This updated analysis from October 27, 2025, presents a comprehensive evaluation of Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC), covering its business moat, financial statements, past performance, future growth, and fair value. Our report benchmarks SFNC against key competitors like Renasant Corporation (RNST), Hancock Whitney Corporation (HWC), and Synovus Financial Corp. (SNV), applying the timeless investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger to derive actionable insights.
Negative. Simmons First National is under significant pressure after a massive recent loss on investment sales. This event has severely damaged its financial health, overshadowing its core lending business. Profitability has collapsed, with earnings per share declining by more than 50% since 2021. The bank operates less efficiently and in slower-growth markets than many of its peers. Its seemingly cheap stock valuation reflects deep fundamental problems, including a negative return on equity. Investors should be cautious, as the high dividend yield is not supported by current earnings.
US: NASDAQ
Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) operates as a diversified financial holding company, with its core business centered on traditional community and regional banking. The company provides a comprehensive range of banking services to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiary, Simmons Bank. Its primary operations involve accepting deposits and providing a variety of loans, including commercial and industrial (C&I) loans, commercial real estate (CRE) loans, residential mortgages, and consumer loans. SFNC's business model is fundamentally built on relationship banking, leveraging its physical presence of over 200 branches across Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Revenue is primarily generated from net interest income, which is the difference between the interest it earns on its loan portfolio and the interest it pays on customer deposits and other borrowings. A smaller, but important, portion of its revenue comes from noninterest (fee-based) income derived from services such as wealth management, trust services, deposit account service charges, and credit card fees.
The largest driver of SFNC's profitability is its lending operation, particularly its Commercial Real Estate (CRE) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) loan portfolios. Together, these commercial loan categories represent the majority of the bank's loan book and are the principal source of interest income. The U.S. commercial lending market is a multi-trillion dollar industry, but its growth is highly cyclical and closely tied to overall economic health and interest rate policy. Competition is intense, ranging from large national banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, to other super-regional banks like Regions Financial, and a vast number of smaller community banks all competing for the same business customers. SFNC competes by emphasizing its local market knowledge and personalized service, which can be a significant advantage when underwriting loans for small-to-medium-sized businesses (SMBs) whose creditworthiness may not be fully captured by standardized models. The customers for these loans are local businesses, real estate developers, and investors within SFNC's geographic footprint. Stickiness in these relationships is high, as businesses often rely on their bankers for more than just credit, seeking advice and a long-term financial partnership. This relationship-based approach creates switching costs, forming the primary moat for its lending business. However, this moat is limited by its geographic reach and can be eroded by aggressive pricing from larger competitors with lower funding costs.
On the other side of the balance sheet are SFNC's deposit services, which are the lifeblood of its funding model. This includes offering a full suite of deposit products like checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit (CDs). These deposits provide the low-cost, stable capital that the bank uses to fund its lending activities. While not a direct revenue line item in the same way as a loan, the ability to attract and retain low-cost core deposits is arguably the most critical component of a bank's competitive advantage. The market for customer deposits is fiercely competitive, with all financial institutions—from global money-center banks to local credit unions and online-only banks—vying for customer funds. The profitability of this segment is measured by the bank's overall cost of funds; a lower cost translates directly to a higher net interest margin. SFNC's primary customers are the individuals, families, and SMBs in the communities served by its branch network. The stickiness of these core deposit relationships, particularly primary checking accounts, is very high due to the inconvenience of moving automated payments, direct deposits, and other linked services. This customer inertia creates a powerful moat, providing SFNC with a durable source of funding that is less sensitive to market rate fluctuations than wholesale funding sources. This is the classic moat for a community-focused bank, and its strength is a key determinant of SFNC's long-term profitability and resilience.
Finally, SFNC generates a smaller portion of its revenue from fee-based services, which fall under the category of noninterest income. These services include wealth management and trust services for high-net-worth clients, service charges on deposit accounts, and interchange fees from debit and credit card transactions. This revenue stream is important for diversification, as it is less dependent on the interest rate environment than the bank's core lending business. The market for these services is highly fragmented and competitive. For instance, in wealth management, SFNC competes with specialized brokerage firms like Edward Jones, large wirehouses like Morgan Stanley, and other bank-owned wealth advisors. The bank's moat in these areas is generally weaker than in its core banking operations. While relationships can create some stickiness in wealth management, services are often commoditized, and competition is based on performance, fees, and brand reputation. For a regional bank like SFNC, building the scale necessary to compete effectively against larger, more specialized players is a significant challenge. As a result, while these fee-based services provide a helpful buffer, they do not constitute a primary competitive advantage for the bank. Overall, SFNC's business model is that of a quintessential regional bank, with a moat deeply rooted in its local presence and customer relationships, but with inherent vulnerabilities tied to its geographic concentration and high reliance on traditional spread-based income.
A deep dive into Simmons First National's financial statements reveals a company grappling with the consequences of a shifting interest rate environment. The most glaring issue is the massive -$562.8 million net loss in the third quarter of 2025, which stands in stark contrast to the $54.8 million profit in the prior quarter. This loss was not from its core lending operations but from a strategic decision to sell investment securities at a substantial -$801.5 million loss. This move, likely intended to reposition the balance sheet for future profitability, has inflicted significant short-term pain, eroding the bank's tangible common equity from $2.1 billion to $1.9 billion in a single quarter.
Despite this turmoil, the bank's core earnings engine, its net interest income, shows resilience. It grew sequentially from $171.8 million in Q2 to $186.7 million in Q3, suggesting the fundamental business of lending and managing deposits remains profitable. The bank's balance sheet also has points of strength, including a healthy loans-to-deposits ratio of 86.6% and a low debt-to-equity ratio of 0.21. These figures indicate that the bank is not overly reliant on wholesale funding and maintains a conservative leverage profile, which provides a cushion against operational shocks.
However, profitability and efficiency metrics raise concerns. The return on assets and equity were deeply negative in the latest quarter due to the one-time loss. Even in a more normal quarter like Q2 2025, the efficiency ratio was 63.9%, which is mediocre and suggests room for improvement in cost management. The high amount of goodwill on the balance sheet, at $1.32 billion, also represents a potential risk if future performance triggers impairment charges. Overall, while the bank's core operations appear stable and its capital structure is reasonable, the recent, massive realized loss from its investment portfolio signals significant balance sheet risk and makes its immediate financial foundation appear fragile.
Over the last five fiscal years (FY 2020–FY 2024), Simmons First National Corporation presents a history of aggressive balance sheet expansion but severely declining profitability. The bank's total assets grew from $22.4B to $26.9B, largely driven by acquisitions and loan growth. However, this growth came at a cost, as the company struggled with the rising interest rate environment and increasing credit costs. Revenue and net income peaked in FY 2021-2022 and have been on a steep decline since, highlighting a vulnerability in its business model compared to more efficient and better-positioned regional banking peers.
From a growth and profitability perspective, the track record is poor. Earnings per share (EPS) have fallen for three consecutive years, from a high of $2.47 in 2021 to $1.22 in 2024, representing a more than 50% collapse. This demonstrates a significant lack of earnings power and resilience. The bank's return on equity (ROE), a key measure of how effectively it generates profit for shareholders, has compressed dramatically from 8.71% in 2021 to a very low 4.39% in 2024. This level of return is substantially weaker than high-performing peers like Synovus or Hancock Whitney, which consistently generate ROA above 1.0% while SFNC's has fallen to 0.56%.
The company's cash flow has been positive but volatile, supporting a consistent increase in its dividend per share from $0.68 in 2020 to $0.84 in 2024. While this dividend growth is a positive for income investors, it is undermined by a rapidly rising payout ratio, which climbed from a healthy 29% in 2021 to a less comfortable 69% in 2024. This indicates that a larger portion of weakening profits is being used to pay dividends, which may not be sustainable without an earnings recovery. Shareholder returns have been weak, and share buybacks, while present in earlier years, have become minimal, failing to offset dilution from acquisitions.
In conclusion, SFNC's historical record does not inspire confidence in its execution or resilience. The bank has proven it can grow through acquisitions, but it has failed to translate that scale into durable profitability in the current economic cycle. The persistent decline in earnings and returns, coupled with an efficiency disadvantage against its main competitors, suggests a business model that has struggled to adapt. While the dividend has been a bright spot, its sustainability is now a valid concern given the negative earnings trajectory.
The regional banking industry is navigating a period of significant change that will shape its growth trajectory over the next 3-5 years. After a period of rapid interest rate hikes, banks are now contending with a higher-for-longer rate environment, which puts immense pressure on funding costs and net interest margins (NIMs). The industry-wide shift in deposits from low-cost checking accounts to higher-yielding products like CDs is expected to continue, squeezing profitability. We expect the market for regional bank services to grow at a modest CAGR of 2-4%, driven primarily by loan demand in line with nominal GDP growth. Catalysts for demand include potential economic re-acceleration and infrastructure spending in the regions these banks serve. However, competition is a major headwind. Entry into banking is difficult due to high regulatory hurdles, but competition among existing players—including large national banks, non-bank lenders, and fintechs—is intensifying. These competitors often have superior technology platforms and lower operating costs, making it harder for traditional players like Simmons to retain customers and pricing power.
Furthermore, two major shifts are reshaping the competitive landscape: technology and consolidation. Digital adoption is no longer optional. Customers now expect seamless online and mobile banking experiences, forcing regional banks to invest heavily in technology to keep pace. This creates a scale advantage, as larger banks can spread these fixed costs over a wider revenue base. This pressure, combined with the regulatory burden, is a primary driver of industry consolidation. We expect M&A activity to remain a key theme, as smaller and mid-sized banks seek partners to gain scale, enter new markets, and afford necessary technology upgrades. Over the next five years, the number of independent regional banks is likely to continue its long-term decline. For a bank like Simmons, this presents both an opportunity and a threat. It can act as a consolidator to drive growth, but it could also become a target or be outmaneuvered by larger, more aggressive acquirers.
Simmons' primary growth engine is its commercial lending portfolio, which includes Commercial Real Estate (CRE) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) loans. Currently, consumption is constrained by economic uncertainty and higher interest rates, which have dampened borrowing appetite among businesses for expansion projects and investments. The CRE market, particularly the office sector, faces structural headwinds that limit new development and refinancing activity. Over the next 3-5 years, growth in C&I lending is expected to outpace CRE. Consumption will increase among small-to-medium-sized businesses in high-growth sectors within Simmons' southern U.S. footprint, assuming a stable economic environment. A potential catalyst could be a moderation in interest rates, which would lower the cost of capital and stimulate investment. The U.S. commercial lending market is valued in the trillions, with regional banks like Simmons competing for a segment projected to grow at 3-5% annually. Key consumption metrics like loan utilization rates, currently around 40-50% for many banks, could tick higher if business confidence improves. Customers choose between banks like Simmons, Regions Financial, and local community banks based on relationships, loan structuring flexibility, and speed of execution. Simmons can outperform with clients who value its local-market knowledge, but it is likely to lose share on price-sensitive deals to larger banks with lower funding costs.
On the funding side, deposit gathering remains the cornerstone of the banking model, but its dynamics have shifted dramatically. The current environment is characterized by intense competition for deposits, forcing banks to offer higher rates on savings accounts and CDs to prevent customer outflows. This is a significant constraint for Simmons, whose deposit base, as noted in its moat analysis, has a relatively low share of noninterest-bearing accounts (~20%). Over the next 3-5 years, the mix of deposits will likely continue to shift away from free checking accounts toward higher-cost, interest-bearing options. The key challenge for Simmons will be to grow its core transaction accounts, which are 'stickier' and lower cost. Growth will have to come from deepening relationships with existing commercial clients and attracting new retail customers through improved digital offerings and targeted marketing. The total U.S. deposit market is over $17 trillion, but the most valuable segment is core deposits, which are not growing rapidly. A key consumption metric is the loan-to-deposit ratio; a ratio nearing 100% indicates a bank is fully 'loaned up' and needs to aggressively seek new deposits to fund further lending. Simmons competes against every financial institution, from Bank of America to online banks like Ally. It will struggle to win against larger rivals on digital features or smaller community banks on hyper-local service unless it can successfully leverage its existing customer relationships.
Fee-based services, such as wealth management, trust, and card services, represent a critical but underdeveloped area for Simmons. Current consumption of these services by Simmons' customer base is low, reflected by fee income making up only ~18% of total revenue, which is a key constraint on growth. This is well below the 25-30% seen at more diversified peers. This segment's growth is limited by Simmons' lack of scale and brand recognition in these areas compared to specialized competitors like Edward Jones or the wealth management arms of large banks. Over the next 3-5 years, Simmons must focus on increasing the penetration of these services within its existing banking client base—a concept known as cross-selling. For example, growth could come from offering wealth management services to successful small business owners who already have a lending relationship with the bank. The U.S. wealth management market is projected to grow at a CAGR of ~5%. To succeed, Simmons needs to grow its assets under management (AUM) and increase the number of services used per customer. The bank is likely to lose share in this area to larger, more focused players who can offer a wider range of products and more sophisticated platforms. The number of providers in wealth management is vast, but scale is increasingly important for profitability due to technology and compliance costs, which favors consolidation around larger players.
Simmons' residential mortgage and consumer lending business is highly sensitive to the interest rate and housing market cycles. Currently, consumption is severely constrained by high mortgage rates, which have drastically reduced both home purchase and refinancing volumes across the industry. Affordability challenges are the primary bottleneck. Looking ahead 3-5 years, a decline in mortgage rates from their current peaks would be the single most important catalyst to rejuvenate consumption. This would not only spur new purchase activity but also unlock refinancing demand. Growth is expected to come from markets in Texas and Tennessee within Simmons' footprint, which are experiencing positive demographic trends. The U.S. residential mortgage origination market size fluctuates wildly, from over $4 trillion in low-rate years to under $2 trillion in high-rate environments. A key consumption metric is the mortgage application index. Simmons competes with national lenders like Rocket Mortgage, large banks, and local mortgage brokers. Customers often choose based on rate, fees, and speed of closing. Simmons can win with existing banking customers seeking a streamlined process but will likely struggle to compete on price against large, highly efficient national originators who dominate the market.
Several forward-looking risks are pertinent to Simmons. The first is credit risk within its CRE portfolio. While diversified, any significant downturn in the regional economies it serves could lead to a spike in delinquencies and charge-offs, directly impacting earnings. This risk is medium probability, as it is tied to the broader economic cycle. A 1% increase in its non-performing loan ratio could reduce its pre-tax earnings by a significant margin. Second is the risk of continued NIM compression. Given its funding structure, if competition for deposits remains fierce and it cannot reprice its loans upward quickly enough, its core profitability will erode further. The probability of this risk is high, as these industry dynamics are already in motion. Third is strategic execution risk. To grow, management will likely need to pursue M&A or a major operational overhaul. Failure to successfully integrate an acquisition or achieve targeted cost savings from efficiency programs could result in shareholder value destruction. This is a medium probability risk, common for any company reliant on inorganic growth strategies.
As of October 24, 2025, with a stock price of $17.78, a careful valuation of Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) suggests the stock is overvalued due to severe profitability issues that undermine its asset-based valuation. A triangulated approach using multiples, dividends, and asset values reveals that while the stock trades at a discount to its book value, this discount is warranted and perhaps insufficient given the recent destruction of shareholder value. A simple price check against our fair value estimate shows a significant downside. Price $17.78 vs FV $12.00–$15.00 → Mid $13.50; Downside = ($13.50 − $17.78) / $17.78 = -24.1%. This leads to a verdict of Overvalued, suggesting investors should avoid the stock until a clear and sustained operational turnaround is evident. The multiples-based approach highlights the company's challenges. The TTM P/E ratio is meaningless due to negative earnings (EPS TTM -$3.30). While the forward P/E of 9.27 implies strong analyst expectations for recovery, it stands in stark contrast to the current reality. More importantly for a bank, the Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio, which compares the stock price to the company's net asset value, is 0.77 (TTM). Normally, a P/B below 1.0x suggests a stock is undervalued. However, this is only true if the bank can generate a decent profit from its assets. With a recent quarterly Return on Equity (ROE) of -65.22%, SFNC is currently failing this fundamental test. Applying a P/B multiple of 0.6x–0.7x, which is more appropriate for a bank with deeply negative returns, to the book value per share of $23.18 yields a fair value estimate of $13.91–$16.23. From an income perspective, the dividend yield of 4.76% appears attractive. However, a simple dividend discount model shows the current price may not be supported. Assuming a generous long-term growth rate of 2% and a required rate of return of 9% (typical for an equity investment in a bank), the implied value is approximately $12.14 ($0.85 / (0.09 - 0.02)). This suggests the stock price is too high unless one assumes a very rapid return to much higher growth. Furthermore, the dividend's sustainability is questionable given the recent net losses and a high payout ratio of 69.05% in the last profitable fiscal year. In summary, the valuation is a contest between the bank's asset base (its book value) and its collapsing profitability. The P/B ratio suggests a value higher than the current price, but this method is only reliable when the bank is profitable. The earnings and dividend-based models, which reflect the recent severe underperformance, point to a much lower fair value. Weighting the current (and dismal) profitability more heavily, we arrive at a triangulated fair value range of $12.00–$15.00. This suggests the stock is currently overvalued, as the market price does not seem to fully reflect the risk associated with its recent performance.
Charlie Munger would view Simmons First National as a thoroughly average bank, and Munger has no time for average. His investment thesis in banking rests on finding simple, predictable institutions that demonstrate extreme discipline, maintain a fortress balance sheet, and generate high returns on equity without foolish risk-taking. SFNC's performance, with a Return on Average Assets (ROA) around 0.9% and an efficiency ratio in the high 60s%, signals a lack of the operational excellence Munger demands, especially when peers like Prosperity Bancshares operate with efficiency ratios in the low 40s%. He would be wary of its reliance on acquisitions for growth, viewing it as a difficult way to create value compared to organic compounding in a superior franchise. The key takeaway for investors is that while SFNC isn't a bad bank, it is not a 'great' business, and Munger would simply pass on it in favor of clearly superior operators. Munger's decision might change if SFNC underwent a fundamental operational overhaul that durably improved its efficiency ratio and ROA to match top-tier peers, but he would not invest in anticipation of such a turnaround.
Warren Buffett would likely view Simmons First National as a distinctly average bank that fails to meet his high bar for quality and a durable moat. While its valuation appears modest, its mediocre profitability, with a Return on Assets (ROA) below the 1.0% industry benchmark, and its high cost structure, reflected in an efficiency ratio above 65%, signal the absence of a competitive advantage. He would prefer to pay a fair price for a wonderful business with superior efficiency and returns rather than buy an average business simply because it is cheap. The takeaway for retail investors is that Buffett's philosophy prioritizes business quality, and SFNC's financial metrics suggest it is not a best-in-class operator.
Bill Ackman would view Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) not as a high-quality franchise to own passively, but as a classic activist target ripe for a turnaround. His investment thesis for a regional bank would demand either a best-in-class operator or a significant underperformer with a clear path to value creation, and SFNC firmly fits the latter. He would be immediately drawn to the bank's poor efficiency ratio, which sits in the mid-to-high 60s%, and its subpar Return on Assets (ROA) of around 0.9%, metrics that lag significantly behind top-tier peers like Prosperity Bancshares, whose efficiency ratio is in the low 40s%. This massive performance gap represents a clear opportunity to unlock shareholder value by installing new management and implementing a rigorous cost-cutting and operational improvement plan. The primary risk is execution; turning around a bank's culture and cost structure is challenging and subject to the broader economic cycle's impact on credit quality. Therefore, Ackman would likely seek to acquire a significant stake to force change, viewing the current depressed valuation as a compelling entry point for an activist campaign. If forced to simply pick the best banks to own, Ackman would favor Prosperity Bancshares (PB) for its unmatched efficiency, Synovus Financial (SNV) for its superior profitability in high-growth markets, and Commerce Bancshares (CBSH) for its durable, fee-driven business model. Ackman would likely invest in SFNC only if he could gain board influence to drive a turnaround; otherwise, he would avoid the stock.
Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) operates as a traditional regional bank, with its fortunes closely tied to the economic vitality of its core markets in the South and Midwest. The bank has historically pursued a growth-by-acquisition strategy, integrating smaller community banks to build scale and enter new territories. This approach has successfully grown its asset base but also introduces integration risks and can sometimes mask weaker organic growth within its legacy operations. The challenge for SFNC is to consistently translate this increased scale into superior profitability and efficiency that can rival the top performers in its class.
Compared to its competition, SFNC's key differentiator is its deep-rooted community banking model spread across a somewhat eclectic mix of states. Unlike competitors concentrated in high-growth metropolitan areas like Texas or the Southeast coast, SFNC's footprint includes more stable, slower-growing rural and suburban markets. This can be a source of stability, providing a loyal, low-cost deposit base, but it can also limit opportunities for high-margin loan growth. Consequently, the bank's performance often appears steady rather than spectacular, appealing more to income-focused investors than those seeking rapid capital appreciation.
From a financial standpoint, the company's performance is often middle-of-the-road. Its capital ratios are typically sound, reflecting prudent management, and it maintains adequate liquidity. However, key performance indicators like the efficiency ratio (a measure of noninterest expense as a percentage of revenue, where lower is better) and net interest margin (the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits) do not consistently lead the pack. Competitors with more advanced technology platforms or a more favorable funding mix often demonstrate better cost control and margin expansion, placing pressure on SFNC to continuously invest in operational improvements to keep pace.
Ultimately, an investment in SFNC is a bet on the continued stability of its regional economies and management's ability to effectively integrate acquisitions and extract synergies. While it is a well-established institution, it faces stiff competition from both larger national banks with superior scale and technology, and smaller, more agile community banks with deeper local ties. For investors, the decision hinges on whether its reliable dividend and potential for modest, acquisition-fueled growth outweigh the superior operational metrics and more dynamic market exposure offered by some of its regional banking peers.
Renasant Corporation (RNST) presents a close comparison to Simmons First National (SFNC), as both are Southeastern regional banks with a similar asset size and a strategy that includes growth through acquisition. Both banks focus on traditional community banking, serving individuals and small-to-medium-sized businesses. However, Renasant has a more concentrated geographic footprint in high-growth states like Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, which can offer better organic loan demand compared to some of SFNC's more rural markets. SFNC has a more diversified geographic base across the central U.S., which could offer more stability but potentially slower growth.
In the realm of business and moat, both banks rely on established community relationships. For brand strength, Renasant leverages its deep roots in Mississippi and its expansion into vibrant markets like Nashville, giving it strong recognition in its core territories with a reported 9% deposit market share in Mississippi. SFNC has a wider but perhaps less dense brand presence across states like Arkansas and Tennessee, holding a dominant 19% deposit share in its home state of Arkansas. Switching costs are moderate for both, typical of retail banking, but both benefit from a high percentage of sticky, low-cost core deposits (over 80% of total deposits for both). In terms of scale, the two are very comparable, with total assets hovering in the $15-$20 billion range. Neither possesses significant network effects beyond their regional branch footprints. Regulatory barriers are identical as both operate under the same banking regulations. Overall Winner: Renasant Corporation, due to its strategic presence in slightly faster-growing economic regions.
Financially, the comparison reveals key differences. On revenue growth, Renasant has shown slightly more robust organic loan growth in recent quarters, around 4-5% annualized, driven by its metropolitan market exposure. In contrast, SFNC's growth has been more reliant on past acquisitions. For profitability, Renasant often posts a better efficiency ratio, typically in the low 60s%, while SFNC's is often higher, in the mid-to-high 60s%, indicating Renasant is more cost-effective. Renasant's Return on Average Assets (ROA) is often slightly higher, around 1.0% versus SFNC's 0.8-0.9%, showing better profit generation from its asset base. Both maintain strong capital, with CET1 ratios well above the 8% regulatory minimum, but Renasant's net interest margin (NIM) has historically been a bit wider, recently around 3.5% vs SFNC's 3.3%. Overall Financials Winner: Renasant Corporation, for its superior efficiency and profitability metrics.
Looking at past performance, both banks have navigated the economic cycles of the last decade, but their shareholder returns have diverged. Over the last five years, Renasant's revenue and EPS CAGR have been in the low-to-mid single digits, similar to SFNC. However, Renasant has maintained a more stable margin profile, with less volatility in its NIM compared to SFNC. In terms of total shareholder return (TSR), performance has been competitive and market-dependent, but Renasant has often edged out SFNC over a 3-year lookback, though both have underperformed the broader financial sector index. From a risk perspective, both stocks exhibit similar volatility with betas around 1.2-1.3, typical for regional banks. Overall Past Performance Winner: Renasant Corporation, due to its slightly better historical profitability and shareholder returns.
Future growth prospects for both banks hinge on the economic health of the Southeast and their ability to execute strategic plans. Renasant's growth drivers are tied to capturing more market share in its high-growth MSAs like Nashville and Atlanta, which have strong in-migration trends. SFNC's growth is more dependent on successful integration of its acquisitions and leveraging its broader geographic footprint to cross-sell products. Analyst consensus for next-year EPS growth is typically in the 3-6% range for both, subject to interest rate changes. Renasant may have a slight edge in organic growth potential due to its market positioning, while SFNC's wider net could provide more M&A targets. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Renasant Corporation, for its exposure to more dynamic regional economies.
From a valuation perspective, the market often prices these two banks similarly, reflecting their comparable risk profiles and business models. Both typically trade at a Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio between 9x and 12x, and a Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) ratio between 1.1x and 1.4x. SFNC sometimes offers a slightly higher dividend yield, recently around 4.5% versus Renasant's 4.0%, which may appeal to income investors. The choice often comes down to a quality vs. price trade-off; an investor might pay a slight premium for Renasant's superior efficiency and growth exposure, while another might prefer SFNC for its slightly higher yield and diversification. Overall, Renasant's slightly stronger fundamentals often justify its valuation. Better value today: SFNC, as its higher dividend yield offers a better immediate return for a similar valuation multiple, compensating for its weaker operational metrics.
Winner: Renasant Corporation over Simmons First National Corporation. While both are solid regional banks, Renasant consistently demonstrates superior operational efficiency and profitability. Its efficiency ratio in the low 60s% is a clear advantage over SFNC's higher cost base, and its ROA frequently surpasses the 1.0% mark, a key industry benchmark that SFNC struggles to consistently achieve. Renasant's strategic focus on faster-growing southeastern metropolitan areas provides a stronger runway for organic growth compared to SFNC's more scattered and rural-leaning footprint. Although SFNC offers a slightly more attractive dividend yield, Renasant's stronger core performance and growth prospects present a more compelling long-term investment case.
Hancock Whitney Corporation (HWC) is a significantly larger regional bank than Simmons First National (SFNC), with a strong concentration along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida. This geographic focus gives HWC unique exposure to energy markets and coastal commerce, which can be a source of both high growth and volatility. In contrast, SFNC has a more inland, diversified footprint across the central U.S. While both engage in general community and commercial banking, HWC's larger scale allows it to serve bigger commercial clients and offer a more extensive suite of wealth management and trust services.
Analyzing their business moats, HWC benefits from a powerful, century-old brand in its core Gulf Coast markets, commanding a top-tier deposit market share in Louisiana (~15%) and Mississippi (~13%). SFNC's brand is strong in Arkansas but more fragmented elsewhere. Switching costs are comparable for both, based on sticky core deposits that make up over 85% of their deposit bases. The biggest difference is scale; HWC's total assets of over $35 billion are roughly double SFNC's, providing significant economies of scale in technology, compliance, and marketing spend. HWC's denser branch network in its key markets creates a stronger local network effect. Regulatory barriers are similar, though HWC's larger size means it faces slightly more scrutiny. Overall Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, due to its dominant scale and stronger, more concentrated brand power.
From a financial statement perspective, HWC's larger asset base generates substantially more revenue, though growth rates can be more cyclical due to its energy loan exposure. HWC often operates with a better efficiency ratio, recently near 58%, compared to SFNC's in the mid-to-high 60s%, a direct benefit of its scale. HWC's profitability is also typically stronger, with a Return on Average Assets (ROA) that consistently hovers above 1.1%, a solid figure that SFNC rarely matches. On the balance sheet, HWC has actively worked to de-risk its loan portfolio from energy concentration, but it remains a key factor. Both banks are well-capitalized, with CET1 ratios comfortably above 10%. HWC's net interest margin (NIM) is competitive with SFNC's, usually in the 3.2-3.4% range. Overall Financials Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, thanks to its superior scale-driven efficiency and higher profitability.
Reviewing past performance, HWC has experienced more pronounced cycles tied to the energy sector, which has led to periods of higher loan loss provisions. However, its management team has become adept at navigating this volatility. Over a 5-year period, HWC's EPS growth has been robust, albeit from a lower base post-energy downturn. In terms of total shareholder return (TSR), HWC has outperformed SFNC over the last five years, rewarding investors who tolerated its sector-specific risks. Its margin trend has been stable, reflecting disciplined expense management. From a risk perspective, HWC's stock has historically shown higher volatility (Beta ~1.4) than SFNC's (Beta ~1.2) due to its energy exposure. Overall Past Performance Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, for delivering superior long-term shareholder returns despite higher volatility.
Looking ahead, HWC's future growth is linked to the economic expansion of the Gulf Coast, including energy, manufacturing, and shipping industries. The region is benefiting from strong population growth in states like Texas and Florida. HWC is also investing heavily in digital transformation to improve customer experience and efficiency. SFNC's growth is more tied to general economic conditions in the central U.S. and its ability to find accretive M&A deals. Analyst estimates for HWC's forward EPS growth are generally more optimistic, often in the 5-8% range, compared to SFNC's 3-6%. HWC's stronger positioning in economically vibrant markets gives it an edge. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation, due to its exposure to more dynamic and higher-growth regional economies.
In terms of valuation, HWC often trades at a slight discount to peers on a Price-to-Earnings (P/E) basis, typically 8x-10x, to compensate for its perceived energy risk. SFNC trades in a similar or slightly higher P/E range. On a Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) basis, HWC often trades at a higher multiple (~1.5x) than SFNC (~1.2x), reflecting its higher profitability (ROE). HWC's dividend yield is usually competitive, around 3.5-4.0%, slightly lower than SFNC's. The quality vs. price argument favors HWC; its superior ROA and efficiency justify its P/TBV premium. The market seems to adequately price in HWC's risks while rewarding its stronger performance. Better value today: Hancock Whitney Corporation, as its slight P/E discount relative to its superior profitability and growth outlook offers a more compelling risk-reward proposition.
Winner: Hancock Whitney Corporation over Simmons First National Corporation. HWC's advantages in scale, profitability, and market focus are decisive. With an asset base twice the size of SFNC's, HWC achieves a much better efficiency ratio (below 60%) and a consistently higher ROA (above 1.1%). This operational excellence translates into stronger earnings power and shareholder returns. While HWC carries specific risks related to its Gulf Coast and energy market concentration, its management has proven capable of managing this volatility. SFNC is a steady, smaller bank, but it lacks the dominant market position and financial firepower that make HWC a superior operator in the regional banking space.
Synovus Financial Corp. (SNV) is a major regional banking player in the Southeast, with a formidable presence in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. With assets exceeding $60 billion, it is substantially larger than Simmons First National (SFNC). This scale allows Synovus to compete for larger corporate clients and fund significant technology investments that are harder for smaller banks like SFNC to match. While both are commercial-focused banks, Synovus has a deeper penetration in some of the fastest-growing metropolitan markets in the United States, such as Atlanta, giving it a powerful engine for organic growth that SFNC's more dispersed and rural-leaning footprint lacks.
Regarding business and moat, Synovus boasts a strong brand built over a century, especially in its home state of Georgia where it holds a top 5 deposit market share. SFNC's brand is dominant in Arkansas but less impactful elsewhere. Switching costs are moderate for both, but Synovus's broader offering of commercial banking, treasury management, and wealth services for larger clients creates stickier relationships. The most significant moat difference is scale; Synovus's $60 billion+ asset base dwarfs SFNC's, creating superior operating leverage. This scale also supports a more extensive branch and ATM network in its core states, providing a meaningful network effect. Regulatory hurdles are higher for Synovus due to its size, but it has the infrastructure to manage them effectively. Overall Winner: Synovus Financial Corp., due to its immense scale advantage and deep penetration in high-growth markets.
From a financial analysis standpoint, Synovus leverages its scale into strong performance. Its revenue base is far larger, and its loan growth has been consistently strong, often 6-8% annually, driven by its exposure to dynamic southeastern economies. Synovus maintains a highly efficient operation, with an efficiency ratio often in the low-to-mid 50s%, significantly better than SFNC's mid-to-high 60s%. This translates to robust profitability, with a Return on Average Assets (ROA) frequently near 1.2% or higher, a top-tier result that SFNC struggles to approach. Both banks are well-capitalized, with Synovus's CET1 ratio consistently above 9.5%. Synovus's net interest margin is typically robust, around 3.6%, benefiting from a strong base of low-cost core deposits. Overall Financials Winner: Synovus Financial Corp., for its superior efficiency, profitability, and organic growth capacity.
In a review of past performance, Synovus has a track record of rewarding shareholders. Over the past five years, its EPS growth has been more consistent and generally higher than SFNC's, fueled by strong loan growth and share buybacks. This has resulted in superior total shareholder return (TSR) for SNV compared to SFNC over most 3-year and 5-year periods. Synovus has also shown a positive trend in improving its efficiency ratio, demonstrating strong cost control. On the risk front, Synovus has a larger exposure to commercial real estate (CRE), which can be a cyclical risk, but it is well-diversified. Its stock beta is similar to SFNC's, around 1.3-1.4. Overall Past Performance Winner: Synovus Financial Corp., based on its stronger growth and superior shareholder returns.
Looking at future growth, Synovus is exceptionally well-positioned. Its presence in states like Florida and Georgia, which are leaders in U.S. population and business growth, provides a strong tailwind. The bank is focused on expanding its fee-income businesses like wealth management and treasury services, which provide diversified revenue streams. Analyst consensus for Synovus's forward growth is typically more bullish than for SFNC, with expectations for continued strong loan growth and margin stability. SFNC's growth relies more on the slower-growing economies of the central U.S. and its M&A execution. Overall Growth Outlook Winner: Synovus Financial Corp., for its commanding position in some of the nation's best banking markets.
Valuation often reflects Synovus's higher quality. It typically trades at a higher Price-to-Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) multiple, around 1.6x-1.8x, compared to SFNC's 1.1x-1.4x. This premium is justified by its superior profitability, particularly its high Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE), which is often above 18%. Its P/E ratio is usually in the 9x-11x range, comparable to SFNC, but for a much higher-growth and more profitable enterprise. Synovus's dividend yield is typically lower than SFNC's, recently around 3.8%, as it retains more capital to fund growth. The quality vs. price decision is clear: investors pay a premium for Synovus because of its best-in-class performance. Better value today: Synovus Financial Corp., as its premium valuation is well-supported by its superior financial metrics and growth prospects, offering better long-term, risk-adjusted returns.
Winner: Synovus Financial Corp. over Simmons First National Corporation. Synovus is a clear winner due to its superior scale, prime geographic positioning in high-growth markets, and top-tier financial performance. Its efficiency ratio in the low 50s% and ROA above 1.2% place it in a different league than SFNC. This operational excellence allows Synovus to generate strong organic growth and deliver higher returns to shareholders. While SFNC is a respectable community-focused bank, it cannot match the financial power, market opportunities, or efficiency of Synovus, making Synovus the demonstrably stronger investment.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Simmons First National Corporation operates a traditional regional banking model, focused on serving communities across six states. Its primary strength lies in its extensive branch network which helps gather a stable, organically-grown deposit base from local customers. However, the bank shows significant weaknesses, including a below-average proportion of low-cost deposits, a high dependency on interest income with limited fee-based revenue, and the lack of a specialized lending niche to differentiate itself from competitors. The investor takeaway is mixed-to-negative, as its solid community banking foundation is overshadowed by vulnerabilities to interest rate fluctuations and intense competition.
The bank is overly dependent on its traditional lending business, as its fee-based income streams are underdeveloped and contribute a below-average share of total revenue.
SFNC's business model lacks meaningful revenue diversification, which is a significant vulnerability. Noninterest income, generated from fees for services like wealth management, card services, and deposit charges, only constituted 17.8% of the bank's total revenue in the most recent quarter. This is weak compared to the sub-industry average for regional banks, which is typically in the 20% to 30% range. This high reliance on net interest income makes SFNC's earnings more volatile and highly susceptible to compression when interest rates fall or its own funding costs rise. The underdeveloped fee income streams mean the bank has fewer levers to pull to stabilize revenue during challenging parts of the economic cycle.
SFNC shows strong diversification in its deposit gathering, with a healthy mix of local customers and a commendably low reliance on less stable brokered deposits.
A clear strength for SFNC is its well-diversified and organically grown deposit base. The bank's funding primarily comes from a balanced mix of retail (consumer) and commercial customers within its local communities, which is consistent with its relationship-focused model. Critically, SFNC has a low dependence on brokered deposits, which are funds sourced from third-party brokers rather than directly from customers. These deposits stood at just 5% of total deposits recently, a level considered very healthy and well below industry norms that would signal risk. This low reliance indicates that the bank is not dependent on volatile, high-cost wholesale funding to support its lending, which enhances its stability during periods of market stress.
SFNC operates as a generalist lender without a distinct, specialized lending niche, which limits its ability to differentiate itself and command superior pricing power.
Unlike some banks that build a strong reputation in a specific area like SBA or agricultural lending, SFNC pursues a diversified, generalist lending strategy. Its loan portfolio is spread across various sectors, including commercial real estate, C&I loans, and residential mortgages. While this diversification mitigates risk by avoiding concentration in a single industry, it also means SFNC lacks a true lending moat. Without a specialized franchise, the bank competes more broadly on service and price rather than on unique expertise. This makes it more difficult to build a defensible competitive advantage and achieve the kind of pricing power that comes from being a go-to lender in a specific niche.
The bank's deposit base is less 'sticky' than ideal, with a below-average level of noninterest-bearing deposits that has led to a rapidly rising cost of funds.
A key weakness in SFNC's moat is the composition of its deposit base. As of the first quarter of 2024, noninterest-bearing deposits—the most stable and lowest-cost source of funding—accounted for only 20% of total deposits. This is significantly below the 25% to 35% range seen at many stronger regional banks. This forces SFNC to rely more heavily on more expensive, rate-sensitive funding like CDs and money market accounts. Consequently, its total cost of deposits has risen sharply to 2.53%, compressing its net interest margin. Furthermore, with 36% of its deposits being uninsured, the bank retains a moderate level of risk associated with larger deposit accounts. The overall mix points to a less resilient funding profile compared to top-tier competitors.
SFNC maintains a large physical branch network that is essential for its community banking model, but its efficiency in gathering deposits per branch trails the sub-industry average.
Simmons First National operates a substantial network of approximately 230 branches across its six-state territory, which serves as the backbone for its relationship-based strategy. However, the network's productivity appears to be a weakness. With total deposits of around $22.2 billion, the bank's deposits per branch stand at approximately $96.5 million. This figure is below the typical regional bank average, which often ranges from $100 million to $150 million. This suggests that SFNC's branches may be less effective at gathering deposits compared to peers, potentially due to their location in less dense markets or a need for network optimization. While a physical presence is crucial for serving its target customers, the lower-than-average efficiency represents a drag on profitability and operating leverage.
Simmons First National's recent financial health has been severely impacted by a significant one-time event. In its most recent quarter, the bank reported a massive net loss of -$562.8 million driven by an -$801.5 million loss on the sale of investment securities, which also caused its tangible book value per share to fall to $13.45 from $16.97. Despite this, its core net interest income grew to $186.7 million, showing underlying business stability. However, the sheer scale of the securities loss overshadows the core operational performance, presenting a negative takeaway for investors focused on near-term stability and capital preservation.
Despite a significant hit to its equity from investment losses, the bank maintains adequate capital levels and a healthy funding profile based on customer deposits.
The bank's capital and liquidity position appears adequate, though it has been weakened. The Tangible Common Equity to Total Assets ratio stood at 8.0% in the most recent quarter ($1.95 billion / $24.2 billion), which is generally considered an acceptable, albeit not strong, buffer for a regional bank. A key strength is its funding base. The loans-to-deposits ratio was 86.6%, which is a healthy level well below the 100% mark. This shows the bank comfortably funds its lending activities with stable customer deposits rather than more volatile wholesale borrowings. While the recent losses have eroded its capital base, the remaining buffer and solid liquidity profile provide a reasonable foundation to absorb potential shocks.
The bank's reserves for potential loan losses appear robust, and provisions are stable, suggesting credit quality is currently under control.
Simmons First National appears well-prepared for potential credit losses. In Q3 2025, its allowance for credit losses was $258.0 million against a gross loan portfolio of $17.2 billion, resulting in a reserve coverage ratio of 1.50%. This is a strong level of coverage, likely above the average for its regional bank peers. The provision for credit losses, which is the amount set aside each quarter for expected future losses, was consistent at approximately $12.0 million in both Q2 and Q3 2025. The stability of this figure suggests that management does not foresee a significant deterioration in loan performance. While nonperforming loan data is not provided, the strong reserve ratio and steady provisioning indicate disciplined credit management.
The bank was forced to realize a massive loss on its securities portfolio, indicating significant vulnerability to rising interest rates and poor risk management in this area.
Simmons First National's recent performance demonstrates extreme sensitivity to interest rate changes. The bank reported a -$801.5 million loss on the sale of investments in Q3 2025, a clear move to reposition its balance sheet by shedding assets that had lost value as rates rose. This action crystallizes the risks that were previously unrealized. Furthermore, the balance sheet shows -$313.5 million in 'Comprehensive Income and Other,' which reflects accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI). This negative AOCI represents 16.1% of the bank's tangible common equity, highlighting that significant unrealized losses likely remain on the books. Realizing such a large loss indicates that the bank's asset and liability management strategy was not sufficiently prepared for the recent sharp increase in interest rates.
The bank's core earning power from lending is a bright spot, with strong recent growth in net interest income driven by effective management of funding costs.
Despite challenges elsewhere, the bank's core lending business is performing well. Net interest income (NII)—the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits—grew by a strong 18.4% year-over-year in Q3 2025, reaching $186.7 million. Sequentially, NII increased from $171.8 million in Q2. This growth was primarily driven by a significant reduction in total interest expense, which fell from $143.2 million in Q2 to $126.8 million in Q3, while interest income remained relatively stable. This trend suggests the bank is successfully managing its cost of funds, which is a critical driver of profitability in the current rate environment. This strong NII performance provides a solid foundation for earnings, separate from the volatility in its securities portfolio.
The bank's cost structure appears elevated, with an efficiency ratio that is weaker than ideal, suggesting operational expenses are weighing on profitability.
Cost control is a notable weakness for Simmons First National. The efficiency ratio, which measures noninterest expenses as a percentage of revenue, is a key metric for bank profitability. In Q2 2025, a relatively clean quarter without the large investment loss, the efficiency ratio was 63.9%. For the full fiscal year 2024, it was even weaker at 71.5%. A strong efficiency ratio is typically below 60%, so the bank's performance is weak compared to this benchmark. Noninterest expenses grew slightly from $136.8 million in Q2 to $140.2 million in Q3. This elevated cost base puts pressure on the bank's ability to generate profits from its core operations and indicates a need for greater expense discipline.
Simmons First National Corporation's past performance shows a mixed but concerning picture. While the bank successfully grew its total loans from approximately $13.0B in 2020 to $17.0B in 2024, this expansion has not translated into profitability. Key metrics have deteriorated significantly, with earnings per share (EPS) falling from a peak of $2.47 in 2021 to just $1.22 in 2024. This decline in earnings has pressured the bank's return on equity, which dropped to a weak 4.39%. Compared to more efficient competitors, SFNC's performance lags, making its historical record a point of caution for investors. The takeaway is negative, as balance sheet growth has been coupled with eroding profitability.
SFNC successfully grew its loan and deposit books over the past five years, but recent trends show a slight contraction in deposits, raising questions about ongoing organic growth.
Over the five-year period from FY 2020 to FY 2024, SFNC demonstrated strong balance sheet growth. Gross loans increased from $12.96B to $17.02B, and total deposits expanded from $16.99B to $21.89B. This growth reflects the company's acquisition-focused strategy. A key positive is the stability of its loan-to-deposit ratio, which remained healthy and moved from 76.3% in 2020 to 77.7% in 2024, indicating prudent management of its lending relative to its funding base.
However, a closer look at the last few years shows a less robust trend. Total deposits actually decreased slightly from $22.55B in 2022 to $21.89B in 2024, suggesting challenges in retaining or growing core deposits in a competitive rate environment. While the long-term growth is undeniable, the recent stagnation is a point of concern. Despite this, the primary goal of expanding the bank's scale has been achieved.
The bank's net interest income has declined as interest expenses have surged, and its efficiency remains poor compared to competitors, indicating a lack of pricing power and cost control.
The bank's core profitability has been squeezed significantly. Net interest income (NII), the profit made from lending, fell from a high of $717.3 million in 2022 to $628.5 million in 2024. This was caused by interest expense exploding from $144.4 million to $683.6 million over the same period, a direct result of rising deposit and funding costs that outpaced the increase in loan income. This suggests significant pressure on the Net Interest Margin (NIM).
Furthermore, competitor analysis consistently highlights that SFNC operates with a high efficiency ratio, often in the mid-to-high 60s%. A lower efficiency ratio is better, and peers like Prosperity Bancshares (low 40s%) and Synovus (low 50s%) operate far more leanly. This historical disadvantage in cost structure means that a smaller portion of SFNC's revenue drops to the bottom line, putting it at a persistent profitability disadvantage.
Earnings per share have collapsed by over 50% since their 2021 peak, showing a clear and severe negative trend in profitability over the past three years.
SFNC's earnings performance has been extremely poor in recent years. After reaching a high of $2.47 per share in 2021, EPS fell to $2.07 in 2022, $1.39 in 2023, and finally $1.22 in 2024. This represents a 3-year negative compound annual growth rate and completely erased the growth seen in 2020 and 2021. This is not a minor dip but a sustained, multi-year decline in the company's core earning power.
This weak performance is also reflected in the bank's return on equity (ROE), which fell from 8.71% in 2021 to a very low 4.39% in 2024. An ROE below 5% is typically considered poor for a bank, as it suggests the company is not generating adequate returns for its shareholders. This track record compares very unfavorably to peers who have managed to maintain higher and more stable profitability through the same economic cycle.
The bank's provision for credit losses has steadily increased over the past three years, signaling that management anticipates a worsening credit environment for its loan portfolio.
While specific metrics like net charge-offs are not provided, the trend in the provision for credit losses on the income statement offers a clear view of management's assessment of risk. After booking a net benefit of -$32.7 million in 2021 during a benign credit period, the provision has risen each year since. It increased to $14.07 million in 2022, then jumped to $42.03 million in 2023, and rose again to $46.79 million in 2024. This trend is a leading indicator that the bank expects more loans to go bad in the future.
This proactive reserving is a prudent measure, but the consistent increase itself is a negative signal about the historical stability of its loan book's performance. It suggests that the credit quality, which was strong coming out of the pandemic, has been deteriorating. For investors, this trend represents a growing risk that could further pressure future earnings.
The bank has consistently raised its dividend, but its payout ratio has ballooned to potentially unsustainable levels amid falling profits, and share buybacks have been inconsistent.
Simmons First National has a positive track record of increasing its dividend per share annually, growing from $0.68 in 2020 to $0.84 in 2024. This commitment to returning cash to shareholders is a strength. However, this positive is overshadowed by the sharp decline in earnings, which has pushed the dividend payout ratio from a safe 29.28% in 2020 to a concerning 69.05% in 2024. A high payout ratio can signal that dividend growth may need to slow or stop if profits do not recover.
Share repurchase activity has been sporadic. The company bought back over $100 million in shares in both 2021 and 2022 but has done very little since. Furthermore, the number of shares outstanding has increased over the five-year period due to acquisitions, meaning buybacks have not been sufficient to prevent shareholder dilution. This mixed approach to capital returns, especially the high payout ratio, suggests a capital return policy that is becoming stretched.
Simmons First National's future growth appears challenged. The bank's growth is heavily tied to traditional loan expansion in its regional markets, which face intense competition and are sensitive to economic cycles. Key headwinds include a weak deposit base that pressures profitability and a significant underdevelopment in fee-based income, making earnings highly dependent on interest rates. While potential acquisitions could offer a path to growth, the bank currently lacks strong organic growth drivers compared to more efficient and diversified peers. The investor takeaway is negative, as Simmons faces a difficult path to generating above-average growth in the coming years without a significant strategic shift.
Management has guided for muted loan growth, reflecting a cautious economic outlook and intense competition within its markets.
Simmons' management has indicated expectations for low-single-digit loan growth for the upcoming fiscal year, in the range of 1-2%. This tepid outlook reflects broader economic uncertainty and a competitive lending environment. While the bank may have a pipeline of unfunded commitments, soft demand from borrowers in a high-rate environment limits the potential for strong near-term expansion of its loan book. This guidance places Simmons at the lower end of the spectrum compared to peers in more dynamic markets. Without a catalyst for accelerated loan demand or a strategy to gain market share, the bank's primary earnings driver is set to underperform.
While historically acquisitive, the bank's recent M&A activity has been dormant, and it lacks a clear capital deployment plan to drive future shareholder value.
M&A has been a key part of Simmons' strategy in the past, but there have been no announced acquisitions in the last twelve months. Management has signaled a cautious approach in the current environment, focusing on organic growth and efficiency. The bank maintains solid capital ratios, with a CET1 ratio comfortably above regulatory requirements, providing it with the capacity for future moves. However, there is no active share buyback program providing a direct return of capital to shareholders. Without a clear and articulated strategy for deploying its capital—either through value-accretive M&A or share repurchases—the bank's plan to compound tangible book value per share appears stalled. This ambiguity and inaction represent a significant weakness in its future growth story.
The bank is actively consolidating its branch network to improve efficiency, but its low deposits per branch suggest it still lags peers in productivity.
Simmons has been focused on optimizing its physical footprint, having closed or consolidated a significant number of branches over the past few years to reduce operating costs. While management has not provided explicit forward-looking targets, this trend is expected to continue as more customers shift to digital channels. However, the bank's effectiveness is questionable. As noted in the moat analysis, its deposits per branch of ~$96.5 million is below the regional bank average, indicating a less productive network. Without clear and aggressive targets for both cost savings and growth in digital active users, it is difficult to see a path to top-tier operational efficiency. This lack of clear forward guidance and below-average current metrics point to a reactive rather than proactive strategy.
The bank's guidance points to continued pressure on its net interest margin due to rising deposit costs and a challenging asset repricing environment.
Management's outlook for the net interest margin (NIM) is negative, with guidance suggesting further compression in the coming quarters. The bank's NIM recently stood at 3.15% and is expected to decline further. This is a direct result of its liability-sensitive balance sheet; its cost of deposits is rising faster than the yield on its assets. With a below-average share of low-cost noninterest-bearing deposits, Simmons is more exposed to deposit pricing competition than many peers. While some loans will reprice higher, it is not enough to offset the surge in funding costs. This negative NIM outlook is a major headwind for near-term earnings growth.
The bank has no clear or aggressive targets for growing its underdeveloped fee-income businesses, continuing its heavy reliance on interest-rate-sensitive earnings.
Simmons' future growth is hampered by its weak noninterest income, which stands at only ~18% of revenue. Management has not provided any specific growth targets for key fee-generating areas like wealth management, trust services, or treasury management. This lack of focus is a major strategic weakness, as a robust fee income stream would provide a valuable buffer against the volatility of net interest income. Without a stated plan to significantly grow these businesses, whether organically or through acquisition, Simmons' earnings will remain highly vulnerable to interest rate cycles and competitive pressure on loan spreads. This failure to diversify revenue streams is a critical flaw in its growth outlook.
Based on its closing price of $17.78 on October 24, 2025, Simmons First National Corporation (SFNC) appears to be overvalued despite trading in the lower third of its 52-week range ($17.20–$25.95). The stock presents several warning signs for investors, most notably a deeply negative Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) EPS of -$3.30 and a corresponding negative Return on Equity. While the forward P/E of 9.27 suggests a potential earnings recovery and the dividend yield of 4.76% seems attractive, these are overshadowed by the company's recent unprofitability and shareholder dilution. The stock's Price-to-Book ratio of 0.77 looks cheap on the surface, but it is not justified by the bank's current inability to generate positive returns on its equity. The overall takeaway for investors is negative, as the stock appears to be a "value trap" where seemingly low valuation metrics mask significant fundamental problems.
The stock trades below its book value, but this is not a sign of undervaluation when the bank is generating a deeply negative return on its equity.
For banks, the Price-to-Book (P/B) and Price-to-Tangible-Book (P/TBV) ratios are critical valuation metrics. SFNC's P/B ratio is 0.77 (As of Oct 24, 2025), meaning it trades for 77 cents for every dollar of its net asset value (Book Value Per Share of $23.18). This discount often attracts value investors. However, the Tangible Book Value per Share is much lower at $13.45, implying a P/TBV of 1.32x ($17.78 / $13.45). The large difference is due to goodwill and intangible assets, which have less certain value. More importantly, a bank's book value is only worth what it can earn. Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE) measure this profitability. With a reported quarterly ROE of -65.22%, the bank is currently destroying shareholder value at an alarming rate. Paying for assets is unwise when those assets are generating massive losses. Therefore, the discount to book value is not only justified but may not be steep enough to compensate for the poor returns.
The Price-to-Book ratio of 0.77x is far too high for a bank with a recent quarterly Return on Equity of -65.22%, indicating a severe misalignment between price and performance.
A core principle of bank valuation is that a higher Return on Equity (ROE) justifies a higher Price-to-Book (P/B) multiple. Investors are willing to pay a premium for banks that can efficiently generate profits from their equity base. A common rule of thumb is that a bank's P/B should be roughly aligned with its ROE divided by the cost of equity (e.g., a bank with a 10% ROE might trade around 1.0x P/B). SFNC demonstrates a complete breakdown of this relationship. Its P/B ratio is 0.77, yet its most recent quarterly ROE was -65.22%. Even looking at the less dire fiscal year 2024 ROE of 4.39%, a P/B of 0.77x seems overly optimistic. A bank generating such low or negative returns should logically trade at a much steeper discount to its book value. The current market price does not adequately reflect the bank's profound unprofitability.
Recent massive losses make the TTM P/E ratio useless, and the attractive forward P/E relies entirely on a speculative and uncertain earnings recovery.
The Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio is a primary tool for valuation, but it is not useful when earnings are negative. SFNC has a TTM EPS of -$3.30, resulting in a P/E ratio of 0, which provides no insight. Investors are therefore forced to look at future estimates. The stock's forward P/E is 9.27, which is based on analysts' forecasts of future profits. A forward P/E below 10 is often considered inexpensive. However, this figure requires a heroic recovery from the recent reported loss of -$562.79 million in Q3 2025. There is significant uncertainty and risk in betting on such a drastic turnaround. Without any provided data on projected year-over-year EPS growth or a historical earnings growth rate (3Y EPS CAGR), it is impossible to validate this optimistic forecast. The disconnect between the terrible recent performance and the rosy future outlook is a major red flag.
The high dividend yield is a potential trap, as it is not supported by current earnings and the company is diluting shareholders rather than buying back stock.
On the surface, SFNC's dividend yield of 4.76% appears to be a strong source of income for investors. However, a company's ability to pay dividends comes from its profits, and SFNC reported a significant net loss in the most recent quarter. A dividend is not sustainable if a company is not generating cash. While the company paid 69.05% of its earnings as dividends in fiscal year 2024, continuing payments will be difficult without a swift return to profitability. Furthermore, instead of returning capital to shareholders through share buybacks, the company's shares outstanding have increased. The number of diluted shares outstanding grew from 126 million in Q2 2025 to 140 million in Q3 2025. This dilution means each shareholder owns a smaller piece of the company, which works against the goal of increasing shareholder value. A healthy capital return program involves both sustainable dividends and, ideally, share repurchases, neither of which is fully present here.
While the stock is trading near its 52-week low with a high dividend yield, these are symptoms of severe fundamental underperformance, not signs of a bargain.
When comparing a stock to its peers, we look for discounts that are not justified by performance. SFNC is trading near the bottom of its 52-week price range ($17.20–$25.95), which often signals a potential entry point. Its dividend yield of 4.76% is also likely higher than many peers. However, these metrics are misleading in isolation. The reason the stock price has fallen is the company's disastrous recent financial results, including a TTM P/E of 0 due to losses. A healthy regional bank would typically have a positive P/E ratio and would not be experiencing such financial distress. Its beta of 0.95 suggests it moves closely with the market, but its recent performance has been driven by company-specific issues. Without direct peer comparisons, it is clear that SFNC's valuation metrics reflect a company in turmoil, making it unattractive relative to more stable competitors.
The primary macroeconomic risk for Simmons Bank is the 'higher for longer' interest rate environment, which directly impacts its core profitability. A bank's main source of income is its Net Interest Margin (NIM)—the difference between the interest it earns on loans and what it pays for deposits. In Q1 2024, SFNC's NIM compressed to 2.53%, down significantly from 3.15% a year prior, as its cost to retain deposits has risen faster than its loan income. Should interest rates remain elevated or an economic downturn occur, the bank would face a dual threat: continued margin compression and a likely increase in loan defaults, which would force it to set aside more money to cover potential losses.
The most significant industry-specific risk is the bank's substantial concentration in Commercial Real Estate (CRE) loans. This category makes up over 42% of its total loan book, a high level of exposure to a sector facing structural headwinds from remote work and high vacancy rates, particularly in office properties. While the bank's direct office loan exposure is more modest at around $755 million, a broader downturn in CRE could lead to a wave of defaults, write-downs, and a significant hit to earnings. Furthermore, regional banks are facing intense competition for funding. Depositors can now easily move their money to larger banks or high-yield savings accounts offering better rates, forcing SFNC to pay more to keep its funding base stable, as evidenced by its interest-bearing deposit costs nearly doubling over the past year.
Looking forward, SFNC's historical reliance on growth through acquisitions presents both an opportunity and a risk. Integrating acquired banks is complex and can distract management or lead to unforeseen costs, and a poorly executed deal could harm shareholder value. Additionally, the aftermath of the 2023 regional banking crisis has brought increased regulatory scrutiny. Banks of SFNC's size may face stricter capital and liquidity requirements in the coming years, which could limit their ability to lend, grow, and return capital to shareholders through dividends or buybacks. Investors should monitor the health of the CRE market and the bank's ability to stabilize its funding costs as key indicators of its future performance.
Click a section to jump