such State.

Certain acquisitions of Trustmark’s voting stock may be subject to regulatory approval or notice under federal law.  Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of Trustmark’s stock in excess of the amount that can be acquired without regulatory approval under the Change in Bank Control Act and the BHC Act, which prohibit any person or company from acquiring control of Trustmark without, in most cases, the prior written approval of the FRB.

Source of Strength

Under the FDI Act, Trustmark is expected to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to TNB.  Under this policy, a bank holding company is expected to commit resources to support its bank subsidiary, including at times when the holding company may not be inclined or in a financial position to provide it.

Capital Adequacy

Bank holding companies and banks are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and federal bank regulatory agencies.  Capital adequacy regulations and, additionally for banks, prompt corrective action regulations, involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items calculated under regulatory accounting practices.  Capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators about components, risk weighting and other factors.  The FRB and the OCC, the primary regulators of Trustmark and TNB, respectively, have substantially similar risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements.

Under capital requirements applicable to Trustmark and TNB, Trustmark and TNB are required to meet a common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 7.0% (a minimum of 4.5% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 8.5% (a minimum of 6.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 10.5% (a minimum of 8.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), and a leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to total consolidated assets of 4.0%.  In addition, for an insured depository institution to be “well-capitalized” under the banking agencies’ prompt corrective action framework, it must have a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%, Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.0%, a total capital ratio of 10.0%, and a leverage ratio of 5.0%, and must not be subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by its primary federal regulator to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

10

For purposes of calculating the denominator of the risk-based capital ratios, a banking institution’s assets and some of its specified off-balance sheet commitments and obligations are assigned to various risk categories.  For purposes of calculating the numerator of the capital ratios, capital, at both the holding company and bank level, is classified in one of three tiers depending on the “quality” and loss-absorbing features of the capital instrument.  Common equity Tier 1 capital is predominantly comprised of common stock instruments (including related surplus) and retained earnings, net of treasury stock, and after making necessary capital deductions and adjustments.  Tier 1 capital is comprised of common equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital, which includes non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and similar instruments meeting specified eligibility criteria (including related surplus) and “TARP” preferred stock and other instruments issued under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  Newly issued trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock may not be included in Tier 1 capital.  Smaller depository institution holding companies (those with assets less than $15 billion as of year-end 2009) and most mutual holding companies are allowed to continue to count as Tier 1 capital most outstanding trust preferred securities and other non-qualifying securities that were issued prior to May 19, 2010 (up to a limit of 25% of Tier 1 capital, excluding non-qualifying capital instruments) rather than phasing such securities out of regulatory capital.  However, a depository institution holding company with less than $15 billion in assets that grows to $15 billion or more in assets as a result of an acquisition of another depository institution holding company generally is no longer allowed to count outstanding non-qualifying capital instruments toward its Tier 1 capital.  Trustmark currently has outstanding trust preferred securities that are permitted to continue to count as Tier 1 capital up to the regulatory limit.  Total capital is comprised of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital, which includes certain subordinated debt with a minimum original maturity of five years (including related surplus) and a limited amount of allowance for loan losses.  Newly issued trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock generally may be included in Tier 2 capital, provided they do not include features that are disallowed by the capital rules, such as the acceleration of principal other than in the event of a bankruptcy, insolvency, or receivership of the issuer.

In July 2019, the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC issued a final rule intended to simplify aspects of the regulatory capital rules for banking organizations, such as Trustmark and TNB, that are not advanced approaches banking organizations.  The final rule includes amendments to the capital treatment of mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets, investments in the capital instruments of unconsolidated financial institutions, and minority interests.  Trustmark and TNB have adopted these amendments as of January 1, 2020.   Management does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on Trustmark’s or TNB’s regulatory capital ratios.

Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could subject a bank to a variety of enforcement remedies.  The FDI Act identifies five capital categories for insured depository institutions: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized.  An insured depository institution is subject to differential regulation corresponding to the capital category within which the institution falls.  The FDI Act requires banking regulators to take prompt corrective action whenever financial institutions do not meet minimum capital requirements.  Failure to meet the capital guidelines could also subject an insured depository institution to capital raising requirements. In addition, an insured depository institution is generally prohibited from making capital distributions, including paying dividends, or paying management fees to a holding company, if the institution would thereafter be undercapitalized.  In addition, the FDI Act requires the various regulatory agencies to prescribe certain noncapital standards for safety and soundness relating generally to operations and management, asset quality and executive compensation, and permits regulatory action against an insured depository institution that does not meet such standards.  

An institution’s failure to exceed the capital conservation buffer with common equity Tier 1 capital would result in limitations on an institution’s ability to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments.

At December 31, 2019, Trustmark exceeded its minimum capital requirements with common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital and total capital equal to 11.93%, 12.48% and 13.25% of its total risk-weighted assets, respectively.  At December 31, 2019, TNB also exceeded these requirements with common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital and total capital equal to 12.30%, 12.30% and 13.07% of its total risk-weighted assets, respectively.  At December 31, 2019, the leverage ratios for Trustmark and TNB were 10.48% and 10.35%, respectively.  As of December 31, 2019, the most recent notification from the OCC categorized TNB as well-capitalized based on the ratios and guidelines described above.

In December 2018, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule to revise their regulatory capital rules to address the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) accounting standard and provide an option to phase in the day-one regulatory capital effects of the adoption of the CECL accounting standard over three years.  Under the final rule, an institution that is required to adopt the CECL accounting standard beginning the first quarter of 2020, such as Trustmark, can make a one-time election to phase in the effects of the accounting standard on its regulatory capital calculations, such that the effects of adopting the CECL accounting standard on regulatory capital are fully phased in as of the first quarter of 2023.  Based on Trustmark’s assessment of the CECL accounting standard and the impact of adoption on Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements and regulatory capital calculations, Trustmark did not make this one-time election to phase in the effects of the accounting standard on its regulatory capital calculations.  For additional information regarding Trustmark’s implementation of the CECL accounting standard, see the section captioned “Pending Accounting Pronouncements – ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” included in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies – Accounting Policies Recently Adopted and Pending Accounting Pronouncements in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

11

Payment of Dividends and Stock Repurchases

Trustmark is limited in its ability to pay dividends or repurchase its stock by the FRB, including if doing so would be an unsafe or unsound banking practice.  Where a bank holding company intends to declare or pay a dividend that could raise safety and soundness concerns, it generally will be required to inform and consult with the FRB in advance.  It is the policy of the FRB that a bank holding company should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of earnings, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition.

According to guidance from the FRB, a bank holding company’s dividend policies will be assessed against, among other things, its ability to achieve applicable capital ratio requirements.  If a bank holding company does not achieve applicable capital ratio requirements, it may not be able to pay dividends.  Although Trustmark currently meets applicable capital ratio requirements, inclusive of the phased-in capital conservation buffer, Trustmark cannot be sure that it will continue to meet those requirements or that even if it does, it will be able to pay dividends.

Trustmark also is expected to consult, and in some cases obtain the approval of, the FRB in advance of redeeming or repurchasing its stock.  In evaluating the appropriateness of a proposed redemption or repurchase of stock, the FRB will consider, among other things, the potential loss that a bank holding company may suffer from the prospective need to increase reserves and write down assets as a result of continued asset deterioration, and its ability to raise additional common equity and other capital to replace the stock that will be redeemed or repurchased.  The FRB also will consider the potential negative effects on the bank holding company’s capital structure of replacing common stock with any lower-tier form of regulatory capital issued.

Anti-Money Laundering Initiatives and Sanctions Compliance

Trustmark and TNB are subject to extensive regulations aimed at combatting money laundering and terrorist financing.  The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (USA Patriot Act) substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States.  United States Department of the Treasury regulations implementing the USA Patriot Act impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers and of beneficial owners of their legal entity customers.  Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and financial consequences for the institution.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is responsible for helping to ensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with certain prohibited parties, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress.  OFAC publishes lists of persons, organizations, and countries suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, known as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.  OFAC administers and enforces applicable economic and trade sanctions programs.  These sanctions are usually targeted against foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers and those believed to be involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  These regulations generally require either the blocking of accounts or other property of specified entities or individuals, but they may also require the rejection of certain transactions involving specified entities or individuals.  Trustmark maintains policies, procedures and other internal controls designed to comply with these sanctions programs.

Other Federal Regulation of Trustmark

In addition to being regulated as a bank holding company, Trustmark is subject to regulation by the State of Mississippi under its general business corporation laws.  Trustmark is also subject to the disclosure and other regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as administered by the SEC.

Regulation of TNB

TNB is a national bank and, as such, is subject to extensive regulation by the OCC and, to a lesser extent, by the FDIC.  In addition, as a large provider of consumer financial services, TNB is subject to regulation, supervision, enforcement and examination by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Almost every area of the operations and financial condition of TNB is subject to extensive regulation and supervision and to various requirements and restrictions under federal and state law including loans, reserves, investments, issuance of securities, establishment of branches, capital adequacy, liquidity, earnings, dividends, management practices and the provision of services.  TNB is subject to supervision, examination, enforcement and reporting requirements under the National Bank Act, the Federal Reserve Act, the FDI Act, regulations of the OCC and certain of the requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act.  Trustmark and TNB are also subject to a wide range of consumer protection laws and regulations.

12

Restrictions on Lending, Insider Transactions and Affiliate Transactions

National banks are limited in the amounts they may lend to one borrower and the amount they may lend to insiders.  These single counterparty and insider lending limits extend to loans, derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending or borrowing transactions.  In addition, the FDI Act imposes restrictions on insured depository institutions’ purchases of assets from insiders.

Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act establish parameters for an insured bank to conduct “covered transactions” with its affiliates, generally (i) limiting the extent to which the bank or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus, and limiting the aggregate of all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus, and (ii) requiring that all such transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the bank or subsidiary as those that would be provided to a non-affiliate.  In addition, an insured bank’s loans to affiliates must be fully collateralized.  The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans to the affiliate, purchase of assets from the affiliate, issuance of a guarantee on behalf of the affiliate and several other types of transactions.

Payment of Dividends

The principal source of Trustmark’s cash revenue is dividends from TNB.  There are various legal and regulatory provisions that limit the amount of dividends TNB can pay to Trustmark without regulatory approval.  Under the National Bank Act, approval of the OCC is required if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year exceeds the total of TNB’s net income for that year combined with its retained net income from the preceding two years. Also, under the National Bank Act, TNB may not pay any dividends in excess of undivided profits (retained earnings).  In addition, subsidiary banks of a bank holding company are subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act on extensions of credit to the bank holding company or any of its subsidiaries.  Further, subsidiary banks of a bank holding company are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of any services to the bank holding company.  Moreover, an institution’s failure to exceed the capital conservation buffer set forth in the capital rules with common equity Tier 1 capital would result in limitations on an institution’s ability to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments.

CFPB

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB within the Federal Reserve System as an independent bureau with responsibility for consumer financial protection.  The CFPB is responsible for issuing rules, orders and guidance implementing federal consumer financial laws.  The CFPB has primary enforcement authority over “very large” insured depository institutions or insured credit unions and their affiliates.  An insured depository institution is deemed “very large” if it reports assets of more than $10.0 billion in its quarterly Call Report for four consecutive quarters.  The CFPB has near exclusive supervision authority, including examination authority, over these “very large” institutions and their affiliates to assess compliance with federal consumer financial laws, to obtain information about the institutions’ activities and compliance systems and procedures, and to detect and assess risks to consumers and markets.  The CFPB has broad authority to prevent “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices” and ensure consistent enforcement of laws so that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services that are fair, transparent and competitive.  The CFPB has rulemaking and interpretive authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and other federal consumer financial services laws, as well as broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over large providers of consumer financial products and services, such as TNB.  TNB’s total assets exceeded $10.0 billion for the four quarters ended December 31, 2019, and therefore, TNB is subject to CFPB supervision.

In October 2017, the CFPB issued a final rule generally requiring lenders that make certain covered short-term loans, longer-term balloon-payment loans, or longer-term loans with certain costs and features, to reasonably determine that a borrower of a covered loan has the ability to repay such a loan, make certain disclosures to the borrower before attempting to withdraw payment from the borrower’s account, forego from making three consecutive attempts to withdraw payments and report covered loans to registered information systems.  In June 2019, the CFPB issued a final rule to delay from the third quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020 the compliance date of the 2017 final rule’s requirements for a lender to determine a consumer’s ability to repay a covered loan and report covered loans to registered information systems.  In February 2019, the CFPB issued a proposal that would rescind such requirements.  Based on TNB’s current credit portfolio, any covered loans made by TNB are considered exempt “accommodation loans” under the CFPB’s 2017 final rule, and accordingly, Trustmark does not expect that the 2017 final rule, the June 2019 final rule, or the February 2019 proposal will have a material impact on its operations.

Other Federal and State Laws

Banking organizations are subject to numerous laws and regulations intended to protect consumers in addition to those discussed above. These laws include, among others: the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); Truth in Savings Act; Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA); Expedited Funds Availability Act; Equal Credit Opportunity Act; Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act; Fair Housing

13

Act; Fair Credit Reporting Act; Fair Debt Collection Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; Right to Financial Privacy Act; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices; and usury laws.

Many states and local jurisdictions have consumer protection laws analogous, and in addition to, those listed above.  While TNB’s activities are governed primarily by federal law, the Dodd-Frank Act potentially narrowed National Bank Act preemption of state consumer financial laws, thereby making TNB and other national banks potentially subject to increased state regulation.  The Dodd-Frank Act also codified the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association.  As a result, State Attorneys General may enforce in a court action “an applicable law” against federally-chartered depository institutions like TNB.  In addition, under the Dodd-Frank Act, State Attorneys General are authorized to bring civil actions against federally-chartered institutions, like TNB, to enforce regulations prescribed by the CFPB or to secure other remedies.

Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act potentially expanded state regulation over banks by eliminating National Bank Act preemption for national bank operating subsidiaries, including operating subsidiaries of TNB.

Mortgage Regulation

The Dodd-Frank Act imposed new standards for mortgage loan originations on lenders.  The statute amended TILA to restrict the payment of fees to real-estate mortgage originators.  Furthermore, the statute amended TILA to impose minimum underwriting standards on real-estate mortgage creditors (including nonbanks as well as bank creditors) and verifications to check borrowers’ income and their ability to repay.

Financial Privacy Laws

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (GLB Act) imposed requirements related to the privacy of customer financial information. In accordance with the GLB Act, federal bank regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties.  The GLB Act also requires disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allows consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party.  The privacy provisions of the GLB Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors.  Trustmark recognizes the need to comply with legal and regulatory requirements that affect its customers’ privacy.

Debit Interchange Regulation

The FRB has issued rules under the EFTA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, to limit interchange fees that an issuer may receive or charge for an electronic debit card transaction.  Under the FRB’s rules, the maximum permissible interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and five basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction.  In addition, the FRB’s rules allow for an upward adjustment of no more than one cent to an issuer’s debit card interchange fee if the issuer develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the fraud-prevention standards set out in the rule.  

Issuers that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10.0 billion on the annual measurement date (December 31) are exempt from the debit card interchange fee standards.  Since the December 31, 2013 annual measurement date, Trustmark has had assets greater than $10.0 billion; and, therefore, is required to comply with the debit card interchange fee standards.

FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments

The deposits of TNB are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF), as administered by the FDIC, and, accordingly, are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF at minimum levels required by statute.  The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum reserve ratio requirement for the DIF to 1.35% of total estimated insured deposits or the comparable percentage of the deposit assessment base.

The FDIC uses a risk-based assessment system that imposes insurance premiums as determined by multiplying an insured bank’s assessment base by its assessment rate.  The Dodd-Frank Act revised the deposit insurance assessment base to be equal to a bank’s total assets minus the sum of (1) its average tangible equity during the assessment period, and (2) any additional amount the FDIC determines is warranted for custodial and banker’s banks.

The FDIC determines a bank’s assessment rate within a range of base assessment rates using a risk scorecard that takes into account the bank’s financial ratios and supervisory rating (the CAMELS composite rating), among other factors.  The CAMELS rating system is a supervisory rating system developed to classify a bank’s overall condition by taking into account capital adequacy, assets, management capability, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to market and interest rate risk.

14

In the third quarter of 2018, the DIF reserve ratio reached the statutorily required minimum level of 1.35%, which ended surcharges on institutions with $10.0 billion or more in assets, such as Trustmark, that had been in effect.

TNB’s FDIC assessment expenses declined during 2018 as the lower regular assessment rates and the allowable adjustments more than offset the surcharge of 4.5 cents per $100 of assessment base that had been in effect.  In 2019, TNB’s expenses related to deposit insurance premiums totaled $6.4 million.  

The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased the deposit insurance level to $250 thousand per depositor for each insured depository institution.

TNB Subsidiaries

TNB’s nonbanking subsidiaries are subject to a variety of state and federal laws and regulations.  TIA, a registered investment adviser, is subject to regulation by the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and by the State of Mississippi.  FBBI is subject to the insurance laws and regulations of the states in which it is active.  SCC is subject to the supervision and regulation of the CDFI Fund and the State of Mississippi.

The GLB Act authorizes national banks to own or control a “financial subsidiary” that engages in activities that are not permissible for national banks to engage in directly.  The GLB Act contains a number of provisions dealing with insurance activities by bank subsidiaries.  Generally, the GLB Act affirms the role of the states in regulating insurance activities, including the insurance activities of financial subsidiaries of banks, but the GLB Act also preempts certain state laws.  As a result of the GLB Act, TNB elected for predecessor subsidiaries that now constitute FBBI to become financial subsidiaries.  This enables FBBI to engage in insurance agency activities at any location.

Available Information

Trustmark’s internet address is www.trustmark.com.  Information contained on this website is not a part of this report.  Trustmark makes available through this address, free of charge, its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed, or furnished to, the SEC.

Employees

At December 31, 2019, Trustmark employed 2,844 full-time equivalent associates, none of which are represented by a collective bargaining agreement.  Trustmark believes its employee relations to be satisfactory.

Information about Executive Officers of Trustmark

The executive officers of Trustmark and its primary bank subsidiary, TNB, including their ages, positions and principal occupations for the last five years are as follows:

Gerard R. Host, 65

Trustmark Corporation

President and Chief Executive Officer since January 2011

Trustmark National Bank

Chief Executive Officer since January 2011

President from January 2011 to December 2019

Louis E. Greer, 65

Trustmark Corporation

Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer since January 2007

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since February 2007

15

Granville Tate, Jr., 63

Trustmark Corporation

Secretary since December 2015

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President, Secretary, General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer since June 2016

Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel from December 2015 to June 2016

Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

Partner from January 1990 to December 2015

Board of Directors from January 2010 to November 2015

Chairman of the Board of Directors from January 2010 to May 2015

Monica A. Day, 59

Trustmark National Bank

President – Institutional Banking since April 2019

Executive Vice President and Real Estate Banking Manager from May 2017 to April 2019

Senior Vice President and Corporate Commercial Real Estate Manager from October 2008 to May 2017

Duane A. Dewey, 61

Trustmark National Bank

President since January 2020

Chief Operating Officer since January 2019

President – Corporate Banking from September 2011 to December 2018

Robert Barry Harvey, 60

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer since March 2010

David Kennedy, 44

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer since December 2018

Chief Information Security Consultant from May 2018 to December 2018

Stone Energy Corporation

Chief Technology Officer from July 2013 to May 2018

Technology Management Consultant from July 2012 to November 2017

James M. Outlaw, Jr., 67

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer since August 2014

Thomas C. Owens, 55

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Bank Treasurer since September 2013

W. Arthur Stevens, 55

Trustmark National Bank

President – Retail Banking since September 2011

Breck W. Tyler, 61

Trustmark National Bank

President – Mortgage Services since March 2012

C. Scott Woods, 63

Trustmark National Bank

President – Insurance and Wealth Management since November 2017

President – Insurance Services from March 2012 to November 2017

On December 10, 2019, Trustmark announced that the Board of Directors of Trustmark appointed Gerard R. Host to succeed R. Michael Summerford as Chairman of the Board of Trustmark effective April 28, 2020, the date of the 2020 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting.  Additionally, on December 10, 2019, the Board of Directors of TNB appointed Duane A. Dewey to serve as President and

16

to continue to serve as Chief Operating Officer of TNB effective January 1, 2020.  Mr. Host will continue to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of Trustmark and as Chief Executive Officer of TNB.

Trustmark and its subsidiaries could be adversely impacted by various risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict.  As a financial institution, Trustmark has significant exposure to market risks, including interest rate risk, liquidity risk and credit risk.  This section includes a description of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions identified by Management that could, individually or in combination, materially affect Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations, as well as the value of Trustmark’s financial instruments in general, and Trustmark common stock, in particular.  Additional risks and uncertainties that Management currently deems immaterial or is unaware of may also impair Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations.  This report is qualified in its entirety by the risk factors that are identified below.

Trustmark’s largest source of revenue (net interest income) is subject to interest rate risk.

Trustmark’s profitability depends to a large extent on net interest income, which is the difference between income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings.  Trustmark is exposed to interest rate risk in its core banking activities of lending and deposit taking, since assets and liabilities reprice at different times and by different amounts as interest rates change.  Trustmark is unable to predict changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond Trustmark’s control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, domestic and international events and changes in the United States and other financial markets.  During October 2019, the FRB lowered the target range for the federal funds rate for the third time in 2019 as anticipated.  While recently-released FRB minutes indicate that a majority of the Board believe that there is not a need to cut rates further, the level of future rates will likely depend upon the performance of the economy. It is not possible to predict the pace and magnitude of changes to interest rates, or the impact rate changes will have on Trustmark’s results of operations.  

Financial simulation models are the primary tools used by Trustmark to measure interest rate exposure.  Using a wide range of scenarios, Management is provided with extensive information on the potential impact to net interest income caused by changes in interest rates.  Models are structured to simulate cash flows and accrual characteristics of Trustmark’s balance sheet.  Assumptions are made about the direction and volatility of interest rates, the slope of the yield curve and the changing composition of Trustmark’s balance sheet, resulting from both strategic plans and customer behavior.  In addition, the model incorporates Management’s assumptions and expectations regarding such factors as loan and deposit growth, pricing, prepayment speeds and spreads between interest rates.  Trustmark’s simulation model using static balances at December 31, 2019, estimated that in the event of a hypothetical 200 basis point increase in interest rates, net interest income may increase 5.7%, while a hypothetical 100 basis point increase in interest rates, may increase net interest income 3.0%.  In the event of a hypothetical 100 basis point decrease in interest rates using static balances at December 31, 2019, it is estimated net interest income may decrease by 5.2%.

Net interest income is Trustmark’s largest revenue source, and it is important to discuss how Trustmark’s interest rate risk may be influenced by the various factors shown below:

Financial instruments do not respond in a parallel fashion to rising or falling interest rates.  This causes asymmetry in the magnitude of changes in net interest income, net economic value and investment income resulting from the hypothetical increases and decreases in interest rates.  Therefore, Management monitors interest rate risk and adjusts Trustmark’s investment, funding and hedging strategies to mitigate adverse effects of interest rate shifts on Trustmark’s balance sheet.

17

Trustmark utilizes derivative contracts to hedge the mortgage servicing rights (MSR) in order to offset changes in fair value resulting from changes in interest rate environments.  In spite of Trustmark’s due diligence in regard to these hedging strategies, significant risks are involved that, if realized, may prove such strategies to be ineffective, which could adversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.  Risks associated with these strategies include the risk that counterparties in any such derivative and other hedging transactions may not perform; the risk that these hedging strategies rely on Management’s assumptions and projections regarding these assets and general market factors, including prepayment risk, basis risk, market volatility and changes in the shape of the yield curve, and that these assumptions and projections may prove to be incorrect; the risk that these hedging strategies do not adequately mitigate the impact of changes in interest rates, prepayment speeds or other forecasted inputs to the hedging model; and the risk that the models used to forecast the effectiveness of hedging instruments may project expectations that differ from actual results.  In addition, increased regulation of the derivative markets may increase the cost to Trustmark to implement and maintain an effective hedging strategy.

Trustmark closely monitors the sensitivity of net interest income and investment income to changes in interest rates and attempts to limit the variability of net interest income as interest rates change.  Trustmark makes use of both on- and off-balance sheet financial instruments to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk.

Trustmark’s business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions in general.

The economy continued to show moderate signs of improvement in 2019; however, economic concerns remain as a result of the cumulative weight of volatility in crude oil prices and uncertain growth prospects in emerging markets, combined with uncertainty regarding the potential monetary policy changes by the FRB, the consequences of the decision of the United Kingdom to exit the European Union, the potential impact on the economy of the current United States presidential administration’s policies and United States trade relations, particularly with China.  Doubts surrounding the near-term direction of global markets, and the potential impact of these trends on the United States economy, are expected to persist for the near term.  While Trustmark’s customer base is wholly domestic, international economic conditions affect domestic conditions, and thus may have an impact upon Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations. While domestic demand for loans has improved, further meaningful gains will depend on sustained economic growth.  Strategic risk, including threats to business models from rising rates and modest economic growth, remains high.  Management’s ability to plan, prioritize and allocate resources in this new environment will be critical to Trustmark’s ability to sustain earnings that will attract capital.  Because of the complexities presented by current economic conditions, Management will continue to be challenged in identifying alternative sources of revenue, prudently diversifying assets, liabilities and revenue and effectively managing the costs of compliance.

Interest rates remain within a low range that, when combined with the extended period of historically low interest rates in recent years, continue to place pressure on net interest margins for Trustmark (as well as its competitors).  Any further declines in interest rates will place additional competitive pressure on net interest margins.  Conversely, increases in interest rates will place competitive pressures on the deposit cost of funds.  It is not possible to predict the pace and magnitude of changes to interest rates, or the impact rate changes will have on Trustmark’s results of operations.

Despite recent optimism resulting from stabilization in the housing sector, improvement of unemployment data and credit quality improvement, Trustmark does not assume that current uncertain conditions in the economy will improve significantly in the near future.  A further weakened economy could affect Trustmark in a variety of substantial and unpredictable ways.  In particular, Trustmark may face the following risks in connection with these events:

18

It is difficult to predict the extent to which these challenging economic conditions will persist or whether recent progress in the economic recovery will instead shift to the potential for further decline.  If the economy does weaken in the future, it is uncertain how Trustmark’s business would be affected and whether Trustmark would be able successfully to mitigate any such effects on its business.  Accordingly, these factors in the United States (and, indirectly, global) economy could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations.

Trustmark is subject to lending risk, which could impact the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and results of operations.

There are inherent risks associated with Trustmark’s lending activities.  While the housing and real estate markets have shown continued improvement, they remain at depressed levels in certain regions.  If trends in the housing and real estate markets were to revert or further decline below recession levels, Trustmark may experience higher than normal delinquencies and credit losses.  Moreover, if the United States economy returns to a recessionary state, Management expects that it could severely affect economic conditions in Trustmark’s market areas and that Trustmark could experience significantly higher delinquencies and credit losses.  In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review Trustmark’s allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the provision for loan losses or the recognition of further charge-offs, based on judgments different from those of Management.  As a result, Trustmark may elect, or be required, to make further increases in its provision for loan losses in the future, particularly if economic conditions deteriorate.

Additionally, Trustmark may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties in deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions.  This information could include financial statements, credit reports, business plans, and other information.  Trustmark may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information.  Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other information could have a material adverse impact on Trustmark’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Trustmark is subject to liquidity risk, which could disrupt its ability to meet its financial obligations.

Liquidity refers to Trustmark’s ability to ensure that sufficient cash flow and liquid assets are available to satisfy current and future financial obligations, including demand for loans and deposit withdrawals, funding operating costs and other corporate purposes.  Liquidity risk arises whenever the maturities of financial instruments included in assets and liabilities differ or when assets cannot be liquidated at fair market value as needed.  Trustmark obtains funding through deposits and various short-term and long-term wholesale borrowings, including federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements, the Federal Reserve Discount Window (Discount Window) and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances.  Any significant restriction or disruption of Trustmark’s ability to obtain funding from these or other sources could have a negative effect on Trustmark’s ability to satisfy its current and future financial obligations, which could materially affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

In addition to the risk that one or more of the funding sources may become constrained due to market conditions unrelated to Trustmark, there is the risk that Trustmark’s credit profile may decline such that one or more of these funding sources becomes partially or wholly unavailable to Trustmark.

Trustmark attempts to quantify such credit event risk by modeling bank specific and systemic scenarios that estimate the liquidity impact.  Trustmark estimates such impact by attempting to measure the effect on available unsecured lines of credit, available capacity from secured borrowing sources and securitizable assets.  To mitigate such risk, Trustmark maintains available lines of credit with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the FHLB of Dallas that are secured by loans and investment securities.  Management continuously monitors Trustmark’s liquidity position for compliance with internal policies.

Trustmark is subject to extensive government regulation and supervision and possible enforcement and other legal actions.

Trustmark, primarily through TNB and certain nonbank subsidiaries, is subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision, which vests a significant amount of discretion in the various regulatory authorities.  Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not security holders.  These regulations and supervisory guidance affect Trustmark’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things.  Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations, and policies for possible changes.  Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in interpretation

19

or implementation or statutes, regulations, policies and supervisory guidance, could affect Trustmark in substantial and unpredictable ways.  Such changes could subject Trustmark to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products Trustmark may offer and/or increase the ability of nonbanks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things.  Failure to comply with laws, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance could result in enforcement and other legal actions by Federal or state authorities, including criminal and civil penalties, the loss of FDIC insurance, the revocation of a banking charter, civil money penalties, other sanctions by regulatory agencies and/or reputational damage.  In this regard, government authorities, including bank regulatory agencies, continue to pursue enforcement agendas with respect to compliance and other legal matters involving financial activities, which heightens the risks associated with actual and perceived compliance failures.  Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Trustmark is subject to stringent capital requirements.

Under the regulatory capital rules of the FRB, OCC, and FDIC that implement a set of capital requirements issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision known as Basel III, Trustmark and TNB are required to maintain a common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 7.0% (a minimum of 4.5% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 8.5% (a minimum of 6.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 10.5% (a minimum of 8.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%) and a leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to total consolidated assets of 4.0%.  In addition, for TNB to be “well-capitalized” under the banking agencies’ prompt corrective action framework, it must have a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.0%, a total capital ratio of 10.0% and a leverage ratio of 5.0%, and must not be subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by its primary federal regulator to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

The capital rules also include stringent criteria for capital instruments to qualify as Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital.  For instance, the rules effectively disallow newly-issued trust preferred securities to be a component of a holding company’s Tier 1 capital.  Trustmark will continue to count $60.0 million in outstanding trust preferred securities issued by the Trust as Tier 1 capital up to the regulatory limit, as permitted by a grandfather provision in the capital rules, but this grandfather provision may cease to apply if Trustmark grows to $15 billion or more in total assets as a result of an acquisition of a depository institution holding company.

Additionally, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standard Update (ASU) 2016-13, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which implements CECL as a new impairment model based on expected credit losses, will require Trustmark to recognize all expected credit losses over the life of a loan based on historical experience, current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts.  CECL generally is expected to result in earlier recognition of credit losses, which would increase reserves and decrease capital.  Additionally, the CECL model could be materially impacted by changes in current and forecasted macroeconomic conditions.  It is not possible to predict the timing or magnitude of changes in macroeconomic conditions or the impact such changes could have on Trustmark’s allowance for expected credit losses; however, material changes in the allowance for expected credit losses could have a material impact on Trustmark’s reserves and capital.

The regulatory capital rules applicable to Trustmark and TNB may continue to evolve as a result of new requirements established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision or legislative, regulatory or accounting changes in the United States.  Management cannot predict the effect that any changes to current capital requirements would have on Trustmark and TNB.

There may be risks resulting from the extensive use of models in Trustmark’s business.

Trustmark relies on quantitative models to measure risks and to estimate certain financial values.  Models may be used in such processes as determining the pricing of various products, assessing potential acquisition opportunities, developing presentations made to market analysts and others, creating loans and extending credit, measuring interest rate and other market risks, predicting losses, assessing capital adequacy, calculating regulatory capital levels and estimating the fair value of financial instruments and balance sheet items.  These models reflect assumptions that may not be accurate, particularly in times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances.  Even if these assumptions are adequate, the models may prove to be inadequate or inaccurate because of other flaws in their design or their implementation.  If models for determining interest rate risk and asset-liability management are inadequate, Trustmark may incur increased or unexpected losses upon changes in market interest rates or other market measures.  If models for determining probable loan losses are inadequate, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to support future charge-offs.  If models to measure the fair value of financial instruments are inadequate, the fair value of such financial instruments may fluctuate unexpectedly or may not accurately reflect what Trustmark could realize upon sale or settlement of such financial instruments.  Any such failure in the analytical or forecasting models could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Also, information Trustmark provides to its regulators based on poorly designed or implemented models could be inaccurate or misleading.  Certain decisions that the regulators make, including those related to capital distributions and dividends to Trustmark’s

20

shareholders, could be adversely affected due to the regulator’s perception that the quality of Trustmark’s models used to generate the relevant information is insufficient.

Trustmark may be adversely affected by the transition from the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) as a reference rate.

In 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority announced that after 2021 it would no longer compel banks to submit the rates required to calculate LIBOR. This announcement indicates that the continuation of LIBOR on the current basis cannot and will not be guaranteed after 2021. The Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC), a committee of U.S. financial market participants, has proposed the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as the rate that represents best practice as the alternative to LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts that are currently indexed to USD-LIBOR.  However, there are conceptual and technical differences between LIBOR and SOFR. ARRC has proposed a paced market transition plan to SOFR from LIBOR and organizations are currently working on industry-wide and company-specific transition plans as it relates to derivatives and cash markets exposed to LIBOR.

Trustmark has a significant number of loans, derivative contracts, borrowings and other financial instruments with attributes that are either directly or indirectly dependent on LIBOR. The transition from LIBOR could create considerable costs and additional risk. Since proposed alternative rates are calculated differently, payments under contracts referencing new rates will differ from those referencing LIBOR. The transition will change Trustmark’s market risk profiles, requiring changes to risk and pricing models, valuation tools, product design and hedging strategies.  Trustmark has organized an internal initiative to identify operational and contractual best practices, assess its risks, manage the transition, facilitate communication with its customers, and monitor the impacts.  Trustmark cannot predict what the ultimate impact of the transition from LIBOR will be; however, failure to adequately manage the transition could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation with its customers.

Trustmark could be required to write down goodwill and other intangible assets.

If Trustmark consummates an acquisition, a portion of the purchase price would generally be allocated to goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets.  The amount of the purchase price that is allocated to goodwill and other intangible assets is determined by the excess of the purchase price over the net identifiable assets acquired.  At December 31, 2019, goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets were $387.0 million.  Under current accounting standards, if Trustmark determines goodwill or intangible assets are impaired, Trustmark would be required to write down the carrying value of these assets.  Trustmark’s annual goodwill impairment evaluation performed during the fourth quarter of 2019 indicated no impairment of goodwill for any reporting segment.  Management cannot provide assurance, however, that Trustmark will not be required to take an impairment charge in the future.  Any impairment charge would have an adverse effect on Trustmark’s shareholders’ equity and financial condition and could cause a decline in Trustmark’s stock price.

Trustmark holds a significant amount of other real estate and may acquire and hold significant additional amounts, which could lead to increased operating expenses and vulnerability to additional declines in real property values.

As business necessitates, Trustmark forecloses on and takes title to real estate serving as collateral for loans.  At December 31, 2019, Trustmark held $29.2 million of other real estate, compared to $34.7 million at December 31, 2018.  The amount of other real estate held by Trustmark may increase in the future as a result of, among other things, business combinations, increased uncertainties in the housing market or increased levels of credit stress in residential real estate loan portfolios.  Increased other real estate balances could lead to greater expenses as Trustmark incurs costs to manage, maintain and dispose of real properties as well as to remediate any environmental cleanup costs incurred in connection with any contamination discovered on real property on which Trustmark has foreclosed and to which Trustmark has taken title.  As a result, Trustmark’s earnings could be negatively affected by various expenses associated with other real estate owned, including personnel costs, insurance and taxes, completion and repair costs, valuation adjustments and other expenses associated with real property ownership, as well as by the funding costs associated with other real estate assets.  The expenses associated with holding a significant amount of other real estate could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Declines in asset values may result in impairment charges and adversely affect the value of Trustmark’s investments.

Trustmark maintains an investment portfolio that includes, among other asset classes, obligations of states and municipalities, agency debt securities and agency mortgage-related securities.  The market value of investments in Trustmark’s investment portfolio may be affected by factors other than interest rates or the underlying performance of the issuer of the securities, such as ratings downgrades, adverse changes in the business climate and a lack of pricing information or liquidity in the secondary market for certain investment securities.  In addition, government involvement or intervention in the financial markets or the lack thereof or market perceptions regarding the existence or absence of such activities could affect the market and the market prices for these securities.

21

On a quarterly basis, Trustmark evaluates investments and other assets for impairment indicators.  As of December 31, 2019, gross unrealized losses on temporarily impaired securities totaled $7.3 million.  Trustmark may be required to record impairment charges if these investments suffer a decline in value that is other-than-temporary.  If it is determined that a significant impairment has occurred, Trustmark would be required to charge against earnings the credit-related portion of the other-than-temporary impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on results of operations in the period in which a write-off, if any, occurs.

If Trustmark is required to repurchase a significant number of mortgage loans that it had previously sold, such repurchases could negatively affect earnings.

One of Trustmark’s primary business operations is mortgage banking under which residential mortgage loans are sold in the secondary market under agreements that contain representations and warranties related to, among other things, the origination and characteristics of the mortgage loans.  Trustmark may be required to either repurchase the outstanding principal balance of a loan or make the purchaser whole for the anticipated economic benefits of a loan if it is determined that the loan sold was in violation of representations or warranties made by Trustmark at the time of the sale, herein referred to as mortgage loan servicing putback expenses.  Such representations and warranties typically include those made regarding loans that had missing or insufficient file documentation, loans that do not meet investor guidelines, loans in which the appraisal does not support the value and/or loans obtained through fraud by the borrowers or other third parties.  Generally, putback requests may be made until the loan is paid in full.  However, mortgage loans delivered to the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) on or after January 1, 2013 are subject to the Lending and Selling Representations and Warranties Framework updated in May 2014, which provides certain instances in which FNMA and FHLMC will not exercise their remedies, including a putback request, for breaches of certain selling representations and warranties, such as payment history and quality control review.

Trustmark operates in a highly competitive financial services industry.

Trustmark faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have greater financial resources.  Such competitors primarily include national and regional banks, as well as community banks within the various markets in which Trustmark operates.  At this time, major international banks do not materially compete directly with Trustmark in its markets, although they may do so in the future.  Trustmark also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies and other financial intermediaries.  Additionally, fintech developments, such as blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies, have the potential to disrupt the financial industry and change the way banks do business.  The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation.

Some of Trustmark’s competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures.  Additionally, due to their size, many of Trustmark’s larger competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than Trustmark.

Trustmark’s ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including: the ability to develop, maintain and build upon long-term customer relationships based on top quality service, high ethical standards and safe, sound assets; the ability to continue to expand Trustmark’s market position through organic growth and acquisitions; the scope, relevance and pricing of products and services offered to meet customer needs and demands; the rate at which Trustmark introduces new products and services relative to its competitors; and industry and general economic trends.  Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken Trustmark’s competitive position, which could adversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in retail distribution strategies and consumer behavior may adversely impact Trustmark’s investments in premises, equipment, technology and other assets and may lead to increased expenditures to change its retail distribution channel.

Trustmark has significant investments in bank premises and equipment for its branch network. Advances in technology such as ecommerce, telephone, internet and mobile banking, and in-branch self-service technologies including interactive teller machines and other equipment, as well as an increasing customer preference for these other methods of accessing Trustmark’s products and services, could decrease the value of its branch network, technology, or other retail distribution physical assets and may cause Trustmark to change its retail distribution strategy, close and/or sell certain branches or parcels of land held for development and restructure or reduce its remaining branches and work force. These actions could lead to losses on these assets or could adversely impact the carrying value of any long-lived assets and may lead to increased expenditures to renovate, reconfigure or close a number of Trustmark’s remaining branches or to otherwise reform its retail distribution channel.

22

Potential acquisitions by Trustmark may disrupt Trustmark’s business and dilute shareholder value.

Trustmark continuously monitors the market for merger or acquisition opportunities and, depending upon business and other considerations, may elect to pursue one or more such opportunities in the future. Any such merger or acquisition candidate would need to have a similar culture to Trustmark, have experienced management and possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale or expanded services.  Acquiring other banks, businesses, or branches involves various risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including: potential exposure to unknown or contingent liabilities of the target company, exposure to potential asset quality issues of the target company, difficulty and expense of integrating the operations and personnel of the target company, potential disruption to Trustmark’s business, potential diversion of Trustmark’s Management’s time and attention, the possible loss of key employees and customers of the target company, difficulty in estimating the value of the target company and potential changes in banking or tax laws or regulations that may affect the target company.  Acquisitions may involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some dilution of Trustmark’s tangible book value and net income per share of common stock may occur in connection with any future transaction. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue projections, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, the acquisition of an insured depository institution that subsequently fails could significantly adversely affect an affiliated insured depository institution.  Under cross-guarantee provisions of the FDI Act, the FDIC may recoup losses to the DIF by assessing a claim against insured depository institutions under common control for losses caused by the failure of an affiliated insured depository institution.

The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect Trustmark.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships.  As a result, defaults by, or questions or rumors about, one or more financial services institutions or the financial services industry in general, could lead to market-wide liquidity problems, which could, in turn, lead to defaults or losses by Trustmark and by other institutions.  Trustmark has exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, mutual funds, and other institutional clients.  Many of these transactions expose Trustmark to credit risk in the event of default of its counterparty or client.  In addition, Trustmark’s credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral it holds cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure owed to Trustmark.  Losses related to these credit risks could materially and adversely affect Trustmark’s results of operations.

Trustmark may experience disruptions of its operating systems or breaches in its information system security.

Trustmark is dependent upon communications and information systems to conduct business as such systems are used to manage virtually all aspects of Trustmark’s business.  Trustmark’s operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information within its computer systems and networks.  Trustmark has taken protective measures, which are continuously monitored and modified as warranted; however, Trustmark’s computer systems, software and networks may fail to operate properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond Trustmark’s control.  There could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume; electrical, telecommunications or other major physical infrastructure outages; natural disasters; and events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts.  Further, Trustmark’s operational and security systems and infrastructure may be vulnerable to breaches, unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious codes and cyber-attacks that could affect their information system security.  If one or more of these events were to occur, Trustmark’s or its customers’ confidential and other information would be jeopardized, or such an event could cause interruptions or malfunctions in Trustmark’s or its customers’ or counterparties’ operations.  Trustmark may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify its protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures in its computer systems and networks, and Trustmark may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by Trustmark.  Any such losses, which may be difficult to detect, could adversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.  In addition, the occurrence of such a loss could expose Trustmark to reputational risk, the loss of customer business and additional regulatory scrutiny.

Security breaches in Trustmark’s internet and mobile banking activities (myTrustmark^SM) could further expose Trustmark to possible liability and reputational risk.  Any compromise in security could deter customers from using Trustmark’s internet and mobile banking services that involve the transmission of confidential information.  Trustmark relies on standard internet security systems to provide the security and authentication necessary to effect secure transmission of data.  However, these precautions may not protect Trustmark’s systems from compromise or breaches of security, which could result in significant legal liability and significant damage to Trustmark’s reputation and business.

23

Trustmark relies upon certain third-party vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain day-to-day operations.  Accordingly, Trustmark’s operations are exposed to the risk that these vendors might not perform in accordance with applicable contractual arrangements or service level agreements or that the security of the third-party vendors’ computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to compromises that could impact information system security.  Trustmark maintains a system of policies and procedures designed to monitor vendor risks.  While Trustmark believes these policies and procedures effectively mitigate risk, the failure of an external vendor to perform in accordance with applicable contractual arrangements or service level agreements or any compromise in the security of an external vendor’s information systems could be disruptive to Trustmark’s operations, which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Trustmark must utilize new technologies to deliver its products and services, which could require significant resources and expose Trustmark to additional risks, including cyber-security risks.

In order to deliver new products and services and to improve the productivity of existing products and services, the banking industry relies on rapidly evolving technologies.  Trustmark continues to invest in technology to facilitate the ability of its customers to engage in financial transactions, and otherwise enhance the customer experience with respect to its products and services.  Trustmark’s ability to effectively utilize new technologies to address customer needs and create operating efficiencies could materially affect future prospects.  Management cannot provide any assurances that Trustmark will be successful in utilizing such new technologies.  Incorporation of new products and services, such as internet and mobile banking services, may require significant resources and expose Trustmark to additional risks, including cyber-security risks.

Trustmark’s use of third-party service providers and Trustmark’s other ongoing third-party business relationships are subject to increasing regulatory requirements and attention.

Trustmark regularly uses third-party service providers and subcontractors as part of its business.  Trustmark also has substantial ongoing business relationships with partners and other third-parties and relies on certain third-parties to provide products and services necessary to maintain day-to-day operations.  These types of third-party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and attention by regulators, including the FRB, OCC, CFPB and FDIC.  Under regulatory guidance, Trustmark is required to apply stringent due diligence, conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain effective control over third-party service providers and subcontractors and other ongoing third-party business relationships.  Trustmark expects that the regulators will hold Trustmark responsible for deficiencies in its oversight and control of its third-party relationships and in the performance of the parties with which Trustmark has these relationships.  Trustmark maintains a system of policies and procedures designed to ensure adequate due diligence is performed and to monitor vendor risks.  While Trustmark believes these policies and procedures effectively mitigate risk, if the regulators conclude that Trustmark has not exercised adequate oversight and control over third-party service providers and subcontractors or other ongoing third-party business relationships or that such third-parties have not performed appropriately, Trustmark could be subject to enforcement actions, including civil monetary penalties or other administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as requirements for customer remediation.

Trustmark’s controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.

Trustmark’s internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures are based in part on assumptions, and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met.  Any failure or circumvention of Trustmark’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The stock price of financial institutions, like Trustmark, can be volatile.

The volatility in the stock prices of companies in the financial services industry, such as Trustmark, may make it more difficult for shareholders to resell Trustmark common stock at attractive prices in a timely manner.  Trustmark’s stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors, including factors affecting the financial industry as a whole.  The factors affecting financial stocks generally and Trustmark’s stock price in particular include:

24

General market fluctuations, the potential for breakdowns on electronic trading or other platforms for executing securities transactions, industry factors and general economic and political conditions could also cause Trustmark’s stock price to decrease regardless of operating results.

Changes in accounting standards may affect how Trustmark reports its financial condition and results of operations.

Trustmark’s accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how Trustmark records and reports its financial condition and results of operations.  From time to time, the FASB changes the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of Trustmark’s financial statements.  The most recent economic recession resulted in increased scrutiny of accounting standards by regulators and legislators, particularly as they relate to fair value accounting principles.  In addition, ongoing efforts to achieve convergence between U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards may result in changes to GAAP.  Any such changes can be difficult to predict and can materially affect how Trustmark records and reports its financial condition or results of operations.  For additional details regarding recently adopted and pending accounting pronouncements, see Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Trustmark may not be able to attract or retain key employees.

Trustmark’s success depends substantially on its ability to attract and retain skilled, experienced personnel.  Competition for qualified candidates in the activities and markets that Trustmark serves is intense.  While Trustmark invests significantly in the training and development of its employees, it is possible that Trustmark may not be able to retain key employees.  If Trustmark were unable to retain its most qualified employees, its performance and competitive positioning could be materially adversely affected.

Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, could have a significant negative impact on Trustmark’s business.

Many of Trustmark’s loans are secured by property or are made to businesses in or near the Gulf Coast regions of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Texas, which are often in the path of seasonal hurricanes.  Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, could have a significant negative impact on the stability of Trustmark’s deposit base, the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing loans, and could cause Trustmark to incur material additional expenses.  Although Management has established disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of a natural disaster, especially if any applicable insurance coverage is not adequate to enable Trustmark’s borrowers to recover from the effects of the event, could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Trustmark may be subject to increased claims and litigation, which could result in legal liability and reputational damage.

Trustmark has been named from time to time as a defendant in litigation relating to its businesses and activities.  Litigation may include claims for substantial compensatory or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages.

In recent years, a number of judicial decisions have upheld the right of borrowers to sue lending institutions on the basis of various evolving legal theories, collectively termed “lender liability.”  Generally, lender liability is founded on the premise that a lender has either violated a duty, whether implied or contractual, of good faith and fair dealing owed to the borrower or has assumed a degree of control over the borrower resulting in the creation of a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower or its other creditors or shareholders.

Substantial legal liability against Trustmark, including its subsidiaries, could materially adversely affect Trustmark’s business, financial condition or results of operations, or cause significant harm to its reputation.

Damage to Trustmark’s reputation could have a significant negative impact on Trustmark’s business.

Trustmark’s ability to attract and retain customers, clients, investors, and highly-skilled management and employees is affected by its reputation.  Public perception of the financial services industry declined as a result of the economic downturn and related government response.  Trustmark faces increased public and regulatory scrutiny resulting from the financial crisis and economic downturn.  Significant harm to Trustmark’s reputation can also arise from other sources, including employee misconduct, actual or perceived

25

unethical behavior, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failing to deliver minimum or required standards of service and quality, compliance failures, disclosure of confidential information, significant or numerous failures, interruptions or breaches of its information systems and the activities of its clients, customers and counterparties, including vendors.  Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members or individuals in the industry may have a significant adverse effect on Trustmark’s reputation.  Trustmark could also suffer significant reputational harm if it fails to properly identify and manage potential conflicts of interest.  Management of potential conflicts of interests has become increasingly complex as Trustmark expands its business activities through more numerous transactions, obligations and interests with and among its clients.  The actual or perceived failure to adequately address conflicts of interest could affect the willingness of clients to deal with Trustmark, which could adversely affect Trustmark’s businesses.

None

Trustmark’s principal offices are housed in its main office building located in downtown Jackson, Mississippi and owned by TNB.  Trustmark’s main office building is primarily allocated for bank use with a small portion available for occupancy by tenants on a lease basis, although such incidental leasing activity is not material to Trustmark’s operations.  As of December 31, 2019, Trustmark, through TNB, operated 178 full-service branches, 15 limited-service branches and an ATM network, which included 236 automated teller machines (ATMs) and 14 interactive teller machines (ITMs) at its branches and other locations.  In addition, Trustmark operated 11 offices in various locations providing mortgage banking, wealth management and insurance services.  Trustmark leases 32 of its branch and other office locations with the remainder being owned.  Trustmark believes its properties are suitable and adequate to operate its financial services business.

Trustmark’s wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  

On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions and one individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Class Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC’s motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions.  In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.  

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC’s claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.  In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs’ claims and the OSIC’s claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs’ fraudulent

26

transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC’s claims.  The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC’s constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i) aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii) aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court’s prior denial to dismiss the OSIC’s constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the action.  On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to reconsider the court’s prior denial to dismiss the OSIC’s constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.  On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule.  On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii) aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.  On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs’ motion seeking class certification and designation of class representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did not predominate.  The court granted the OSIC’s motion to lift the discovery stay that it had previously ordered.

On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to intervene in the action.  On September 18, 2019, the court denied the motions to intervene.  On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal.

On December 14, 2009, a different Stanford-related lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine and Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana’s uniform fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.  In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29, 2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

On April 11, 2016, Trustmark learned that a different Stanford-related lawsuit had been filed on that date in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, by The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”), naming TNB and three other financial institutions not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks a declaration specifying the degree to which each of TNB and the other defendants are liable in respect of any loss and damage for which TD Bank is found to be liable in a litigation commenced against TD Bank brought by the Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank Limited in the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List in Ontario, Canada (the “Joint Liquidators’ Action”), as well as contribution and indemnity in respect of any judgment, interest and costs TD Bank is ordered to pay in the Joint Liquidators’ Action.  To date, TNB has not been served in connection with this action.

On November 1, 2019, TNB was named as a defendant in a complaint filed by Paul Blaine Smith, Carolyn Bass Smith and other plaintiffs identified therein (the Smith Complaint).  The Smith Complaint was filed in District Court, Harris County, Texas and named TNB and four other financial institutions and one individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as defendants.  The Smith Complaint relates to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group, as does the other pending litigation relating to Stanford summarized above.  Plaintiffs in the Smith Complaint have demanded a jury trial.

Trustmark has only recently become aware of the Smith Complaint (which has not yet been served upon TNB).  Trustmark and its counsel are carefully evaluating the Smith Complaint in the form that is publicly available, and will update the foregoing description to the extent that additional material facts are ascertained.

TNB’s relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a result of Trustmark’s acquisition of a Houston-based bank in August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.  All Stanford-related lawsuits are in pre-trial stages.

On December 30, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division (the Court) by Alysson Mills in her capacity as Court-appointed Receiver (the Receiver) for Arthur Lamar Adams (Adams) and Madison Timber Properties, LLC (Madison Timber), naming TNB, two other Mississippi-based financial institutions both of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark and two individuals, one of who was employed by TNB at all times relevant to the complaint

27

and the other was employed either by TNB or one of the other defendant financial institutions, as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover from the defendants, for the benefit of the receivership estate and also for certain investors who were allegedly defrauded by Adams and Madison Timber, damages (including punitive damages) and related costs allegedly attributable to actions of the defendants that allegedly enabled illegal and fraudulent activities engaged in by Adams and Madison Timber.  The Receiver did not quantify damages.

TNB’s relationship with Adams and Madison Timber consisted of traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.

Trustmark and its subsidiaries are also parties to other lawsuits and other claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.  Some of the lawsuits assert claims related to the lending, collection, servicing, investment, trust and other business activities, and some of the lawsuits allege substantial claims for damages.

All pending legal proceedings described above are being vigorously contested.  In accordance FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Subtopic 450-20, “Loss Contingencies,” Trustmark will establish an accrued liability for litigation matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable.  At the present time, Management believes, based on the advice of legal counsel and Management’s evaluation, that a loss in any such proceeding is not probable and reasonably estimable.  All matters will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable.  In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, Trustmark cannot predict the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters or the timing of their ultimate resolution.  Management currently believes, however, based upon the advice of legal counsel and Management’s evaluation and after taking into account its current insurance coverage, that the legal proceedings currently pending should not have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s consolidated financial condition.

Not applicable.

PART II

Common Stock Prices and Dividends

Trustmark’s common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market and is traded under the symbol “TRMK.”

Trustmark paid quarterly cash dividends to shareholders of $0.23 per share, or $0.92 per share annually, in 2019.  As a component of return to common shareholders, Trustmark intends to pay cash dividends when corporate financial performance and capital strength allow it to do so.  All dividend payments must be approved and declared by the Board of Directors of Trustmark and are required to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

At January 31, 2020, there were approximately 3,435 registered shareholders of record and approximately 21,264 beneficial account holders of shares in nominee name of Trustmark’s common stock.  Other information required by this item can be found in Note 19 - Shareholders’ Equity included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Stock Repurchase Program

On March 11, 2016, the Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a stock repurchase program under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding common stock could be acquired through March 31, 2019.  Trustmark repurchased approximately 1.2 million shares of its common stock valued at $36.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to approximately 2.0 million shares of its common stock valued at $62.4 million repurchased during the year ended December 31, 2018.  Under the 2016 program, Trustmark repurchased approximately 3.2 million shares valued at $100.0 million.

The Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a new stock repurchase program effective April 1, 2019 under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding common stock may be acquired through March 31, 2020.  The adoption of this new stock repurchase program followed the receipt of non-objection from the FRB.  The shares may be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions.  Under this authority, Trustmark repurchased approximately 601 thousand shares of its common stock valued at $19.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2019.

28

Together, with the repurchases under the previous program, Trustmark purchased approximately 1.8 million shares of its common stock valued at $56.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2019.

On January 28, 2020, the Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a new stock repurchase program, effective April 1, 2020, under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding common stock may be acquired through December 31, 2021.  The shares may be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or private transactions, depending on market conditions.  There is no guarantee as to the number of shares that may be repurchased by Trustmark, and Trustmark may discontinue purchases under the program at any time at Management’s discretion.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares Trustmark’s annual percentage change in cumulative total return on common shares over the past five years with the cumulative total return of companies comprising the Nasdaq market value index and the Morningstar Banks – Regional – US index.  The Morningstar Banks – Regional – US index is an industry index published by Morningstar and consists of 1,000 large, regional, diverse financial institutions serving the corporate, government and consumer needs of retail banking, investment banking, trust management, credit cards and mortgage banking in the United States.  This presentation assumes that $100 was invested in shares of the relevant issuers on December 31, 2014, and that dividends received were immediately invested in additional shares.  The graph plots the value of the initial $100 investment at one-year intervals for the fiscal years shown.

29

The following unaudited consolidated financial data is derived from Trustmark’s audited financial statements as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2019 ($ in thousands, except per share data).  The data should be read in conjunction with Part II. Item 7. - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

30

The following unaudited tables represent Trustmark’s summary of quarterly operations for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 ($ in thousands, except per share data):

31

The following provides a narrative discussion and analysis of Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations.  This discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the supplemental financial data included in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.  Discussion and analysis of Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 are included in the respective sections within Part II. Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of Trustmark’s Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Executive Overview

During 2019, Trustmark remained focused on its strategic initiatives of profitably increasing revenue across its financial services businesses, optimizing its balance sheet, deploying capital through stock repurchases and maintaining disciplined expense management.  Trustmark achieved solid financial results with total revenue of $153.2 million and $613.6 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2019, respectively.  Trustmark continued to maintain and expand customer relationships as reflected by growth in the LHFI portfolio of $499.8 million, or 5.7%, during the year ended December 31, 2019.  Credit quality remained strong and continued to be an important contributor to Trustmark’s financial success.  Trustmark remains committed to supporting investments to promote profitable revenue growth, reengineering processes to enhance operational efficiency, realigning delivery channels to support changing customer preferences and managing the franchise for the long-term.  Trustmark’s capital position remained solid, reflecting the consistent profitability of its diversified financial services businesses.  The Board of Directors of Trustmark declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.23 per share.  The dividend is payable March 15, 2020, to shareholders of record on March 1, 2020.

Financial Highlights

Trustmark reported net income of $33.9 million, or basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) of $0.53, for the fourth quarter of 2019, compared to $36.7 million, or basic and diluted EPS of $0.55, in the fourth quarter of 2018.  The decrease in net income when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the same time period in 2018 was principally due to increases in total noninterest expense of $6.1 million, or 5.9%, and the provision for loan losses, LHFI of $1.5 million, or 67.0%, partially offset by an increase in total noninterest income of $4.0 million, or 9.2%.  Trustmark’s reported performance during the quarter ended December 31, 2019, produced a return on average tangible equity of 10.85%, a return on average assets of 1.00%, an average equity to average assets ratio of 12.30% and a dividend payout ratio of 43.40%, compared to a return on average tangible equity of 12.41%, a return on average assets of 1.09%, an average equity to average assets ratio of 11.95% and a dividend payout ratio of 41.82% during the quarter ended December 31, 2018.

Revenue, which is defined as net interest income plus noninterest income, totaled $153.2 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2019 compared to $148.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2018, an increase of $4.4 million, or 3.0%.  The increase in total revenue for the fourth quarter of 2019 was principally due to an increase in total noninterest income primarily as a result of increases in mortgage banking, net and other noninterest income, net.

Mortgage banking, net increased $2.2 million, or 38.5%, when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the same time period in 2018, primarily due to an increase gain of sales or loans, net partially offset by an increase in the negative net hedge ineffectiveness.  The net negative hedge ineffectiveness was primarily due to market volatility and adjustments to asset valuation assumptions during the fourth quarter of 2019.  See the section captioned “Derivatives” for further discussion of the MSR hedge ineffectiveness.  Other noninterest income, net increased $1.5 million, or 81.3%, when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the same time period in 2018, primarily due to increases in other miscellaneous income and gains on sales of premises and equipment, net as well as a decline in amortization of tax credit partnerships. 

Trustmark’s provision for loan losses, LHFI for the three months ended December 31, 2019 totaled $3.7 million, an increase of $1.5 million, or 67.0%, when compared to a provision for loan losses, LHFI of $2.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2018.  Please see the section captioned “Provision for Loan Losses, LHFI,” for additional information regarding the provision for loan losses, LHFI.

The increase in noninterest expense when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the same time period in 2018 was principally due to increases in salaries and employee benefits, services and fees and other real estate expense, net.  Salaries and employee benefits increased $3.6 million or 6.1% when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the fourth quarter of 2018, primarily due to higher commission expense related to improvements in mortgage originations and the insurance lines of business and an increase in salaries expense primarily due to general merit increases.  Services and fees increased $1.6 million, or 8.9%, when the fourth quarter of 2019 is compared to the fourth quarter of 2018, principally due to increases in data processing charges related to software, professional

32

services and fees and advertising expense.  Other real estate expense, net increased $1.4 million principally due to an increase in write-downs of other real estate properties.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, Trustmark reported net income of $150.5 million, or basic and diluted EPS of $2.33 and $2.32, respectively, compared to $149.6 million, or basic and diluted EPS of $2.22 and $2.21, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2018 and $105.6 million, or basic and diluted EPS of $1.56, for the year ended December 31, 2017.  The increase in net income when 2019 is compared to 2018 was principally due to an increase in net interest income of $7.2 million, or 1.7%, and a decrease in the provision for loan losses, LHFI, of $7.2 million, or 40.0%, partially offset by an increase in total noninterest expense of $13.6 million, or 3.3%.  Trustmark’s reported performance for the year ended December 31, 2019, produced a return on average tangible equity of 12.45%, a return on average assets of 1.11% and a dividend payout ratio of 39.48%, compared to a return on average tangible equity of 12.86%, a return on average assets of 1.11% and a dividend payout ratio of 41.44% for the year ended December 31, 2018 and a return on average tangible equity of 9.39%, a return on average assets of 0.77% and a dividend payout ratio of 58.97% for the year ended December 31, 2017.  Trustmark’s average equity to average assets ratio was 12.02%, 11.78% and 11.38% for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Revenue totaled $613.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $604.3 million and $592.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.  The increase in total revenue for 2019 compared to 2018 was principally the result of an increase in interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI and declines in other interest expense and interest expense on federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements (repurchase agreements), partially offset by an increase in interest expense on deposits and decreases in interest on total securities and interest and fees on acquired loans.  

Interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI for 2019 increased $44.2 million, or 11.2%, compared to 2018, primarily due to an increase in interest earned on the LHFI portfolio as a result of the $499.8 million, or 5.7%, year-over-year increase in the LHFI portfolio and higher interest rates.  Other interest expense declined $4.2 million, or 55.7%, when 2019 is compared to 2018, principally due to a decrease in interest expense on FHLB advances.  Interest expense on federal funds purchased and repurchase agreements declined $3.4 million, or 70.3%, when 2019 is compared to 2018, primarily due to Trustmark’s reduction of its funding from external sources at the end of 2018 as well as the FRB’s reduction of the target rate for federal funds during the second half of 2019.  See the section captioned “Borrowings” for further discussion on funding from external sources.  Interest expense on deposits for 2019 increased $25.2 million, or 46.8%, when compared to 2018, principally due to increases in average balances of interest-bearing demand deposits as well as higher interest rates in general.  Interest on total securities for 2019 declined $12.0 million, or 17.5%, compared to 2018, principally due to a $381.0 million, or 14.0%, decline in total securities primarily due to the run-off of maturing investment securities.  Interest and fees on acquired loans for 2019 decreased $8.7 million, or 51.1%, compared to 2018, primarily due to declines in accretion income and loan recovery from settlement of debt related to loans acquired in all four acquisitions and deferred fee amortization and other interest and fees related to loans acquired in the Reliance merger, as a result of paydowns/pay-offs of these loans as well as acquired loans transferred to LHFI during 2018.

Trustmark’s provision for loan losses, LHFI, for 2019 totaled $10.8 million, a decrease of $7.2 million, or 40.0%, when compared to a provision for loan losses, LHFI of $18.0 million for 2018.  Please see the section captioned “Provision for Loan Losses, LHFI,” for additional information regarding the provision for loan losses, LHFI.  

The increase in noninterest expense during 2019 was principally due to increases in salaries and employee benefits and services and fees, partially offset by a decline in FDIC assessment expense.  Salaries and employee benefits increased $9.7 million, or 4.1%, when 2019 is compared to 2018, primarily due to increases in commission expense related to improvements in mortgage originations and the insurance lines of business, salaries expense primarily due to general merit increases, insurance expense related to Trustmark’s health plans and stock compensation.  Services and fees for 2019 increased $6.9 million, or 10.4%, compared to 2018 primarily due to increases in data processing charges related to software, professional services and fees and advertising expense.  FDIC assessment expense declined $3.0 million, or 31.7%, when 2019 is compared to 2018, principally due to the lower regular assessment base and elimination of the additional surcharge of 4.5 cents per $100 of assessment base during the third quarter of 2018.

LHFI totaled $9.336 billion at December 31, 2019, an increase of $499.8 million, or 5.7%, compared to the balance at December 31, 2018.  The increase in LHFI during 2019 was principally due to net increases in loans secured by real estate in all five market regions partially offset by declines in commercial and industrial loans in Trustmark’s Mississippi and Tennessee market regions.

At December 31, 2019, nonperforming assets, excluding acquired loans, totaled $82.5 million, a decrease of $13.8 million, or 14.4%, compared to December 31, 2018 due to declines in both nonaccrual LHFI and other real estate.  Total nonaccrual LHFI were $53.2 million at December 31, 2019, representing a decrease of $8.4 million, or 13.6%, relative to December 31, 2018 principally due to a reduction and charge-off of one large commercial nonaccrual credit in the Mississippi market region and one large commercial nonaccrual credit in the Texas market region, for which reserves were previously established, as well as foreclosure of one large nonaccrual healthcare credit and reduction of one large commercial nonaccrual credit in the Mississippi market, which were largely offset by a large commercial nonaccrual credit in the Mississippi market region that was placed on nonaccrual during 2019.  The

33

percentage of loans, excluding acquired loans, that are 30 days or more past due and nonaccrual LHFI decreased in 2019 to 1.28% compared to 1.56% in 2018 and 1.53% in 2017.  Other real estate declined $5.4 million, or 15.6%, during 2019 as a result of properties sold and write-downs on foreclosed properties across all five market regions, partially offset by new properties foreclosed in Trustmark’s Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee market regions.  

Management has continued its practice of maintaining excess funding capacity to provide Trustmark with adequate liquidity for its ongoing operations.  In this regard, Trustmark benefits from its strong deposit base, its highly liquid investment portfolio and its access to funding from a variety of external funding sources such as upstream federal funds lines, FHLB advances and, on a limited basis, brokered deposits.  See the section captioned “Liquidity” for further discussion of the components of Trustmark’s excess funding capacity.

Total deposits were $11.246 billion at December 31, 2019, a decrease of $118.9 million, or 1.0% compared to December 31, 2018, as a result of declines in both noninterest-bearing and interest-bearing deposits.  During 2019, noninterest-bearing deposits decreased $46.4 million, or 1.6%, primarily due to a decline in public demand deposit accounts partially offset by growth in commercial and consumer demand deposit accounts. Interest-bearing deposits decreased $72.5 million, or 0.9%, principally due to declines in public interest checking accounts and all categories of time deposits, which were largely offset by growth in consumer money market deposit accounts and commercial interest checking accounts.  

Trustmark uses short-term borrowings to fund growth of earning assets in excess of deposits growth.  Federal funds purchased and repurchase agreements totaled $256.0 million at December 31, 2019, an increase of $205.5 million when compared to December 31, 2018, primarily due to an increase in upstream federal funds purchased principally as a result of the decline in public deposits.

Critical Accounting Policies

Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP and follow general practices within the financial services industry.  Application of these accounting principles requires Management to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes.  These estimates, assumptions and judgments are based on information available as of the date of the consolidated financial statements; accordingly, as this information changes, actual financial results could differ from those estimates.

Certain policies inherently have a greater reliance on the use of estimates, assumptions and judgments and, as such, have a greater possibility of producing results that could be materially different than originally reported.  These critical accounting policies are described below.

For additional information regarding the accounting policies discussed below, please see Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies set forth in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Allowance for Loan Losses, LHFI

The allowance for loan losses, LHFI is established through provisions for estimated loan losses charged against net income.  The allowance reflects Management’s best estimate of the probable loan losses related to specifically identified LHFI as well as probable incurred loan losses in the remaining loan portfolio and requires considerable judgment.  The allowance is based upon Management’s current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio, including all internal and external factors that impact loan collectibility.  Accordingly, the allowance is based upon both past events and current economic conditions.

Trustmark’s allowance for loan losses, LHFI consists of three components: (i) a historical valuation allowance determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies,” based on historical loan loss experience for LHFI with similar characteristics and trends, (ii) a specific valuation allowance determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 310 based on probable losses on specific LHFI and (iii) a qualitative risk valuation allowance determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450 based on general economic conditions and other specific internal and external qualitative risk factors.  Each of these components calls for estimates, assumptions and judgments, in particular, the qualitative risk valuation allowance requires significant judgment by Management in developing their estimate.  Trustmark’s independent auditor, Crowe LLP, identified Management’s estimate of the qualitative risk valuation allowance as a critical audit matter, please see Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm included in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

A significant shift in one or more factors included in the allowance for loan loss methodology could result in a material change to Trustmark’s allowance for loan losses, LHFI.  For example, if there were changes in one or more of the estimates, assumptions or judgments used as they relate to a portfolio of commercial LHFI, Trustmark could find that it needs to increase the level of future provisions for possible loan losses with respect to that portfolio.  Additionally, credit deterioration of specific borrowers due to changes in these factors could cause the internally assigned risk rating to shift to a more severe category.  As a result, Trustmark could

34

find that it needs to increase the level of future provisions for possible loan losses with respect to these LHFI.  Given the nature of many of these estimates, assumptions and judgments, it is not possible to provide meaningful estimates of the impact of any such potential shifts.

For a complete description of Trustmark’s allowance for loan loss methodology, please see Note 5 – LHFI and Allowance for Loan Losses, LHFI included in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR)

Trustmark recognizes as assets the rights to service mortgage loans based on the estimated fair value of the MSR when loans are sold and the associated servicing rights are retained.  Trustmark has elected to account for the MSR at fair value.

The fair value of the MSR is determined using a valuation model administered by a third party that calculates the present value of estimated future net servicing income.  The model incorporates assumptions that market participants use in estimating future net servicing income, including estimates of prepayment speeds, discount rate, default rates, cost to service (including delinquency and foreclosure costs), escrow account earnings, contractual servicing fee income and other ancillary income such as late fees.  Management reviews all significant assumptions quarterly.  Mortgage loan prepayment speeds, a key assumption in the model, is the annual rate at which borrowers are forecasted to repay their mortgage loan principal.  The discount rate used to determine the present value of estimated future net servicing income, another key assumption in the model, is an estimate of the required rate of return investors in the market would require for an asset with similar risk.  Both assumptions can, and generally will, change as market conditions and interest rates change.

By way of example, an increase in either the prepayment speed or discount rate assumption will result in a decrease in the fair value of the MSR, while a decrease in either assumption will result in an increase in the fair value of the MSR.  In recent years, there have been significant market-driven fluctuations in loan prepayment speeds and discount rates.  These fluctuations can be rapid and may continue to be significant.  Therefore, estimating prepayment speed and/or discount rates within ranges that market participants would use in determining the fair value of the MSR requires significant management judgment.

At December 31, 2019, the MSR fair value was $79.4 million. The impact on the MSR fair value of either a 10% adverse change in prepayment speeds or a 100 basis point increase in discount rates at December 31, 2019, would be a decline in fair value of approximately $3.5 million and $2.7 million, respectively.  Changes of equal magnitude in the opposite direction would produce similar increases in fair value in the respective amounts.

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

Trustmark records all assets and liabilities acquired in purchase acquisitions, including goodwill and other intangible assets, at fair value as required by FASB ASC Topic 805.  The carrying amount of goodwill at December 31, 2019 totaled $334.6 million for the General Banking Segment and $45.0 million for the Insurance Segment, a consolidated total of $379.6 million.  Trustmark’s goodwill is not amortized but is subject to annual tests for impairment or more often if events or circumstances indicate it may be impaired.  Trustmark’s identifiable intangible assets, which totaled $7.3 million at December 31, 2019, are amortized over their estimated useful lives and are subject to impairment tests if events or circumstances indicate a possible inability to realize the carrying amount.

The initial recording and subsequent impairment testing of goodwill requires subjective judgments concerning estimates of the fair value of the acquired assets.  The goodwill impairment test is performed in two phases. The first step compares the fair value of the reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill.  If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired; however, if the carrying amount of the reporting unit exceeds its fair value, an additional procedure must be performed. That additional procedure, or a second step, compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.  An impairment loss would be recorded to the extent that the carrying amount of goodwill exceeds its implied fair value.  Trustmark performed an annual impairment test of goodwill for reporting units contained in both the General Banking and Insurance Segments as of October 1, 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively, which indicated that no impairment charge was required. The impairment test for the General Banking Segment utilized valuations based on comparable deal values for financial institutions while the test for the Insurance Segment utilizes varying valuation scenarios for the multiple of earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization method based on recent acquisition activity.  Based on this analysis, Trustmark concluded that the fair value of the reporting units exceeded the carrying value for both the General Banking Segment and the Insurance Segment; therefore, no impairment charge was required.  Significant changes in future profitability and value of its reporting units could affect Trustmark’s impairment evaluation.

The carrying amount of Trustmark’s identifiable intangible assets subject to amortization is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition.  That assessment is based on the carrying amount of the intangible assets subject to amortization at the date it is tested for recoverability.  Intangible assets subject to

35

amortization shall be tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable.

Fair values may be determined using market prices, comparison to similar assets, market multiples and other determinants. Factors that may significantly affect the estimates include, among others, competitive forces, customer behavior and attrition, changes in revenue growth trends and specific industry or market sector conditions.  Other key judgments in accounting for intangibles include determining the useful life of the particular asset and classifying assets as either goodwill (which does not require amortization) or identifiable intangible assets (which does require amortization).

Other Real Estate

Other real estate includes assets that have been acquired in satisfaction of debt through foreclosure and is carried at the lower of cost or estimated fair value less the estimated cost of disposition.  Fair value is based on independent appraisals and other relevant factors.  Valuation adjustments required at foreclosure are charged to the allowance for loan losses.  Other real estate is revalued on an annual basis or more often if market conditions necessitate.  An other real estate specific reserve may be recorded through other real estate expense for declines in fair value subsequent to foreclosure based on recent appraisals or changes in market conditions.  Subsequent to foreclosure, losses on the periodic revaluation of the property are charged against a reserve specific to other real estate or to noninterest expense in other real estate expense if a reserve does not exist.  Significant judgments and complex estimates are required in estimating the fair value of other real estate, and the period of time within which such estimates can be considered current is significantly shortened during periods of market volatility.  As a result, the net proceeds realized from sales transactions could differ significantly from appraisals, comparable sales, and other estimates used to determine the fair value of other real estate.

Contingent Liabilities

Trustmark estimates contingent liabilities based on Management’s evaluation of the probability of outcomes and their ability to estimate the range of exposure.  As stated in FASB ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies,” a liability is contingent if the amount is not presently known but may become known in the future as a result of the occurrence of some uncertain future event.  Accounting standards require that a liability be recorded if Management determines that it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the loss can be reasonably estimated.  It is implicit in this standard that it must be probable that the loss will be confirmed by some future event.  As part of the estimation process, Management is required to make assumptions about matters that are, by their nature, highly uncertain.  The assessment of contingent liabilities, including legal contingencies and income tax liabilities, involves the use of critical estimates, assumptions and judgments.  Management’s estimates are based on their belief that future events will validate the current assumptions regarding the ultimate outcome of these exposures.  However, there can be no assurance that future events, such as court decisions or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) positions, will not differ from Management’s assessments.  Whenever practicable, Management consults with outside experts (attorneys, consultants, claims administrators, etc.) to assist with the gathering and evaluation of information related to contingent liabilities.

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments

For information regarding legislation and regulation applicable to Trustmark, see the section captioned “Supervision and Regulation” included in Part I. Item 1. – Business of this report.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

In addition to capital ratios defined by GAAP and banking regulators, Trustmark utilizes various tangible common equity measures when evaluating capital utilization and adequacy.  Tangible common equity, as defined by Trustmark, represents common equity less goodwill and identifiable intangible assets.

Trustmark believes these measures are important because they reflect the level of capital available to withstand unexpected market conditions.  Additionally, presentation of these measures allows readers to compare certain aspects of Trustmark’s capitalization to other organizations.  These ratios differ from capital measures defined by banking regulators principally in that the numerator excludes shareholders’ equity associated with preferred securities, the nature and extent of which varies across organizations.  In Management’s experience, many stock analysts use tangible common equity measures in conjunction with more traditional bank capital ratios to compare capital adequacy of banking organizations with significant amounts of goodwill or other intangible assets, typically stemming from the use of the purchase accounting method in accounting for mergers and acquisitions.

These calculations are intended to complement the capital ratios defined by GAAP and banking regulators.  Because GAAP does not include these capital ratio measures, Trustmark believes there are no comparable GAAP financial measures to these tangible common equity ratios.  Despite the importance of these measures to Trustmark, there are no standardized definitions for them and, as a result, Trustmark’s calculations may not be comparable with other organizations.  Also, there may be limits in the usefulness of these

36

measures to investors.  As a result, Trustmark encourages readers to consider its audited consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto in their entirety and not to rely on any single financial measure.  

The following table reconciles Trustmark’s calculation of these measures to amounts reported under GAAP for the periods presented ($ in thousands, except per share data):

Significant Non-routine Transactions

Trustmark discloses certain non-GAAP financial measures, including net income adjusted for significant non-routine transactions, because Management uses these measures for business planning purposes, including to manage Trustmark’s business against internal projected results of operations and to measure Trustmark’s performance.  Trustmark views net income adjusted for significant non-routine transactions as a measure of its core operating business, which excludes the impact of the items detailed below, as these items are generally not operational in nature.  This non-GAAP measure also provides another basis for comparing period-to-period results as presented in the accompanying selected financial data table and the audited consolidated financial statements by excluding potential

37

differences caused by non-operational and unusual or non-recurring items.  Readers are cautioned that these adjustments are not permitted under GAAP.  Trustmark encourages readers to consider its audited consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto, included in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report, in their entirety, and not to rely on any single financial measure.

The following table presents adjustments to net income and select financial ratios as reported in accordance with GAAP resulting from significant non-routine items occurring during the periods presented ($ in thousands, except per share data):