This updated analysis from October 27, 2025, provides a multifaceted review of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. (GSBC), covering its business moat, financial statements, past performance, future growth, and intrinsic fair value. The report benchmarks GSBC against key peers like Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC), First Busey Corporation (BUSE), and Veritex Holdings, Inc. (VBTX), filtering all takeaways through the proven investment philosophies of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
Mixed: Great Southern Bancorp presents a conflicting profile for investors. The bank is profitable and consistently rewards shareholders with dividends and buybacks. However, its balance sheet carries significant risk, with a loans-to-deposits ratio over 100%. Recent performance has weakened, with revenue and earnings declining since their 2022 peak. Future growth prospects appear limited due to its traditional model in slow-growing markets. While its valuation is reasonable, the negative earnings outlook warrants caution.
US: NASDAQ
Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. (GSBC) is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. The company's business model is centered on traditional community banking, serving local individuals, families, and small-to-medium-sized businesses. Its core operations involve attracting deposits from the general public and using those funds to originate a variety of loans. GSBC's primary products are commercial real estate (CRE) loans, construction loans, and commercial business (C&I) loans, which collectively form the backbone of its revenue-generating assets. The bank also offers consumer loans, including residential mortgages and home equity lines of credit. Its key markets are concentrated in Missouri, with a significant presence in Iowa, and smaller operations in Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. Revenue is primarily generated through net interest income, which is the spread between the interest it earns on loans and the interest it pays on deposits, supplemented by a smaller stream of noninterest (fee) income from services like deposit accounts and card services.
The bank's most significant product line is its loan portfolio, which is heavily weighted towards commercial real estate and construction lending. These loans account for over 60% of the total loan book and are the primary driver of the bank's net interest income, which constitutes roughly 78-80% of total revenue. The market for commercial lending in the Midwest is highly competitive and fragmented, with participants ranging from small local credit unions to large national banks like JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bancorp. The overall market growth (CAGR) for regional bank lending typically tracks regional GDP growth. GSBC's main competitors include other Midwest-focused banks such as Commerce Bancshares (CBSH) and UMB Financial Corporation (UMBF), which have larger scale and more diversified business lines. Compared to these peers, GSBC is a smaller, more focused player. The bank's customers for these loans are typically local real estate developers, investors, and small business owners who value relationship-based service and local decision-making. The stickiness for these customers is moderately high; switching lenders involves significant paperwork, appraisals, and the risk of disrupting an established relationship, creating a valuable moat. GSBC's competitive advantage in this niche is its deep knowledge of its local real estate markets and long-standing relationships with borrowers, allowing it to underwrite loans that larger, more bureaucratic banks might overlook. However, this concentration is also its greatest vulnerability, as a downturn in the regional commercial real estate market could significantly impact asset quality.
GSBC's second core business function is deposit gathering, which provides the low-cost funding essential for its lending operations. Deposits include noninterest-bearing checking accounts, interest-bearing checking, savings accounts, money market accounts, and time deposits (CDs). This liability side of the balance sheet is crucial for profitability, as a stable, low-cost deposit base directly widens the net interest margin. The market for deposits is intensely competitive, particularly in a rising interest rate environment where customers can find higher yields in money market funds or high-yield savings accounts from online banks. GSBC competes against all other financial institutions in its footprint for these funds. Its main appeal to depositors is the convenience of its branch network (currently 89 locations), digital banking services, and the trust associated with a long-standing community institution. The customers are local individuals and businesses who prioritize convenience and local service. The stickiness of core deposits (like checking accounts used for direct deposit and bill pay) is generally high, as changing a primary banking relationship is a hassle. However, GSBC's deposit base has shown some weakness; its proportion of noninterest-bearing deposits (around 23%) is slightly below the regional bank average, meaning it relies more on higher-cost funding than some stronger peers. This limits its cost advantage moat.
Finally, GSBC generates noninterest income, or fee revenue, from a variety of services, which contributes approximately 20-22% of total revenue. This income stream provides important diversification away from the volatility of interest rates. The main sources include service charges on deposit accounts (e.g., overdraft fees), debit and credit card interchange fees, and to a lesser extent, income from other financial services. The market for these services is commoditized, with intense competition on fees and features from traditional banks, credit unions, and fintech companies. GSBC's offering in this area is standard for a community bank and does not represent a significant competitive differentiator. Its customers are its existing loan and deposit clients. While these fee streams add a layer of revenue stability, they are not large enough to constitute a strong moat on their own. The bank's performance in this area is in line with the sub-industry average, providing a helpful but not exceptional buffer against swings in its core lending business. The lack of a substantial wealth management or trust division, unlike some larger regional competitors, limits its potential for higher-margin, recurring fee income.
In conclusion, Great Southern Bancorp's business model is that of a classic, geographically-focused community bank. Its competitive moat is narrow and primarily built on intangible assets: the strong, localized customer relationships cultivated over decades in its core Midwestern markets. This creates moderate switching costs, particularly for its small business and commercial real estate borrowers, who rely on the bank's local expertise and personalized service. This relationship-based approach is difficult for large, money-center banks to replicate, giving GSBC a defensible position within its specific geographic niche.
However, the durability of this moat is questionable when faced with broader economic pressures. The bank lacks a significant cost advantage; its funding costs are not materially lower than peers, and its efficiency ratio is average. Furthermore, its business model carries significant concentration risk, both geographically within the Midwest and operationally within the commercial real estate sector. While this focus allows for specialized expertise, it also makes the bank's fortunes highly dependent on the health of a single asset class and region. Unlike larger, more diversified regional banks, GSBC has fewer levers to pull if its primary market experiences a downturn. Therefore, while the business model is resilient enough for stable economic conditions, its moat may not be deep or wide enough to provide strong protection during a significant recession or a downturn in the CRE market.
Great Southern Bancorp's recent financial performance reveals a company with a profitable operating model but potential balance sheet vulnerabilities. On the income statement, the bank has reversed a prior-year decline, posting two consecutive quarters of strong year-over-year growth in net interest income. This core revenue driver, combined with an efficiency ratio hovering around 62.5%, has supported robust profitability metrics, including a return on equity consistently above 10%. The bank's earnings power appears solid in the current environment, which is a significant strength.
However, an analysis of the balance sheet raises some red flags. The most prominent is the loans-to-deposits ratio, which stood at 100.1% in the latest quarter. This figure indicates that the bank has loaned out essentially all of its deposit funding, leaving very little cushion for deposit outflows and limiting its capacity for future loan growth without seeking more expensive funding sources. While its capital position, measured by tangible common equity to total assets at 10.86%, is healthy and provides a good loss-absorption buffer, this is offset by the liquidity constraints implied by the high loan-to-deposit ratio.
The bank's credit quality appears strong, as evidenced by recent releases of loan loss reserves—a sign that management anticipates low levels of defaults. The allowance for credit losses stands at a healthy 1.43% of gross loans. In terms of leverage, the debt-to-equity ratio of 0.78 is manageable. In conclusion, GSBC's financial foundation is a tale of two parts: strong current profitability and credit discipline on one side, and potential liquidity and interest rate risks on the other. This makes the stock's financial health stable but not without notable risks investors must monitor closely.
An analysis of Great Southern Bancorp's performance over the last five fiscal years (FY2020–FY2024) reveals a company that excels at capital returns but has faced challenges in fundamental business growth. During this period, the bank has been a reliable dividend payer and has aggressively repurchased its own stock, which has provided a floor for shareholder returns and supported its earnings per share (EPS) figures. This disciplined capital allocation is a significant historical strength.
However, the bank's core operational trends are concerning. Revenue growth has been nearly flat, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of just 2.2% from FY2020 to FY2024, and both revenue and net income have declined in the last two years. Profitability, as measured by Return on Equity (ROE), peaked at 13.2% in FY2022 before falling to 10.6% in FY2024, a level that lags higher-performing regional bank peers. This decline has been driven by a combination of a rising cost of funds, as seen in the lack of deposit growth, and weakening cost control, evidenced by a deteriorating efficiency ratio.
The balance sheet history also highlights a key vulnerability. While loan growth has been moderate, total deposits have remained stagnant, even declining from $4.72 billion in FY2023 to $4.61 billion in FY2024. This has pushed the loan-to-deposit ratio above 100%, indicating a reliance on more expensive wholesale funding to support lending activities, which pressures future profitability. Cash flow from operations has also been volatile, declining sharply in the most recent fiscal year.
In conclusion, GSBC's historical record does not inspire strong confidence in its execution or resilience outside of its capital return program. While the consistent dividends and buybacks are a positive signal of management's shareholder focus, the underlying business has shown signs of stagnation and declining efficiency. This track record is notably weaker than competitors like Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) and First Busey Corporation (BUSE), which have demonstrated superior growth and profitability.
The regional banking industry is navigating a period of significant change, driven by interest rate volatility, evolving customer expectations, and heightened regulatory scrutiny. Over the next 3-5 years, the sector is expected to see continued consolidation as smaller banks struggle to compete with the scale and technology budgets of larger institutions. A primary driver of this shift is the ongoing digitalization of banking. Customers increasingly demand seamless digital experiences for everything from opening accounts to applying for loans, forcing banks to invest heavily in technology or risk losing clients to fintechs and national players. The market for U.S. regional banking is projected to grow at a modest CAGR of 2-4%, closely tracking regional economic growth.
Key catalysts for demand include a potential normalization of interest rates, which could stimulate loan demand, and increased adoption of value-added services like treasury management and wealth advisory. However, competition is intensifying, not just from other banks but from non-bank lenders and digital platforms, making it harder to maintain margins. Entry into the market is becoming more difficult due to the high costs of regulatory compliance and technology investment. The industry is also facing pressure on fee income, as regulators scrutinize overdraft fees and competition drives down service charges. To succeed, regional banks like GSBC must effectively manage their interest rate risk, optimize their physical and digital channels, and find niche areas where their local expertise provides a durable competitive advantage.
Great Southern's primary product, Commercial Real Estate (CRE) and Construction lending, accounts for over 60% of its loan portfolio. Currently, consumption is constrained by elevated interest rates, which have increased borrowing costs and dampened new project development, particularly in the office sector. Tighter underwriting standards across the industry are also limiting loan origination volumes. Over the next 3-5 years, any increase in consumption will likely be concentrated in specific sub-sectors like multi-family housing and industrial properties, driven by demographic and e-commerce trends. Conversely, demand for office and some retail property loans may continue to decrease. The market for regional CRE lending is expected to grow slowly, perhaps 1-3% annually. GSBC competes with a wide range of local and national banks. Customers often choose based on relationship depth, speed of execution, and local market knowledge, areas where GSBC has an advantage. However, larger competitors can offer more competitive pricing and larger loan sizes. GSBC will outperform on relationship-driven deals in its core markets, but larger, more diversified banks like Commerce Bancshares are likely to win share on larger projects or with clients seeking a broader suite of services. A key future risk is a downturn in the Midwest CRE market, which could severely impact GSBC's asset quality. Given the national headwinds, the probability of this risk materializing is medium.
GSBC's second product line, Commercial and Industrial (C&I) lending to small and medium-sized businesses, is critical for diversification. Current loan demand is moderate, limited by economic uncertainty and the high cost of capital, which makes businesses hesitant to invest in expansion or new equipment. Over the next 3-5 years, consumption will rise if the regional economy strengthens and interest rates decline, boosting business confidence. Growth will come from existing clients expanding their credit lines and from attracting new small businesses that value a community banking relationship. This market segment is highly competitive. While GSBC competes on its local decision-making and personalized service, it faces pressure from larger banks with sophisticated treasury management products and fintech lenders offering rapid, data-driven underwriting. GSBC is likely to maintain its share with its existing client base but may struggle to win new, high-growth business customers without a more advanced digital and product offering. The primary risk is a regional economic slowdown, which would increase credit losses in the C&I portfolio. The probability of a mild regional recession in the next five years is medium, which would directly reduce borrowing and increase defaults.
Deposit gathering is the third key function, providing the funding for GSBC's lending activities. The current environment is challenging, with intense competition forcing banks to pay higher rates to retain depositors. GSBC's deposit base has seen a mix shift away from noninterest-bearing accounts (now ~23% of total deposits) towards higher-cost certificates of deposit (CDs), pushing its overall cost of funds up to 2.53%. Over the next 3-5 years, the battle for low-cost core deposits will intensify. Growth will have to come from improving digital account opening processes and offering competitive rates and services to attract and retain operating accounts from local businesses and consumers. Competition is no longer just local; it includes national online banks like Ally and Marcus, which offer consistently high savings rates. GSBC's branch network provides an advantage for customers who value in-person service, but its digital platform must be competitive to prevent deposit outflows. A significant risk for GSBC is continued pressure on its funding costs, which would compress its net interest margin and profitability. The probability of this risk remaining high is high, as rate competition is unlikely to subside quickly.
Finally, noninterest (fee) income services, representing about 22% of revenue, provide a source of diversification. Current consumption is stable but slow-growing, derived mainly from standard deposit account service charges and debit card interchange fees. Growth is constrained by GSBC's lack of a significant wealth management, trust, or insurance division, which limits its ability to generate higher-margin, recurring fee revenue. Looking ahead, growth opportunities are limited without strategic investment or acquisitions. While there may be incremental gains from promoting treasury management services to business clients, this is unlikely to become a major growth driver. The industry trend is toward lower fees, especially for services like overdrafts, which could create a headwind. GSBC is competing against every other financial institution and fintech, most of whom have a broader or more digitally integrated service offering. The risk is that this revenue stream stagnates or declines due to competitive and regulatory pressure. The probability of this risk is medium, as it represents a persistent industry trend that GSBC is not well-positioned to counteract.
Based on the stock price of $56.97 as of October 27, 2025, a detailed valuation analysis suggests that GSBC is trading close to its intrinsic value, with a fair value range estimated between $55 and $63. The current price offers only a slight upside of about 3.6% to the midpoint of this range, positioning the stock as fairly valued. This makes it a potential candidate for a watchlist or for investors with a long-term horizon rather than those seeking immediate gains.
The most common way to value a bank is by looking at its price relative to its earnings and book value. GSBC's trailing P/E ratio of 9.7x is attractively below the regional banking industry average of around 11.7x to 12.7x. However, its forward P/E of 11.09x is higher, implying that analysts expect earnings to decline. Another key metric is the Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV), which for GSBC is 1.03x. This is also below the peer average for regional banks (often 1.15x to 1.5x), suggesting the stock is undervalued on an asset basis.
For income-focused investors, GSBC offers a respectable dividend yield of 2.95%, slightly above the industry average of 2.29%. The company's conservative payout ratio of 27.14% indicates that the dividend is well-covered by earnings and has room to grow. Furthermore, the company has been actively buying back shares, reducing its share count by 2.9% year-over-year. This combination of dividends and buybacks provides a solid total return to shareholders.
The Price to Tangible Book Value of 1.03x is central to the valuation of GSBC, meaning investors are paying a price very close to the bank's tangible net worth. For a bank with a Return on Equity of 11.31%, which is a solid measure of profitability, trading at just over its tangible book value is quite reasonable and suggests limited downside risk from an asset perspective. In summary, while multiples point to potential undervaluation relative to peers, the negative earnings forecast warrants caution and supports a more conservative 'fairly valued' conclusion.
Bill Ackman's investment philosophy centers on identifying simple, predictable, and high-quality businesses with dominant market positions and strong free cash flow generation. From this perspective, Great Southern Bancorp (GSBC) would likely be viewed as an uninteresting investment in 2025. While the community banking model is simple and predictable, GSBC fails the high-quality test, demonstrated by its modest Return on Average Equity (ROAE) of around 10%, which significantly lags superior peers like Enterprise Financial Services (EFSC) whose ROAE often exceeds 14%. This metric, which measures how effectively shareholder money is used to generate profit, suggests GSBC is an average performer in a competitive industry. Furthermore, its efficiency ratio consistently trails best-in-class operators, indicating a lack of operational advantage. Ackman would see the stock's low valuation, trading near 1.0x its tangible book value, not as a bargain, but as a fair price for a mediocre business with limited growth prospects and no clear catalyst for improvement. The takeaway for retail investors is that cheapness alone does not make a compelling investment; Ackman would avoid this stock in favor of higher-quality compounders. A clear plan to sell the bank to a larger, more efficient competitor at a significant premium could change his mind, but he would not invest based on that speculation alone.
Warren Buffett's investment thesis for regional banks centers on finding simple, understandable businesses with a durable moat, typically a low-cost deposit base, that generate consistent and high returns on equity. Great Southern Bancorp (GSBC) would appeal to him for its straightforward community banking model, but its financial performance would be a significant deterrent. The bank's Return on Average Equity (ROAE) of around 10% is mediocre when compared to best-in-class peers who consistently achieve 12-15%, indicating it is not a top-tier operator. Furthermore, its efficiency ratio often exceeds 60%, suggesting higher operational costs, and its concentration in commercial real estate poses a risk Buffett would likely avoid without a deep discount. While GSBC's valuation near its tangible book value might seem inexpensive, Buffett would view it as a classic 'fair company at a wonderful price,' which he avoids in favor of wonderful companies at a fair price. Therefore, Buffett would almost certainly avoid investing in GSBC, preferring to wait for a much larger margin of safety or, more likely, invest in a higher-quality competitor. If forced to choose the best regional banks, Buffett would likely favor German American Bancorp (GABC) for its consistent 12-14% ROAE, Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) for its scale and >14% ROAE, and First Busey Corporation (BUSE) for its diversified model and 11-13% ROAE, as these institutions demonstrate the superior, long-term compounding power he seeks. Buffett would only reconsider GSBC if its price fell to a significant discount, perhaps 0.7x to 0.8x its tangible book value, to compensate for its average business economics.
Charlie Munger would view Great Southern Bancorp as a thoroughly average and uninteresting bank, ultimately choosing to pass on the investment. Munger's approach to banking favors institutions with low-cost funding, disciplined underwriting, and, most importantly, high returns on equity generated without excessive risk. While GSBC is a stable community bank, its financial performance, with a return on average equity around 10% and an efficiency ratio often above 60%, is simply mediocre. Munger seeks exceptional businesses at fair prices, and GSBC is a fair business at a fair price, trading around 1.0x its tangible book value, which is not a compelling proposition for him. The bank's concentration in commercial real estate and its presence in slow-growing Midwestern markets further limit its appeal. For Munger, this is an easy pass; he would prefer to wait for a truly superior bank that demonstrates excellent management and consistently high returns. If forced to choose from this sub-industry, Munger would likely favor German American Bancorp (GABC), Enterprise Financial Services (EFSC), and First Busey (BUSE) due to their consistently higher returns on equity (often 12-14% for GABC/EFSC) and more efficient operations, which are hallmarks of the high-quality compounders he prefers. Munger's decision might change only if the price fell to a significant discount to its tangible book value, perhaps below 0.7x, creating a substantial margin of safety for an average business.
Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. operates with a traditional community banking model, focusing on relationship-based lending primarily in Missouri, Iowa, and surrounding states. This approach fosters a loyal customer base and a solid deposit franchise, which are foundational strengths in the banking industry. However, when measured against a curated list of top-tier regional competitors, GSBC's performance metrics often fall short. The bank's strategy appears to prioritize stability and risk aversion over aggressive growth, resulting in a financial profile characterized by modest returns and slower expansion. While this conservatism can be a boon during economic downturns, it acts as a drag on performance during periods of economic health and rising interest rates where more agile banks can capitalize more effectively.
The competitive landscape for regional banks is intensely focused on efficiency, scale, and profitability. A key metric is the efficiency ratio, which measures noninterest expense as a percentage of revenue; a lower number is better. GSBC's efficiency ratio frequently trends higher than those of its more streamlined peers, indicating that it spends more to generate a dollar of revenue. This can be attributed to a lack of scale or less effective cost management. Similarly, its Net Interest Margin (NIM), the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits, is often compressed compared to competitors who may have a more favorable funding mix or a higher-yielding loan portfolio. These factors directly impact profitability, as seen in its Return on Equity (ROE), which measures how effectively the company uses shareholder investments to generate profit.
Furthermore, the bank's growth trajectory appears more muted. While competitors may be actively pursuing acquisitions, expanding into new high-growth markets, or investing heavily in technology to attract new customers, GSBC's approach is more measured. This results in slower growth in both its loan book and deposit base. For investors, the trade-off is clear: GSBC offers a potentially safer, income-generating investment with a higher dividend yield, but it sacrifices the potential for significant capital appreciation that its faster-growing, more profitable peers may provide. The challenge for GSBC is to enhance its operational efficiency and find new avenues for profitable growth without abandoning the conservative principles that have ensured its stability.
Enterprise Financial Services Corp (EFSC) presents a significantly stronger operational and financial profile when compared to Great Southern Bancorp (GSBC). EFSC is a larger institution with a more diversified business model that includes commercial and industrial lending, private banking, and wealth management, contributing to a more robust earnings stream. GSBC, in contrast, maintains a more traditional community banking focus with a heavier concentration in real estate lending. This fundamental difference in strategy and scale results in EFSC consistently outperforming GSBC on key metrics related to profitability, efficiency, and growth, making it a more attractive option for investors focused on total return.
In terms of Business & Moat, EFSC holds a clear advantage. EFSC's brand is stronger in its core metropolitan markets like St. Louis and Kansas City, where it is a significant player in commercial lending. Its scale is substantially larger, with total assets over $13 billion compared to GSBC's ~$5.7 billion, providing superior operating leverage and efficiency. This scale is reflected in EFSC's efficiency ratio, which is consistently in the mid-50% range, while GSBC's is often above 60%. Switching costs are comparable for both banks' core deposit customers, but EFSC's specialized services in wealth management create stickier relationships. Regulatory barriers are identical for both. Overall, EFSC's greater scale and more diverse business mix give it a stronger moat. Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
From a Financial Statement Analysis perspective, EFSC is the superior performer. EFSC consistently reports a higher Net Interest Margin (NIM), often above 3.8%, compared to GSBC's ~3.2%, indicating better profitability from its core lending operations. This translates to a stronger Return on Average Equity (ROAE), which for EFSC is frequently above 14%, while GSBC's is closer to 10%. This means EFSC generates more profit for every dollar of shareholder equity. EFSC's revenue growth has also historically been more robust, driven by both organic loan growth and strategic acquisitions. In terms of balance sheet strength, both banks are well-capitalized, but EFSC's superior earnings power provides a greater capacity to absorb potential losses and reinvest for growth. Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
Looking at Past Performance, EFSC has delivered stronger shareholder returns. Over the last five years, EFSC's total shareholder return (TSR) has significantly outpaced GSBC's, reflecting its superior earnings growth. EFSC's 5-year earnings per share (EPS) compound annual growth rate (CAGR) has been in the high single digits, whereas GSBC's has been in the low single digits. Margin trends also favor EFSC, which has managed its NIM more effectively through various interest rate cycles. In terms of risk, both banks have managed credit quality well, but GSBC's higher concentration in commercial real estate could be viewed as a higher risk in a downturn. For its superior growth and returns, EFSC is the clear winner. Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
For Future Growth, EFSC appears better positioned. Its presence in larger, more dynamic metropolitan markets provides a larger runway for organic growth in commercial lending. The company has a proven track record of successfully integrating acquisitions to expand its footprint and service offerings, a key part of its strategy. Analyst consensus estimates typically project higher EPS growth for EFSC than for GSBC. GSBC's growth is more tied to the slower economic expansion of its more rural and suburban markets. While GSBC focuses on cost control, EFSC's strategy of investing in growth initiatives and talent seems more potent for long-term value creation. Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
In terms of Fair Value, GSBC often appears cheaper on the surface, which is its primary appeal. GSBC typically trades at a lower Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiple, often around 1.0x-1.1x, compared to EFSC's 1.2x-1.4x. GSBC also usually offers a higher dividend yield, which can be ~3.5% or more, versus EFSC's ~2.5%. However, EFSC's premium valuation is justified by its superior profitability (higher ROE) and stronger growth prospects. An investor is paying more for a higher-quality asset. For an investor seeking value, GSBC is cheaper, but for an investor seeking quality at a reasonable price, EFSC is compelling. The better value today is arguably EFSC, as its performance warrants the premium. Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp.
Winner: Enterprise Financial Services Corp over Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. The verdict is decisively in favor of EFSC due to its superior scale, profitability, efficiency, and growth profile. EFSC's key strengths are its higher Net Interest Margin (consistently over 3.8%), stronger Return on Equity (often >14%), and lower efficiency ratio (around 55%), all of which point to a more profitable and better-managed bank. GSBC's notable weakness is its lagging performance on these same metrics, coupled with a higher concentration in commercial real estate loans, which poses a concentration risk. While GSBC's lower valuation (P/TBV of ~1.0x) and higher dividend yield are tempting, they reflect the market's acknowledgment of its lower growth and profitability. EFSC is a demonstrably higher-quality institution that justifies its premium valuation.
First Busey Corporation (BUSE) is a well-established regional bank with a strong presence in Illinois, Missouri, and Florida, making it a direct competitor to GSBC in some markets. BUSE is significantly larger than GSBC and has a more diversified revenue stream, including a substantial wealth management business that generates stable fee income. This diversification provides an earnings cushion that GSBC, with its heavier reliance on traditional net interest income, lacks. Overall, BUSE presents as a more robust and financially sophisticated institution, consistently demonstrating better profitability and operational efficiency than GSBC.
Analyzing Business & Moat, BUSE has a distinct edge. BUSE's brand is well-entrenched in its primary Illinois markets, and its wealth management division, with over $12 billion in assets under care, creates very high switching costs for its affluent clients. BUSE's scale is a major advantage, with total assets of approximately $12 billion dwarfing GSBC's ~$5.7 billion. This allows for greater investment in technology and contributes to a more efficient operation, as seen in its efficiency ratio, which typically sits in the low 60% range, often slightly better than GSBC's. While regulatory barriers are the same, BUSE's diversified business lines (banking, wealth, and commercial finance) create a wider moat than GSBC's more concentrated community banking model. Winner: First Busey Corporation.
From a Financial Statement Analysis perspective, BUSE generally outperforms GSBC. BUSE typically generates a higher Return on Average Assets (ROAA) and Return on Average Equity (ROAE), reflecting better profitability. BUSE's ROAE is often in the 11%-13% range, compared to GSBC's ~10%. A key driver of this is BUSE's significant noninterest income, which can account for 25-30% of total revenue, versus a much smaller percentage for GSBC. This provides earnings stability, especially when interest margins are compressed. Both banks maintain strong capital ratios, but BUSE's larger earnings base and diversification make its financial position more resilient. Winner: First Busey Corporation.
In a review of Past Performance, BUSE has shown a stronger growth trajectory, fueled by a combination of organic growth and strategic acquisitions. Over the past five years, BUSE has successfully acquired and integrated several smaller banks, significantly expanding its asset base and market presence. This has driven its EPS growth at a faster rate than GSBC's more modest, organic growth. Consequently, BUSE's total shareholder return has also generally been superior over 3- and 5-year periods. While both companies have a long history of paying dividends, BUSE's track record of growth gives it a performance edge. Winner: First Busey Corporation.
Looking at Future Growth potential, BUSE's strategy appears more proactive. The bank's presence in attractive Florida markets offers a significant runway for growth that GSBC's Midwest-focused footprint lacks. Furthermore, BUSE's wealth management arm is a scalable business that can grow independently of the economic cycle affecting loan demand. GSBC's future growth is more tightly linked to the economic health of its local communities and its ability to compete against larger rivals. Analysts often forecast more robust long-term earnings growth for BUSE due to its diversified model and exposure to higher-growth geographies. Winner: First Busey Corporation.
When considering Fair Value, the comparison becomes more nuanced. GSBC often trades at a lower valuation multiple, such as a Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) that is below BUSE's. For instance, GSBC might trade at 1.0x P/TBV while BUSE trades at 1.2x. GSBC also frequently offers a higher dividend yield, which appeals to income-focused investors. However, BUSE's slight valuation premium is a reflection of its higher quality, diversified earnings, and better growth outlook. The market is pricing in BUSE's superior business model. For an investor focused purely on metrics, GSBC is cheaper, but BUSE offers better quality at a reasonable price. Winner: First Busey Corporation.
Winner: First Busey Corporation over Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. BUSE is the clear winner due to its superior scale, diversified business model, and stronger financial performance. The key differentiator is BUSE's significant wealth management business, which provides a stable, high-margin source of fee income, reducing its reliance on volatile net interest income. This, combined with its larger asset base (~$12B vs. ~$5.7B) and better profitability metrics like a higher ROAE (~12% vs. ~10%), makes it a more resilient and attractive investment. GSBC's primary weakness is its smaller scale and traditional, less-diversified model, which limits its growth and profitability. While GSBC offers a higher dividend yield and a lower valuation, these do not compensate for its weaker fundamental profile compared to BUSE.
German American Bancorp, Inc. (GABC) is a community-focused bank operating primarily in Indiana and Kentucky, making its business model and geographic scope quite similar to that of Great Southern Bancorp. Both companies emphasize a conservative, relationship-based approach to banking. However, GABC has distinguished itself through highly consistent execution, superior efficiency, and a stronger track record of creating shareholder value. While GSBC is a stable institution, GABC represents a higher-quality version of the same community banking strategy, executing it with greater profitability and precision.
Regarding Business & Moat, the two are closely matched but GABC has a slight edge. Both banks have strong, entrenched brands in their respective small-town and rural markets, creating sticky customer relationships and a stable, low-cost deposit base. GABC's scale is slightly larger, with total assets around $6.5 billion compared to GSBC's ~$5.7 billion, giving it a minor advantage in operational leverage. This is evident in GABC's consistently better efficiency ratio, which is often below 60%, while GSBC's is typically higher. Switching costs and regulatory barriers are comparable for both. GABC's moat is slightly wider due to its superior operational efficiency and slightly larger scale in its core markets. Winner: German American Bancorp, Inc.
In a Financial Statement Analysis, GABC consistently demonstrates superior financial health. GABC's Net Interest Margin (NIM) is typically wider than GSBC's, reflecting a better-yielding loan portfolio or a lower cost of funds. More importantly, GABC's profitability is significantly stronger, with a Return on Average Equity (ROAE) that is consistently in the 12%-14% range, well above GSBC's ~10%. This indicates that GABC's management is far more effective at converting shareholder capital into profits. Furthermore, GABC has a strong history of dividend growth, supported by its robust earnings. Both banks are well-capitalized, but GABC's ability to generate higher returns makes it financially more formidable. Winner: German American Bancorp, Inc.
Looking at Past Performance, GABC has been a more rewarding investment. Over the past decade, GABC has delivered a much higher total shareholder return than GSBC. This outperformance is a direct result of its consistent earnings growth. GABC has managed to grow its earnings per share at a steady and predictable rate, while GSBC's has been more volatile and slower. GABC's margin performance has also been more stable, showcasing disciplined underwriting and asset-liability management. In terms of risk, both are conservative lenders, but GABC's stronger profitability provides a larger buffer against credit losses. Winner: German American Bancorp, Inc.
For Future Growth, both banks face similar prospects tied to the economic growth of their Midwestern markets, which is typically modest. However, GABC has a more defined strategy of expanding its footprint within Indiana and Kentucky through strategic branch openings and potential small-scale acquisitions. GABC has also been more successful in growing its wealth management and insurance businesses, which provide avenues for noninterest income growth. GSBC's growth strategy appears less dynamic in comparison. Analyst expectations generally favor GABC for more consistent, albeit single-digit, earnings growth going forward. Winner: German American Bancorp, Inc.
In the realm of Fair Value, GABC typically commands a premium valuation over GSBC, and for good reason. GABC's Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiple is often in the 1.4x-1.6x range, significantly higher than GSBC's ~1.0x. This premium is a direct reflection of its superior profitability, particularly its high ROAE. The market is willing to pay more for a company that generates better returns on its assets and equity. While GSBC's lower valuation and higher dividend yield might seem attractive, they come with lower returns and slower growth. GABC is the classic case of
Veritex Holdings, Inc. (VBTX) is a fast-growing, commercially-focused bank operating in the dynamic metropolitan markets of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, Texas. This places it in stark contrast to GSBC, which operates in slower-growth Midwestern markets. VBTX's strategy is centered on aggressive organic growth in commercial lending, supplemented by strategic M&A. This makes it a much more growth-oriented and potentially higher-risk/higher-reward investment compared to the stable, conservative profile of GSBC.
When comparing Business & Moat, the two banks operate in such different environments that their moats are derived from different sources. GSBC's moat comes from its long-standing community ties and stable deposit base in smaller markets. VBTX's moat is built on its deep relationships with commercial clients and real estate developers in Texas's major economic hubs. VBTX has grown to over $11 billion in total assets, giving it a scale advantage over GSBC's ~$5.7 billion. This scale allows for larger loan sizes and more sophisticated product offerings. However, the Texas banking market is intensely competitive. VBTX's brand is strong among its commercial niche but less so among the general public compared to GSBC in its home turf. Still, its focus on the high-growth Texas economy gives it a structural advantage. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc.
A Financial Statement Analysis reveals VBTX's focus on growth and profitability. VBTX typically reports a very strong Net Interest Margin (NIM), often exceeding 4.0%, which is significantly higher than GSBC's ~3.2%. This is due to its focus on higher-yielding commercial and commercial real estate loans. Consequently, its core profitability is robust, with a Return on Average Assets (ROAA) often above 1.2%, compared to GSBC's sub-1.0% figure. However, this aggressive posture can come with higher credit risk. VBTX's efficiency ratio is also typically better than GSBC's, reflecting its lean, commercially-focused operating model. While both are well-capitalized, VBTX's financial profile is geared for higher growth and returns. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc.
Examining Past Performance, VBTX has a history of rapid expansion. Since its IPO, VBTX has grown its assets and earnings at a double-digit compound annual growth rate, far outpacing the slow-and-steady pace of GSBC. This growth has been achieved through a combination of strong organic loan production and several major bank acquisitions. This aggressive growth has led to periods of strong stock performance, though it has also been accompanied by higher volatility than GSBC's stock. GSBC provides stability, but VBTX has delivered far greater growth for investors willing to stomach the associated risks. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc.
In terms of Future Growth, VBTX is positioned in some of the fastest-growing markets in the United States. The economic and demographic trends in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston provide a powerful tailwind for continued loan demand. The bank's management team is known for its entrepreneurial and growth-oriented mindset. In contrast, GSBC's future growth is limited by the mature, slower-growing economies of its Midwestern footprint. Analyst growth expectations for VBTX are consistently much higher than for GSBC, reflecting this geographic and strategic divergence. The primary risk for VBTX is a downturn in the Texas real estate market, to which it has significant exposure. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc.
On the topic of Fair Value, VBTX's valuation reflects its growth profile. It typically trades at a higher Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiple than GSBC, often in the 1.3x-1.5x range versus GSBC's ~1.0x. Its dividend yield is also generally lower. This is a classic growth-versus-value scenario. GSBC is the cheaper, higher-yielding stock, appealing to conservative income investors. VBTX is the more expensive stock, but it offers the potential for significant earnings growth and capital appreciation. For a growth-oriented investor, VBTX represents better value despite the higher multiple, as they are paying for a superior growth engine. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc.
Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. over Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. VBTX is the decisive winner for investors seeking growth and higher returns. Its strategic focus on the booming Texas market provides a structural advantage that GSBC cannot match. This is evident in its superior financial metrics, including a much higher Net Interest Margin (>4.0% vs. ~3.2%) and a more rapid pace of asset and earnings growth. VBTX's key strength is its powerful growth engine. Its main risk is its concentration in the cyclical Texas commercial real estate market. GSBC is a more stable, bond-like equity, but its weakness is its anemic growth profile and lower profitability. For total return, VBTX is the far more compelling investment.
MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. (MOFG) is one of the closest peers to Great Southern Bancorp in terms of geography and business model, with operations in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, and Colorado. It is slightly smaller than GSBC, but it shares a similar community banking focus. A head-to-head comparison shows two very similar institutions, but MOFG has recently faced more significant operational and credit-related challenges, making GSBC appear to be the more stable and better-managed of the two, albeit by a small margin.
In the category of Business & Moat, both banks are on relatively equal footing. Both have deep roots in their respective communities and benefit from loyal, long-tenured customer bases, which provide a stable source of low-cost deposits. GSBC's scale is slightly larger, with ~$5.7 billion in assets compared to MOFG's ~$5.2 billion, which should theoretically provide a slight efficiency advantage, though this is not always evident in the numbers. Switching costs and regulatory hurdles are identical. Neither company possesses a truly wide economic moat, as the community banking space is highly competitive. GSBC's slightly larger size and more consistent operating history give it a very narrow edge. Winner: Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.
Reviewing the Financial Statement Analysis, GSBC demonstrates more consistent profitability. While both banks have faced pressure on their Net Interest Margins (NIM) in the recent interest rate environment, GSBC has generally maintained a more stable and slightly higher margin. More critically, GSBC's profitability metrics like Return on Average Assets (ROAA) and Return on Average Equity (ROAE) have been more consistent. MOFG has experienced periods of depressed earnings due to higher credit loss provisions and one-time merger-related expenses. GSBC's efficiency ratio is also typically more stable than MOFG's, which has seen some volatility. In terms of financial health, GSBC's steady performance is preferable. Winner: Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.
An analysis of Past Performance favors GSBC. Over the last five years, GSBC's stock has provided a more stable, albeit modest, return for shareholders. MOFG's stock has been more volatile and has underperformed due to its earnings struggles. GSBC has a long, uninterrupted record of paying and moderately growing its dividend, showcasing its stability. MOFG has also paid a dividend, but its capacity for future growth has been hampered by its operational challenges. GSBC's more predictable earnings stream and steadier performance make it the winner in this category. Winner: Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.
For Future Growth prospects, both banks face similar headwinds from operating in slow-growth Midwestern markets. Neither company has a clear, transformative growth strategy. Growth for both is likely to come from small, incremental market share gains and general economic activity. However, MOFG's recent strategic initiatives, including expansion into the faster-growing Colorado market, could provide a better long-term growth runway if executed successfully. GSBC's growth path appears more static. MOFG's efforts to reposition its franchise, while challenging, give it a slight edge in future potential. Winner: MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc.
When evaluating Fair Value, both banks often trade at similar, relatively low valuation multiples. Both can frequently be found trading at or below their tangible book value (P/TBV of ~0.9x-1.0x), reflecting the market's tepid enthusiasm for their growth prospects. Both also tend to offer attractive dividend yields, often in the 3.5%-4.5% range. Given GSBC's more stable operating history and more consistent profitability, its stock represents a lower-risk proposition for a similar price. An investor is getting a more predictable business for roughly the same valuation. Therefore, GSBC offers better risk-adjusted value. Winner: Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.
Winner: Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. over MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. GSBC secures a narrow victory based on its superior operational consistency and more stable financial profile. While both are traditional community banks facing similar market conditions, GSBC's key strength is its steady-handed management, which has resulted in more predictable earnings and a more reliable dividend track record. MOFG's primary weakness has been its recent earnings volatility and operational hiccups, which have weighed on its performance. Although MOFG may have slightly more intriguing long-term growth potential with its Colorado expansion, GSBC currently stands as the more solid and dependable investment of the two, offering a better risk-reward balance at a similar valuation.
Triumph Financial, Inc. (TFIN) is a highly specialized financial services company that presents a fascinating but difficult comparison to a traditional community bank like GSBC. While TFIN operates a community bank, its primary business and value driver is TriumphPay, a leading payments platform for the trucking industry. This makes TFIN more of a fintech/specialty finance company than a pure-play bank. The comparison highlights GSBC's traditional, low-risk model against TFIN's high-growth, technology-driven, and more volatile strategy.
Regarding Business & Moat, TFIN has a unique and powerful moat that GSBC cannot replicate. TFIN's moat is derived from the network effect of its TriumphPay platform. As more freight brokers (payers) and carriers (payees) join the platform, its value increases for all participants, creating high switching costs and a formidable competitive advantage in the transportation payments niche. TFIN processes billions of dollars in payments, giving it immense scale in its specialty. GSBC's moat is a traditional banking one, built on local relationships. While valuable, it is not as scalable or defensible as TFIN's technology-driven network effect. Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc.
In a Financial Statement Analysis, the two companies are almost incomparable using standard banking metrics. TFIN's Net Interest Margin (NIM) is influenced by its large portfolio of factored receivables from the trucking industry, which are very high-yielding but also carry different risks. A large portion of TFIN's revenue and expenses are related to its payments business, making direct comparisons of efficiency ratios misleading. However, looking at overall profitability, TFIN's model is designed for high growth, often at the expense of near-term GAAP earnings, as it invests heavily in its technology platform. GSBC is managed for steady, predictable net income. TFIN's financial statements reflect a high-growth technology company, while GSBC's reflect a utility-like bank. Due to its unique model, TFIN has a higher ceiling for future profitability. Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc.
Analyzing Past Performance, TFIN has been a story of explosive growth. Since its inception, TFIN has grown its business at a phenomenal rate, driven by the expansion of TriumphPay. This has resulted in a stock performance that, while highly volatile, has delivered far greater returns over the long term than GSBC's slow and steady appreciation. GSBC provides a stable dividend and low volatility, but TFIN has created significantly more wealth for long-term shareholders who could tolerate the sharp swings in its stock price. The performance difference reflects their fundamentally different business models: high-growth tech versus stable finance. Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc.
For Future Growth, there is no contest. TFIN's growth is tied to the secular trend of digitizing B2B payments within the massive U.S. transportation industry. The addressable market for TriumphPay is enormous, and the company is the clear leader in its space. Its future growth will be driven by increasing its market share of payments and introducing new data and financial products. GSBC's growth is tied to the GDP growth of the Midwest. Analyst expectations project rapid revenue growth for TFIN for years to come, while GSBC is expected to grow in the low single digits. Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc.
In the sphere of Fair Value, the valuation of TFIN is entirely different from GSBC. TFIN trades at a very high multiple of its tangible book value, often 3.0x or more, and a high P/E ratio, if it has positive earnings. GSBC trades around 1.0x P/TBV. TFIN's valuation is not based on its current banking assets but on the discounted future cash flows of its high-growth payments platform, much like a software or fintech company. GSBC is valued as a utility-like financial institution based on its current earnings and dividend. GSBC is undeniably "cheaper" on every traditional banking metric, but it offers none of TFIN's explosive growth potential. Value is in the eye of the beholder, but TFIN's unique platform justifies a valuation approach that makes it the more attractive investment for a growth-focused portfolio. Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc.
Winner: Triumph Financial, Inc. over Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. TFIN is the clear winner for investors with a long-term, growth-oriented mindset. This comparison is less about two banks and more about two different investment philosophies. TFIN's key strength is the powerful network effect and immense addressable market of its TriumphPay platform, which gives it a growth trajectory that GSBC cannot dream of matching. Its primary risk is execution risk within its payments business and its exposure to the cyclical trucking industry. GSBC's weakness is its complete lack of a dynamic growth driver, tying its fate to slow-growing economies. While GSBC is a safe, stable, traditional bank, TFIN is a unique financial technology hybrid with the potential to create transformative shareholder value.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Great Southern Bancorp operates a traditional community banking model, primarily focused on commercial real estate lending funded by local deposits across Missouri and neighboring states. The bank's strength lies in its established local relationships, which create moderate customer switching costs. However, it lacks a significant cost advantage, with a funding base that is not exceptionally cheap, and its heavy concentration in commercial real estate presents a notable risk. The investor takeaway is mixed; the bank is a solid, traditional operator but its narrow moat and concentrated loan book offer limited protection against economic downturns in its specific markets.
The bank's fee income provides a decent but unremarkable level of revenue diversification, falling in line with industry averages without creating a distinct competitive advantage.
Noninterest income represents a modest portion of Great Southern's revenue, accounting for roughly 22% in the most recent quarter ($10.4M of $47.7M total). This level of diversification is average for the regional banking sub-industry, which typically sees fee income contribute 20-30% of revenue. The primary sources are service charges on deposit accounts and card interchange income, which are stable but low-growth revenue streams. The bank lacks a significant wealth management or trust business, which limits its ability to generate higher-margin, recurring fee income like some larger regional competitors. While this income stream provides a helpful cushion against the volatility of net interest income, it is not substantial or unique enough to be considered a strong pillar of its business model or a source of a competitive moat.
GSBC has a healthy, diversified mix of retail and commercial depositors and avoids over-reliance on risky funding sources like brokered deposits.
The bank demonstrates strong discipline in its funding sources. Its deposit base is granular, composed of a mix of local individuals (retail) and small businesses, which is the ideal profile for a community bank. Critically, GSBC has a very low reliance on brokered deposits, which are wholesale funds that can be less stable and more expensive than core deposits. As of the latest reporting, brokered deposits were less than 1% of total deposits, a significant strength compared to some peers who rely more heavily on this funding type. This conservative approach to funding reduces liquidity risk and insulates the bank from market shocks. The lack of concentration among its top depositors further strengthens its profile, ensuring that the departure of a few large clients would not materially impact its funding stability.
GSBC possesses deep expertise in commercial real estate lending within its local markets, but this specialization creates significant concentration risk.
Great Southern has a clear niche in commercial real estate (CRE) lending, which includes loans for office, retail, and multi-family properties. Owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied CRE loans, along with construction loans, collectively make up over 60% of its entire loan portfolio. This demonstrates a focused strategy and deep expertise in underwriting and managing these types of assets in its specific geographic footprint. This focus can lead to better pricing and credit quality within that niche. However, such a high concentration is a significant risk. The national CRE market, particularly office space, is facing secular headwinds, and a downturn in GSBC's regional markets could lead to a disproportionate increase in nonperforming loans. While this focus represents a niche franchise, the associated risk concentration is too high to be considered a net positive for its moat, especially without offsetting strengths in other areas.
The bank's deposit base is under pressure, with a below-average level of noninterest-bearing deposits and a rising cost of funds, weakening its traditional funding advantage.
A bank's primary moat often comes from a low-cost, stable deposit base. At the end of Q1 2024, GSBC's noninterest-bearing deposits made up approximately 23% of total deposits. This is below the typical regional bank average of 25-30%, indicating a weaker base of 'free' funding compared to top-tier peers. Consequently, its cost of total deposits has risen sharply to 2.53%, reflecting its need to pay higher rates to retain and attract funds in a competitive environment. While total deposit growth has been stable, the composition has shifted towards higher-cost time deposits. Furthermore, uninsured deposits were estimated to be around 30%, an acceptable but not exceptional level that poses some risk of outflows if depositor confidence wanes. This eroding funding advantage is a key weakness, leading to a 'Fail' rating.
GSBC maintains a focused and reasonably efficient branch network in its core markets, but its deposits per branch are average, indicating a lack of dominant scale.
Great Southern operates 89 financial centers concentrated primarily in Missouri and Iowa. This focused geographic footprint supports its relationship-based community banking model. The bank's deposits per branch are approximately $54 million ($4.8B in total deposits / 89 branches), which is generally in line with or slightly below averages for community banks of a similar size. While the network is not exceptionally dense, its strategic placement within its key communities is crucial for gathering core deposits and serving small business clients who value in-person service. The bank has been rationalizing its footprint, closing a few branches in recent years to improve efficiency. However, the lack of superior deposits per branch suggests its physical presence doesn't translate into a strong operating leverage advantage over peers, making its local scale a functional necessity rather than a powerful moat.
Great Southern Bancorp's recent financial statements present a mixed picture. The bank demonstrates strong profitability, with a return on equity of 11.31% and solid growth in its core net interest income, which grew 5.83% year-over-year in the most recent quarter. However, significant risks are present on its balance sheet, highlighted by a very high loans-to-deposits ratio of 100.1%, which limits its liquidity. The bank's capital levels appear solid, but its exposure to interest rate risk is a concern. The investor takeaway is mixed; while the bank is profitable, its balance sheet management introduces risks that warrant caution.
While the bank's capital levels are strong, its liquidity is stretched thin with a loans-to-deposits ratio exceeding 100%, creating a significant risk.
GSBC presents a contrasting profile in this category. Its capital buffer is a clear strength, with a Tangible Common Equity to Total Assets ratio of 10.86%. This is a solid level for a regional bank and suggests a healthy capacity to absorb potential losses. However, this strength is overshadowed by a weak liquidity position. The bank's loans-to-deposits ratio in the most recent quarter was 100.1% ($4.53B in loans vs. $4.52B in deposits).
A ratio above 100% indicates that the bank has loaned out more than it holds in customer deposits, forcing it to rely on other, often more expensive and less stable, funding sources like short-term borrowings. This is significantly weaker than the industry benchmark, which is typically in the 80-90% range, and creates risk in the event of deposit outflows. The combination of strong capital but very weak liquidity results in a failing grade, as liquidity is critical for a bank's stability.
The bank's credit quality appears robust, supported by a solid reserve cushion and recent reserve releases, indicating management's confidence in the loan portfolio.
Great Southern Bancorp demonstrates strong credit discipline. The bank's allowance for credit losses was $64.75M against $4.53B in gross loans, resulting in a reserve-to-loan ratio of 1.43%. This coverage level is healthy for a regional bank and provides a solid buffer against potential future loan defaults. Further supporting this positive view, the bank has reported negative provisions for loan losses in the last two quarters (-$0.38M and -$0.11M). Releasing reserves, rather than building them, signals that management believes the existing allowance is more than sufficient to cover expected losses and that the overall quality of its loan book is strong.
While data on nonperforming loans (NPLs) is not explicitly provided to calculate a coverage ratio, the combination of a strong allowance level and the confidence shown through reserve releases indicates that credit risk is well-managed at present. This disciplined approach to lending is a key strength for the bank's financial health.
The bank's balance sheet shows a tangible negative impact from interest rate changes, representing a risk to its capital base.
Great Southern Bancorp's exposure to interest rate risk is a notable concern. The bank reported -$35.88M in 'Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income' (AOCI), which typically reflects unrealized losses on its investment securities portfolio due to rising interest rates. This negative AOCI represents a 5.76% reduction to its tangible common equity of $623.16M. While this impact is currently manageable, it demonstrates a clear vulnerability to rate fluctuations that can erode the bank's capital position.
Without specific data on the composition of its loans (fixed vs. variable rate) or the duration of its securities portfolio, a full assessment of its asset-liability management is difficult. However, the existing AOCI loss is a tangible sign of a mismatch that could pressure earnings and book value if rates continue to change unfavorably. This uncertainty and the visible impact on equity justify a cautious stance.
The bank's core profitability is strong, driven by healthy year-over-year growth in net interest income and a stable net interest margin.
Great Southern Bancorp's performance in generating core earnings from its lending and funding activities is a key strength. In its most recent quarter, Net Interest Income (NII) grew 5.83% year-over-year to $50.77M. This followed an even stronger 8.85% growth rate in the prior quarter. This consistent growth is a positive sign, indicating the bank is successfully navigating the current interest rate environment to expand its primary revenue source.
Based on available data, the bank's Net Interest Margin (NIM)—the difference between the interest it earns on assets and pays on liabilities—appears to be healthy and stable, estimated at around 3.5%. This suggests effective pricing on its loans and a manageable cost of funding. Strong NII growth is fundamental to a bank's financial health, and GSBC is delivering positive results in this critical area.
The bank operates with an average level of efficiency, keeping its costs in line with industry norms, which supports its profitability.
GSBC's ability to manage costs is adequate. We calculated its efficiency ratio for the most recent quarter to be 62.5% ($36.12M in noninterest expense divided by $57.83M in revenue). This is slightly higher than the 59.2% from the prior quarter. For regional banks, an efficiency ratio below 60% is often considered strong, while figures in the low 60s are generally viewed as average. GSBC falls into this average category. Its cost structure does not appear bloated, but it is not a standout leader in lean operations either.
The largest expense item, Salaries and Employee Benefits, accounts for 55.9% of total noninterest expenses, which is a typical proportion for a relationship-based bank. Overall, the bank's cost control is sufficient to maintain profitability but does not provide a significant competitive advantage. It meets the standard expectations for a bank of its size.
Great Southern Bancorp's past performance presents a mixed picture for investors. The bank has demonstrated a strong commitment to shareholder returns through consistent dividend growth of over 4% annually and significant share buybacks, which reduced the share count by about 14% over five years. However, its core business has struggled, with both revenue and earnings declining since their peak in FY 2022. The bank's Return on Equity has fallen from over 13% to around 10.5%, and it has shown weakness in growing its low-cost deposit base. Compared to more dynamic peers, GSBC's performance has been lackluster, making the overall investor takeaway mixed, leaning negative due to recent operational weakness.
The bank has achieved moderate loan growth but has failed to grow its core deposit base, leading to a high loan-to-deposit ratio that signals a weakening funding profile.
A review of the bank's balance sheet history reveals a significant weakness in its funding. While net loans grew at a respectable 5.4% compound annual rate over the three years from FY2021 to FY2024, total deposits were essentially flat over the same period, growing at just 0.4%. In fact, deposits declined from $4.72 billion in FY2023 to $4.61 billion in FY2024, a worrying trend in a competitive environment for funding.
This mismatch between loan and deposit growth has pushed the bank's loan-to-deposit ratio from a manageable 88% in FY2021 to a high of 101.8% in FY2024. A ratio above 100% means the bank is relying on more expensive and less stable funding sources, like borrowings, rather than customer deposits to fund its lending. This is not a sustainable model for profitable growth and represents a significant deterioration in its balance sheet management over time.
The bank's profitability has been squeezed from both ends, with its net interest margin compressing and its efficiency ratio worsening significantly over the past two years.
The historical trends in Net Interest Margin (NIM) and efficiency reveal a clear decline in operational performance. After expanding during the initial phase of interest rate hikes in 2022 to a peak of around 3.6%, the bank's NIM has since compressed to ~3.2%. This trend reflects rising funding costs, which is consistent with the bank's struggle to grow low-cost deposits. Net interest income, the bank's primary source of revenue, has fallen for two straight years from a peak of $199.6 million in FY2022 to $189.1 million in FY2024.
At the same time, the bank's cost discipline has slipped. The efficiency ratio, which measures non-interest expenses as a percentage of revenue, has deteriorated from a solid 57% in FY2022 to a much weaker 64.3% in FY2024. This means a greater share of revenue is being consumed by costs, directly hurting the bottom line. This performance is worse than peers like EFSC, which operate at a much more efficient level, indicating GSBC has historically struggled with pricing power and cost control.
Despite a positive long-term growth rate driven by share buybacks, the bank's earnings per share have declined for two consecutive years, indicating a recent and troubling negative trend.
While Great Southern's five-year EPS CAGR of 5.8% (from $4.22 in FY2020 to $5.28 in FY2024) seems healthy, it masks a clear deterioration in recent performance. The bank's EPS peaked at $6.07 in FY2022 and has fallen each year since, posting declines of -6.8% in FY2023 and -6.2% in FY2024. This shows that the growth is not consistent and the trend is currently negative. This performance lags that of stronger regional bank peers, which have demonstrated more resilient earnings streams.
The earnings decline reflects the underlying weakness in the business, namely contracting net interest income and poor cost control. While the bank's average Return on Equity over the last three years is a respectable 12%, the downward trajectory is a significant concern. The historical record shows an inconsistent earnings path that is currently struggling.
The bank has maintained a stable allowance for loan losses relative to its loan book, suggesting a consistent and disciplined approach to managing credit risk over time.
GSBC appears to have managed credit risk prudently over the past several years. The most important indicator of this is the allowance for loan losses as a percentage of gross loans, which has remained in a stable range of 1.36% to 1.49% between FY2021 and FY2024. This consistency suggests that management has maintained its underwriting standards and has not needed to make drastic adjustments to its loss reserves, which is a sign of a stable and well-understood loan portfolio.
However, the annual provision for credit losses has been quite volatile, swinging from a large provision of $15.87 million in FY2020 to net releases of -$5.76 million in FY2021 and -$3.08 million in FY2023. While these releases boosted earnings in those years, they can also make earnings quality appear less consistent. Despite this volatility in the income statement, the stability of the overall reserve level on the balance sheet is the more critical factor, indicating that credit quality has historically been well-managed.
The bank has an excellent track record of rewarding shareholders through consistently growing dividends and substantial share buybacks, all while maintaining a conservative payout ratio.
Great Southern Bancorp has been a reliable performer in returning capital to its shareholders. Over the last five years, the dividend per share has grown steadily from $1.36 in FY2020 to $1.60 in FY2024, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.1%. The dividend payout ratio has remained conservative, typically staying in a 25% to 30% range in recent years, which indicates the dividend is well-covered by earnings and has room to grow further.
Perhaps more impressively, the company has actively repurchased its shares, reducing the diluted share count from 14 million at the end of FY2020 to 12 million by FY2024. This ~14% reduction has been a key driver of EPS growth and demonstrates management's confidence in the stock's value. This consistent and meaningful return of capital is a clear historical strength.
Great Southern Bancorp's future growth appears modest and faces significant challenges. The bank's primary growth engine, commercial real estate lending, is constrained by high interest rates and a cautious economic outlook in its core Midwestern markets. While the bank is a stable operator, it lacks clear, aggressive plans to diversify its revenue streams or significantly enhance its digital offerings, putting it at a disadvantage to larger, more dynamic competitors. Its growth will likely trail more diversified regional peers, as it remains highly sensitive to interest rate cycles and the health of the local CRE market. The investor takeaway is mixed to negative, as the path to meaningful earnings growth over the next 3-5 years is unclear.
Management has not provided specific loan growth guidance, and with its heavy concentration in the slowing commercial real estate sector, the near-term outlook is muted.
Loan growth is the primary driver of GSBC's revenue, but the outlook appears challenging. The bank does not provide explicit forward-looking loan growth guidance, leaving investors to rely on recent trends, which have shown only modest growth. The portfolio's heavy concentration (over 60%) in commercial real estate and construction is a significant headwind, as higher interest rates and economic uncertainty have cooled demand in this sector. While unfunded commitments provide some visibility into near-term activity, the lack of a strong, diversified pipeline beyond CRE suggests that overall loan growth will likely be in the low single digits, potentially lagging peers with more diversified lending businesses.
GSBC has been returning capital to shareholders through modest buybacks but lacks a clear M&A strategy to drive meaningful growth in a consolidating industry.
Management has demonstrated a commitment to returning capital, repurchasing approximately $7.4 million worth of shares in the first quarter of 2024. However, the bank has not been active on the M&A front, with no significant deals announced in recent years. In an industry where scale is becoming increasingly important for managing costs and technology investments, a lack of acquisitive growth can be a long-term weakness. The bank maintains strong capital ratios, with a CET1 ratio well above regulatory requirements, giving it the capacity for strategic moves. Yet, without a defined strategy to deploy this capital for growth through acquisitions, its ability to expand its earnings base and geographic reach remains constrained.
The bank lacks a clearly articulated strategy for digital transformation or branch optimization, suggesting it may fall behind more tech-focused competitors.
Great Southern operates a network of 89 branches, which is a core part of its community banking model. However, the bank has not provided clear, forward-looking targets for branch consolidation, cost savings, or digital user growth. While it has modestly reduced its branch count in recent years, there is no publicly stated plan that outlines how it intends to balance its physical footprint with necessary investments in digital channels. With deposits per branch at an average level of around $54 million, there is no evidence of superior operational efficiency. Without a clear vision for optimizing its delivery channels to improve efficiency and meet changing customer preferences, the bank's growth potential is limited.
Persistent pressure on deposit costs is expected to continue compressing the bank's net interest margin, as it lacks a strong base of low-cost funding.
The bank's Net Interest Margin (NIM) has been under significant pressure, falling to 3.14% in the most recent quarter. Management has acknowledged that funding costs continue to rise due to intense competition for deposits. GSBC's funding profile, with a below-average proportion of noninterest-bearing deposits (~23%), makes it particularly vulnerable to this trend. While the bank has a portion of its loan portfolio in variable-rate assets, the pace of deposit cost increases is outpacing the repricing of its assets. Without specific guidance indicating a stabilization or recovery in NIM, the outlook for this key profitability driver remains negative.
The bank's reliance on traditional, low-growth fee sources and the absence of stated plans to expand into higher-growth areas like wealth management signals a weak outlook for noninterest income.
Noninterest income contributes a modest 22% to GSBC's total revenue, a level that is average for its sub-industry but lacks a dynamic growth component. The income is primarily derived from commoditized services like account fees and card interchange income. The bank has not announced any significant initiatives or targets for growing its fee-based businesses. Unlike larger regional competitors that are investing heavily in wealth management, trust, or insurance services, GSBC does not have these diversified and higher-margin revenue streams. This leaves its earnings highly dependent on the cyclicality of net interest income and exposes it to competitive and regulatory pressures on traditional banking fees.
As of October 27, 2025, with a stock price of $56.97, Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. (GSBC) appears to be fairly valued with a slight lean towards being undervalued. The company's valuation is supported by a strong balance sheet and reasonable profitability, reflected in its Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) of approximately 1.03x and a trailing P/E ratio of 9.7x. These figures are attractive when compared to regional bank industry averages. However, the promising valuation is tempered by analyst expectations of negative earnings growth in the near term. The investor takeaway is cautiously optimistic, as the current price offers a solid entry point based on asset value, but an eye must be kept on future earnings performance.
The stock trades at a slight premium to its tangible book value, which is well-supported by its solid profitability.
Great Southern Bancorp's Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) ratio is approximately 1.03x. This is a crucial metric for banks, as it compares the stock price to the actual value of its assets. A P/TBV just above 1.0x is considered healthy for a bank that is earning a decent return. With a Return on Equity (ROE) of 11.31%, GSBC demonstrates solid profitability, which justifies the market valuing it slightly above its net asset value. Compared to industry averages which can be 1.15x or higher, GSBC appears reasonably priced on this basis.
The company's Price to Book multiple appears low given its strong Return on Equity, suggesting the market may not be fully recognizing its profitability.
GSBC currently has a Price to Book (P/B) ratio of 1.04x and a Return on Equity (ROE) of 11.31%. A common rule of thumb is that a bank's P/B ratio should reflect its ability to generate profits from its equity. Generally, a higher ROE justifies a higher P/B multiple. Given that GSBC is achieving a double-digit ROE, a P/B ratio of just over 1.0x seems modest. This potential misalignment suggests that the stock price does not fully reflect the company's earnings power, presenting a potential opportunity for investors. The current 10-Year Treasury yield, a benchmark for interest rates, is around 4.0%, which creates a mixed environment for bank profitability but makes GSBC's current ROE look strong in comparison.
The stock's low trailing P/E ratio is appealing, but this is offset by projections for negative earnings growth in the coming year.
The trailing P/E ratio of 9.7x is attractive, sitting below the industry average of 11.7x - 12.7x. A low P/E ratio can often signal an undervalued stock. However, valuation must also consider future growth. The forward P/E ratio of 11.09x is higher than the trailing P/E, which implies that earnings per share are expected to decrease. This negative growth outlook is a significant concern and detracts from the appeal of the low current P/E, making the stock fail this growth-oriented check.
The company provides a respectable and sustainable dividend, complemented by an active share repurchase program that enhances total shareholder yield.
GSBC offers a dividend yield of 2.95%, which is competitive within the regional banking sector. The low payout ratio of 27.14% signifies that the dividend is not only safe but also has potential for future increases. Importantly, the company is also returning capital to shareholders through buybacks, with a 2.9% reduction in shares outstanding over the past year. The combined shareholder yield (dividends + buybacks) is therefore quite attractive, providing a steady income stream and supporting the stock's value.
On key valuation multiples like P/E and P/TBV, Great Southern Bancorp appears discounted compared to its regional banking peers.
When compared to the broader regional banking sector, GSBC's valuation appears favorable. Its trailing P/E ratio of 9.7x is lower than the industry average, which is typically in the 11x-13x range. Similarly, its P/TBV of 1.03x is below the peer average of around 1.15x. The dividend yield of 2.95% is also competitive. The stock's low beta of 0.56 suggests it is less volatile than the overall market. This combination of metrics indicates that GSBC is trading at a discount relative to its competitors.
The primary macroeconomic risk for Great Southern is the persistent pressure on its net interest margin (NIM), which is the difference between what it earns on loans and pays for deposits. In a prolonged high-rate environment, the bank is forced to pay more to retain customer deposits, which are increasingly flowing to higher-yielding alternatives. This rising cost of funds can squeeze profitability if the bank cannot reprice its loans upward at a faster pace. Additionally, the risk of a regional or national economic downturn remains a key concern. A slowdown would likely increase loan delinquencies and defaults across its portfolio, forcing the bank to set aside more money for potential losses, which would directly reduce its earnings.
From an industry perspective, Great Southern operates in a fiercely competitive landscape. It is challenged by mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which leverage their vast scale, technological superiority, and marketing budgets to attract customers. Simultaneously, financial technology (fintech) firms and online-only banks are chipping away at profitable niches like personal lending and payment services, offering more user-friendly digital experiences. Compounding these pressures is a stricter regulatory environment following the banking turmoil of 2023. Regulators are expected to impose higher capital and liquidity requirements on regional banks, which could increase compliance costs and limit the capital available for growth initiatives or shareholder returns like dividends and buybacks.
Company-specific vulnerabilities center on Great Southern's loan portfolio, particularly its significant exposure to Commercial Real Estate (CRE). The CRE market, especially office and retail properties, is facing structural headwinds from the rise of remote work and e-commerce. A downturn in this sector could lead to a wave of defaults, representing a concentrated risk for the bank. Another area to watch is the stability of its deposit base. While the immediate crisis has passed, the competition for deposits is permanent. The bank must continue to offer competitive rates to prevent deposit outflow, which supports the ongoing pressure on its net interest margin and overall profitability.
Click a section to jump