TRUSTMARK CORP

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(1) During the first quarter of 2025, Trustmark reclassified its identifiable intangible assets, net to other assets. The prior period has been reclassified accordingly.

Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)

(1)Due to rounding, earnings (loss) per share from continuing operations and discontinued operations may not sum to earnings per share from net income.

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity (continued)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – Business, Basis of Financial Statement Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark) is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual customers through offices in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. As previously disclosed, on August 4, 2025, Trustmark’s principal subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank, initially chartered by the State of Mississippi in 1889, converted from a national banking association to a Mississippi-chartered banking corporation and changed its name to Trustmark Bank (TB).

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Trustmark and all other entities in which Trustmark has a controlling financial interest. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements, and notes thereto, included in Trustmark’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (2024 Annual Report).

Operating results for the interim periods disclosed herein are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for a full year or any future period. In the opinion of Management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for the fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements have been included. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with these accounting principles requires Management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and income and expense during the reporting periods and the related disclosures. Although Management’s estimates contemplate current conditions and how they are expected to change in the future, it is reasonably possible that in 2025 actual conditions could vary from those anticipated, which could affect Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Note 2 - Discontinued Operations

On May 31, 2024, TB completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary, Fisher Brown Bottrell Insurance, Inc. (FBBI), to Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC (MMA) for $336.9 million in cash. The transaction resulted in a pre-taxnet gain of $228.3 million. The gain, along with FBBI's historical financial results for periods prior to the sale, is reflected in Trustmark's consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations. FBBI's operating results prior to the sale have been presented as "Income From Discontinued Operations" within the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss). Cash flows from both continuing and discontinued operations are included in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows.

The following table summarizes financial information related to FBBI which has been segregated from continuing operations and reported as discontinued operations for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Note 3 – Securities Available for Sale and Held to Maturity

The following tables are a summary of the amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities available for sale and held to maturity at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

During 2022, Trustmark reclassified a total of $766.0 million of securities available for sale to securities held to maturity. At the date of these transfers, the net unrealized holding loss on the available for sale securities totaled $91.9 million ($68.9 million, net of tax). The securities were transferred at fair value, which became the cost basis for the securities held to maturity. The net unrealized holding loss will be amortized over the remaining life of the securities as a yield adjustment in a manner consistent with the amortization or accretion of the original purchase premium or discount on the associated security. There were no gains or losses recognized as a result of these transfers. At September 30, 2025, the net unamortized, unrealized loss on transferred securities included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets totaled $38.9 million compared to $46.6 million at December 31, 2024.

ACL on Securities

Securities Available for Sale

Quarterly, Trustmark evaluates if any security has a fair value less than its amortized cost. Once these securities are identified, in order to determine whether a decline in fair value resulted from a credit loss or other factors, Trustmark performs further analysis. If Trustmark determines that a credit loss exists, the credit portion of the allowance is measured by a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis using the effective interest rate as of the security’s purchase date. The amount of credit loss recorded by Trustmark is limited to the amount by which the amortized cost exceeds the fair value. The DCF analysis utilizes contractual maturities, as well as third-party credit ratings and cumulative default rates published annually by Moody’s Investor Service (Moody’s).

At both September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the results of the analysis did not identify any securities that warranted DCF analysis, andno credit loss was recognized on any of the securities available for sale.

Accrued interest receivable is excluded from the estimate of credit losses for securities available for sale. At September 30, 2025, accrued interest receivable totaled $5.9 million for securities available for sale compared to $5.0 million December 31, 2024 and was reported in other assets on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Securities Held to Maturity

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Trustmark identified no securities held to maturity with the potential for credit loss exposure. After applying appropriate analysis, the total amount of current expected credit losses waszero at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. No reserve was recorded at either September 30, 2025 or December 31, 2024.

Accrued interest receivable is excluded from the estimate of credit losses for securities held to maturity. At September 30, 2025, accrued interest receivable totaled $2.3 million for securities held to maturity compared to $2.4 million at December 31, 2024 and was reported in other assets on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

At both September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Trustmark hadno securities held to maturity that were past due 30 days or more as to principal or interest payments. Trustmark hadno securities held to maturity classified as nonaccrual at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

Trustmark monitors the credit quality of securities held to maturity on a monthly basis through credit ratings. The following table presents the amortized cost of Trustmark’s securities held to maturity by credit rating, as determined by Moody’s, at September 30,2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

The tables below include securities with gross unrealized losses for which an allowance for credit losses has not been recorded segregated by length of impairment at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

The unrealized losses shown above are due to increases in market rates over the yields available at the time of purchase of the underlying securities and not credit quality. Trustmark does not intend to sell these securities and it is more likely than not that Trustmark will not be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be at maturity.

Securities Gains and Losses

Realized gains and losses are determined using the specific identification method and are included in noninterest income (loss) as securities gains (losses), net. For the periods presented, gross realized losses as a result of calls and dispositions of securities, as well as any associated proceeds, are shown below ($ in thousands). There were no gross realized gains during the periods presented.

During the second quarter of 2024, Trustmark restructured its investment securities portfolio by selling $1.561 billion of available for sale securities with an average yield of 1.36%, which generated a loss of $182.8 million ($137.1 million, net of taxes) and was recorded to noninterest income (loss) in securities gains (losses), net. Proceeds from the sale were used to purchase $1.378 billion of available for sale securities with an average yield of 4.85%.

Securities Pledged

Securities with a carrying value of $1.749 billion and $1.910 billion at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, were pledged to collateralize public deposits and securities sold under repurchase agreements and for other purposes as permitted by law. At both September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, none of these securities were pledged under the Federal Reserve Discount Window program to provide additional contingency funding capacity.

Contractual Maturities

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities available for sale and held to maturity at September 30, 2025, by contractual maturity, are shown below ($ in thousands). Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.

Note 4 – LHFI and ACL, LHFI

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, LHFI consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

Accrued interest receivable is not included in the amortized cost basis of Trustmark’s LHFI. At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, accrued interest receivable for LHFI totaled $65.8 million and $64.7 million, respectively, with no related ACL and was reported in other assets on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Loan Concentrations

Trustmark does not have any loan concentrations other than those reflected in the preceding table, which exceed 10% of total LHFI. At September 30, 2025, Trustmark’s geographic loan distribution was concentrated primarily in itssix key market regions: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. Accordingly, the ultimate collectability of a substantial portion of these loans is susceptible to changes in market conditions in these areas.

Nonaccrual and Past Due LHFI

No material interest income was recognized in the income statement on nonaccrual LHFI for each of the periods ended September 30, 2025 and 2024.

The following tables provide the amortized cost basis of loans on nonaccrual status and loans past due 90 days or more still accruing interest at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

The following tables provide an aging analysis of the amortized cost basis of past due LHFI (including nonaccrual LHFI) at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Modified LHFI

Occasionally, Trustmark modifies loans for borrowers experiencing financial difficulty by providing payment delays, interest-only payments for an extended period of time, maturity extensions or interest rate reductions. Other concessions may arise from court proceedings or may be imposed by law. In some cases, Trustmark provides multiple types of concessions on one loan.

The following tables present the amortized cost of LHFI of loans modified to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty disaggregated by class of loan and type of modification at the end of each of the periods presented ($ in thousands). The percentage of the amortized cost basis of LHFI that were modified to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty as compared to the amortized cost basis of each class of LHFI is also presented below:

The following tables detail the financial effect of the loan modifications presented above to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty for the periods presented:

At both September 30, 2025 and 2024, Trustmark hadno unused commitments on modified loans to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty.

For all loans modified in the previous twelve months to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, Trustmark had payment defaults during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 on $12.3 million of loans in the commercial and industrial portfolio that had received payment delay modifications and $439 thousand of loans in the other secured by 1-4 family residential properties that had received a term extension modification. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024, payment defaults of LHFI that were modified within the twelve months prior to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty were immaterial.

Trustmark has utilized loans 90 days or more past due to define payment default in determining modified loans that have subsequently defaulted. If Trustmark determines that a modified loan (or a portion of a loan) has subsequently been deemed uncollectible, the loan (or a portion of the loan) is charged off against the ACL, LHFI.

Trustmark closely monitors the performance of loans that are modified to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty to understand the effectiveness of its modification efforts. The following tables provide details of the performance of such LHFI that have been modified in the preceding twelve months as of September 30, 2025 and 2024 ($ in thousands):

Collateral-Dependent Loans

The following tables present the amortized cost basis of collateral-dependent loans by class of loans and collateral type as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

A loan is collateral dependent when the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty and repayment of the loan is expected to be provided substantially through the sale of the collateral. The following provides a qualitative description by class of loan of the collateral that secures Trustmark’s collateral-dependent LHFI:

•

Loans secured by real estate – Loans within these loan classes are secured by liens on real estate properties. There have been no significant changes to the collateral that secures these financial assets during the period.

•

Other loans secured by real estate – Loans within these loan classes are secured by liens on real estate properties. There have been no significant changes to the collateral that secures these financial assets during the period.

•

Commercial and industrial loans – Loans within this loan class are primarily secured by inventory, accounts receivables, equipment and other non-real estate collateral. There have been no significant changes to the collateral that secures these financial assets during the period.

•

Other commercial loans and leases – Loans and leases within this loan class are secured by non-real estate collateral. There have been no significant changes to the collateral that secures these financial assets during the period.

Credit Quality Indicators

Trustmark’s LHFI portfolio credit quality indicators focus onsix key quality ratios that are compared against bank tolerances. The loan indicators are total classified outstanding, total criticized outstanding, nonperforming loans, nonperforming assets, delinquencies and net loan losses. Due to the homogeneous nature of consumer loans, Trustmark does not assign a formal internal risk rating to each credit and therefore the criticized and classified measures are primarily composed of commercial loans.

In addition to monitoring portfolio credit quality indicators, Trustmark also measures how effectively the lending process is being managed and risks are being identified. As part of an ongoing monitoring process, Trustmark grades the commercial portfolio segment as it relates to credit file completion and financial statement exceptions, underwriting, collateral documentation and compliance with law as shown below:

•

Credit File Completeness and Financial Statement Exceptions – evaluates the quality and condition of credit files in terms of content and completeness and focuses on efforts to obtain and document sufficient information to determine the quality and status of credits. Also included is an evaluation of the systems/procedures used to ensure compliance with policy.

•

Underwriting – evaluates whether credits are adequately analyzed, appropriately structured and properly approved within loan policy requirements. A properly approved credit is approved by an adequate authority in a timely manner with all conditions of approval fulfilled. Total policy exceptions measure the level of underwriting and other policy exceptions within a portfolio segment.

•

Collateral Documentation – focuses on the adequacy of documentation to perfect Trustmark’s collateral position and substantiate collateral value. Collateral exceptions measure the level of documentation exceptions within a portfolio segment. Collateral exceptions occur when certain collateral documentation is either not present or not current.

•

Compliance with Law – focuses on underwriting, documentation, approval and reporting in compliance with banking laws and regulations. Primary emphasis is directed to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Regulation O requirements and regulations governing appraisals.

Commercial Credits

Trustmark has established a loan grading system that consists of ten individual credit risk grades (risk ratings) that encompass a range from loans where the expectation of loss is negligible to loans where loss has been established. The model is based on the risk of default for an individual credit and establishes certain criteria to delineate the level of risk across the ten unique credit risk grades. Credit risk grade definitions are as follows:

•

Risk Rate (RR) 1 through RR 6 – Grades one through six represent groups of loans that are not subject to criticism as defined in regulatory guidance. Loans in these groups exhibit characteristics that represent low to moderate risk measured by using a variety of credit risk criteria such as cash flow coverage, debt service coverage, balance sheet leverage, liquidity, management experience, industry position, prevailing economic conditions, support from secondary sources of repayment and other credit factors that may be relevant to a specific loan. In general, these loans are supported by properly margined collateral and guarantees of principal parties.

•

Other Assets Especially Mentioned (Special Mention) (RR 7) – a loan that has a potential weakness that if not corrected will lead to a more severe rating. This rating is for credits that are currently protected but potentially weak because of an adverse feature or condition that if not corrected will lead to a further downgrade.

•

Substandard (RR 8) – a loan that has at least one identified weakness that is well defined. This rating is for credits where the primary sources of repayment are not viable at the time of evaluation or where either the capital or collateral is not adequate to support the loan and the secondary means of repayment do not provide a sufficient level of support to offset the identified weakness. Loss potential exists in the aggregate amount of substandard loans but does not necessarily exist in individual loans.

•

Doubtful (RR 9) – a loan with an identified weakness that does not have a valid secondary source of repayment. Generally, these credits have an impaired primary source of repayment and secondary sources are not sufficient to prevent a loss in the credit. The exact amount of the loss has not been determined at this time.

•

Loss (RR 10) – a loan or a portion of a loan that is deemed to be uncollectible.

By definition, credit risk grades special mention (RR 7), substandard (RR 8), doubtful (RR 9) and loss (RR 10) are criticized loans while substandard (RR 8), doubtful (RR 9) and loss (RR 10) are classified loans. These definitions are standardized by all bank regulatory agencies and are generally equally applied to each individual lending institution. The remaining credit risk grades are considered pass credits and are solely defined by Trustmark.

To enhance this process, Trustmark has determined that certain loans will be individually assessed, and a formal analysis will be performed and based upon the analysis the loan will be written down to the net realizable value. Trustmark will individually assess and remove loans from the pool in the following circumstances:

•

Commercial nonaccrual loans with total exposure of $500 thousand (excluding those portions of the debt that are government guaranteed or are secured by Trustmark deposits or marketable securities) or more.

•

Any loan that is believed to not share similar risk characteristics with the rest of the pool will be individually assessed. Otherwise, the loan will be left within the pool based on the results of the assessment.

•

Commercial accruing loans deemed to be a modified loan to a borrower experiencing financial difficulty with total exposure of $500 thousand (excluding those portions of the debt that are government guaranteed or are secured by Trustmark deposits or marketable securities) or more. If the loan is believed to not share similar risk characteristics with the rest of the loan pool, the loan will be individually assessed. Otherwise, the loan will be left within the pool and monitored on an ongoing basis.

Each loan officer assesses the appropriateness of the internal risk rating assigned to their credits on an ongoing basis. Trustmark’s Asset Review area conducts independent credit quality reviews of the majority of Trustmark’s commercial loan portfolio both on the underlying credit quality of each individual loan class as well as the adherence to Trustmark’s loan policy and the loan administration process.

In addition to the ongoing internal risk rate monitoring described above, Trustmark’s Credit Quality Review Committee meets monthly and performs a review of all loans of $100 thousand or more that are either delinquent 30 days or more or on nonaccrual. This review includes recommendations regarding risk ratings, accrual status, charge-offs and appropriate servicing officer as well as evaluation of problem credits for determination of modified status. Quarterly, the Credit Quality Review Committee reviews and modifies continuous action plans for all credits risk rated seven or worse for relationships of $250 thousand or more.

In addition, periodic reviews of significant development, construction, multi-family, nonowner-occupied and other commercial credits are performed. These reviews assess each particular project with respect to location, project valuations, progress of completion, leasing status, current financial information, rents, operating expenses, cash flow, adherence to budget and projections and other information that is pertinent to the particular type of credit as applicable. Summary results are reviewed by Senior and Regional Credit Officers in addition to the Chief Credit and Operations Officer with a determination made as to the appropriateness of existing risk ratings and accrual status.

Consumer Credits

The Retail Credit Review Committee, Management Credit Policy Committee and the Enterprise Risk Committee review the volume and percentage of consumer loan delinquencies and losses to monitor the overall quality of the consumer portfolio.

Trustmark monitors the levels and severity of past due consumer LHFI on a daily basis through its collection activities. A detailed assessment of consumer LHFI delinquencies is performed monthly at both a product and market level.

The tables below present the amortized cost basis of loans by credit quality indicator and class of loans based on analyses performed at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Past Due LHFS

LHFS past due 90 days or more totaled $77.9 million and $71.3 million at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. LHFS past due 90 days or more are serviced loans eligible for repurchase, which are fully guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA). GNMA optional repurchase programs allow financial institutions to buy back individual delinquent mortgage loans that meet certain criteria from the securitized loan pool for which the institution provides servicing. At the servicer’s option and without GNMA’s prior authorization, the servicer may repurchase such a delinquent loan for an amount equal to 100% of the remaining principal balance of the loan. This buy-back option is considered a conditional option until the delinquency criteria are met, at which time the option becomes unconditional. When Trustmark is deemed to have regained effective control over these loans under the unconditional buy-back option, the loans can no longer be reported as sold and must be brought back onto the balance sheet as loans held for sale, regardless of whether Trustmark intends to exercise the buy-back option. These loans are reported as held for sale with the offsetting liability being reported as short-term borrowings.

Trustmark did not exercise its buy-back option on any delinquent loans serviced for GNMA during the first nine months of 2025 or 2024.

ACL on LHFI

Trustmark’s ACL methodology for LHFI is based upon guidance within the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Subtopic 326-20, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses-Measured at Amortized Cost,” as well as applicable regulatory guidance. The ACL is a valuation account that is deducted from the loans’ amortized cost basis to present the net amount expected to be collected on the loans. Credit quality within the LHFI portfolio is continuously monitored by Management and is reflected within the ACL for LHFI. The ACL is an estimate of expected losses inherent within Trustmark’s existing LHFI portfolio. The ACL for LHFI is adjusted through the PCL, LHFI and reduced by the charge off of loan amounts, net of recoveries.

The methodology for estimating the amount of expected credit losses reported in the ACL has two basic components: a collective, or pooled, component for estimated expected credit losses for pools of loans that share similar risk characteristics, and an asset-specific component involving individual loans that do not share risk characteristics with other loans and the measurement of expected credit losses for such individual loans. In estimating the ACL for the collective component, loans are segregated into loan pools based on loan product types and similar risk characteristics.

The loans secured by real estate and other loans secured by real estate portfolio segments include loans for both commercial and residential properties. The underwriting process for these loans includes analysis of the financial position and strength of both the borrower and guarantor, experience with similar projects in the past, market demand and prospects for successful completion of the proposed project within the established budget and schedule, values of underlying collateral, availability of permanent financing, maximum loan-to-value ratios, minimum equity requirements, acceptable amortization periods and minimum debt service coverage requirements, based on property type. The borrower’s financial strength and capacity to repay their obligations remain the primary focus of underwriting. Financial strength is evaluated based upon analytical tools that consider historical and projected cash flows and performance in addition to analysis of the proposed project for income-producing properties. Additional support offered by guarantors is also considered. Ultimate repayment of these loans is sensitive to interest rate changes, general economic conditions, liquidity and availability of long-term financing.

The commercial and industrial loans portfolio segment includes loans made to many types of businesses for various purposes, such as short-term working capital loans that are usually secured by accounts receivable and inventory and term financing for equipment and fixed asset purchases that are secured by those assets. Trustmark’s credit underwriting process for commercial and industrial loans includes analysis of historical and projected cash flows and performance, evaluation of financial strength of both borrowers and guarantors as reflected in current and detailed financial information and evaluation of underlying collateral to support the credit.

The consumer loans portfolio segment is comprised of loans that are centrally underwritten based on the borrower's credit bureau score as well as an evaluation of the borrower’s repayment capacity, credit, and collateral. Property appraisals are obtained to assist in evaluating collateral. Loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, loan amount, and lien position are also considered in assessing whether to originate a loan. These borrowers are particularly susceptible to downturns in economic trends such as conditions that negatively affect housing prices and demand and levels of unemployment.

The state and other political subdivision loans and the other commercial loans and leases portfolio segments primarily consist of loans to non-depository financial institutions, such as mortgage companies, finance companies and other financial intermediaries, loans to state and political subdivisions, and loans to non-profit and charitable organizations. These loans are underwritten based on the specific nature or purpose of the loan and underlying collateral with special consideration given to the specific source of repayment for the loan. The lease segment primarily consists of commercial equipment finance leases. Trustmark’s credit underwriting process for equipment finance leases includes analysis of historical and projected cash flows and performance, evaluation of financial strength of both borrowers and guarantors as reflected in current and detailed financial information and evaluation of underlying collateral to support the credit.

During the first quarter of 2025, as part of Trustmark's ongoing model monitoring procedures, the annual loss driver analysis was performed. The analysis resulted in changes in the loss drivers for four discounted cash-flow models. These changes were a result of incorporating data through 2024 which led to more intuitive loss drivers. All models were validated by a third party before implementation.

During the first quarter of 2024, as part of Trustmark's ongoing model monitoring procedures, the annual loss driver analysis was performed. The analysis resulted in changes in the loss drivers for all discounted cash-flow models along with changes in the loss drivers for the equipment and finance loans and leases model. These changes were a result of updating Trustmark's peer group and incorporating data through 2022 which led to more intuitive loss drivers. All models were validated by a third party before implementation.

The following table provides a description of each of Trustmark’s portfolio segments, loan classes, loan pools and the ACL methodology and loss drivers at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024:

(1)Loss driver was National HPI at December 31, 2024.

(2)Loss driver was National Unemployement at December 31, 2024.

In general, Trustmark utilizes a DCF method to estimate the quantitative portion of the ACL for loan pools. The DCF model consists of two key components, a loss driver analysis (LDA) and a cash flow analysis. For loan pools utilizing the DCF methodology, multiple assumptions are in place, depending on the loan pool. A reasonable and supportable forecast is utilized for each loan pool by developing a LDA for each loan class. The LDA uses charge off data from Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) reports to construct a periodic default rate (PDR). The PDR is decomposed into a PD. Regressions are run using the data for various macroeconomic variables in order to determine which ones correlate to Trustmark’s losses. These variables are then incorporated into the application to calculate a quarterly PD using a third-party baseline forecast. In addition to the PD, a LGD is derived using a method referred to as Frye-Jacobs. The Frye-Jacobs method is a mathematical formula that traces the relationship between LGD and PD over time and projects the LGD based on the levels of PD forecasts. This model approach is applicable to all pools within the construction, land development and other land, other secured by 1-4 family residential properties, secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties and other real estate secured loan classes as well as consumer loans and other commercial loans.

An alternative LDA is utilized to support the PD and LGD assumptions necessary to apply a DCF methodology to the other construction pool. Fundamentally, this approach utilizes publicly reported default balances and leverages a generalized linear model (GLM) framework to estimate PD. Taken together, these differences allow for results to be scaled to be specific and directly applicable to the other construction segment. LGD is assumed to be a through-the-cycle constant based on the actual performance of Trustmark’s other construction segment. These assumptions are then input into the DCF model and used in conjunction with prepayment data to calculate the cash flows at the individual loan level. Management believes this methodology is commensurate with the level of risk in the pool.

For the commercial and industrial loans related pools, Trustmark uses its own PD and LGD data, instead of the macroeconomic variables and the Frye-Jacobs method described above, to calculate the PD and LGD as there were no defensible macroeconomic variables that correlated to Trustmark’s losses. Trustmark utilizes a third-party Bond Default Study to derive the PD and LGD for the obligations of state and political subdivisions pool. Due to the lack of losses within this pool, no defensible macroeconomic factors were identified to correlate.

The PD and LGD measures are used in conjunction with prepayment data as inputs into the DCF model to calculate the cash flows at the individual loan level. Contractual cash flows based on loan terms are adjusted for PD, LGD and prepayments to derive loss cash flows. These loss cash flows are discounted by the loan’s coupon rate to arrive at the discounted cash flow based quantitative loss. The prepayment studies are updated quarterly by a third-party for each applicable pool.

An alternate method of estimating the ACL is used for certain loan pools due to specific characteristics of these loans. For the non-DCF pools, specifically, those using the weighted average remaining maturity (WARM) method, the remaining life is incorporated into the ACL quantitative calculation.

During the second quarter of 2024, Trustmark executed a sale on a portfolio of 1-4 family mortgage loans that were at least three payments delinquent and/or nonaccrual at the time of selection. As a result of this sale, a credit mark was established for a sub-pool of the loans in the sale. Due to the lack of historical experience and the use of industry data for this sub-pool, management elected to use the credit mark for reserving purposes on a go forward basis for this sub-pool that meets the same credit criteria of being three payments delinquent and/or nonaccrual. All loans of the sub-pool that meet the above credit criteria will be removed from the 1-4 family residential properties pool and placed into a separate pool with the credit mark reserve applied to the total balance.

Trustmark determined that reasonable and supportable forecasts could be made for a twelve-month period for all of its loan pools. To the extent the lives of the loans in the LHFI portfolio extend beyond this forecast period, Trustmark uses a reversion period of four quarters and reverts to the historical mean on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of the loans. The econometric models currently in production reflect segment or pool level sensitivities of PD to changes in macroeconomic variables. By measuring the relationship between defaults and changes in the economy, the quantitative reserve incorporates reasonable and supportable forecasts of future conditions that will affect the value of Trustmark’s assets, as required by FASB ASC Topic 326. Under stable forecasts, these linear regressions will reasonably predict a pool’s PD. However, upon the occurrence of events that generate significant economic instability (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), the macroeconomic variables used for reasonable and supportable forecasting can change rapidly. At the macroeconomic levels experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not clear that the models in production at that time would produce reasonably representative results since the models at that time were originally estimated using data beginning in 2004 through 2019. During this period, a traditional, albeit severe, economic recession occurred. Thus, econometric models are sensitive to similar future levels of PD.

In order to prevent the econometric models from extrapolating beyond reasonable boundaries of their input variables, Trustmark chose to establish an upper and lower limit process when applying the periodic forecasts. In this way, Management will not rely upon unobserved and untested relationships in the setting of the quantitative reserve. This approach applies to all input variables, including: Southern Unemployment, National Unemployment, National Gross Domestic Product (GDP), National Home Price Index (HPI), National Commercial Real Estate (CRE) Price Index and the BBB 7-10 Year US Corporate Bond Index (CBI). The upper and lower limits are based on the distribution of the macroeconomic variable by selecting extreme percentiles at the upper and lower limits of the distribution, the 1 stand 99 thpercentiles, respectively. These upper and lower limits are then used to calculate the PD for the forecast time period in which the forecasted values are outside of the upper and lower limit range. Additionally, when periods have a PD or

LGD at or near zero as a result of the improving macroeconomic forecasts, Management implemented PD and LGD floors to account for the risk associated with each portfolio. The PD and LGD floors are based on Trustmark’s historical loss experience and applied at a portfolio level.

Qualitative factors used in the ACL methodology include the following:

•

Lending policies and procedures

•

Economic conditions and concentrations of credit

•

Nature and volume of the portfolio

•

Performance trends

•

External factors

While all these factors are incorporated into the overall methodology, only three are currently considered active at September 30, 2025: (i) economic conditions and concentrations of credit, (ii) nature and volume of the portfolio, and (iii) performance trends.

Two of Trustmark’s largest loan classes are the loans secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties and the loans secured by other real estate. Trustmark elected to create a qualitative factor specifically for these loan classes which addresses changes in the economic conditions of metropolitan areas and applies additional pool level reserves. This qualitative factor is based on third-party market data and forecast trends and is updated quarterly as information is available, by market and by loan pool.

Trustmark's current quantitative methodologies do not completely incorporate changes in credit quality. As a result, Trustmark utilizes the performance trends qualitative factor. This factor is based on migration analyses, that allocates additional ACL to non-pass/delinquent loans within each pool. In this way, Management believes the ACL will directly reflect changes in risk, based on the performance of the loans within a pool, whether declining or improving.

The performance trends qualitative factor is estimated by properly segmenting loan pools into risk levels by risk rating for commercial credits and delinquency status for consumer credits. A migration analysis is then performed quarterly using a third-party software and the results for each risk level are compiled to calculate the historical PD average for each loan portfolio based on risk levels. This average historical PD rate is updated annually. For the mortgage portfolio, Trustmark uses an internal report to incorporate a roll rate method for the calculation of the PD rate. In addition to the PD rate for each portfolio, Management incorporates the quantitative rate and the k value derived from the Frye-Jacobs method to calculate a loss estimate that includes both PD and LGD. The quantitative rate is used to eliminate any additional reserve that the quantitative reserve already includes. Finally, the loss estimate rate is then applied to the total balances for each risk level for each portfolio to calculate a qualitative reserve.

Management elected to activate the nature and volume of the portfolio qualitative factor for a sub-pool of the secured by 1-4 family residential properties due to its significant size as well as the underlying nature being different. The nature and volume of the portfolio qualitative factor utilizes a WARM methodology that uses industry data for the assumptions to support the qualitative adjustment. The industry data is used to compile a PD based on credit score ranges along with using the industry data to compile an LGD. The sub-pool of credits is then aggregated into the appropriate credit score bands in which a weighted average loss rate is calculated based on the PD and LGD for each credit score range. This weighted average loss rate is then applied to the expected balance for the sub-segment of credits. This total is then used as the qualitative reserve adjustment. During the first quarter of 2025, Management elected to utilize Trustmark’s historical data to develop a PD based on the credit score ranges initially established. Additionally, Management elected to use the same LGD value from the mortgage sale that occurred in the second quarter of 2024 along with the same weighted average life assumption utilized to determine the credit mark on this portfolio.

The external factors qualitative factor is Management’s best judgment on the loan or pool level impact of all factors that affect the portfolio that are not accounted for using any other part of the ACL methodology (e.g., natural disasters, changes in legislation, impacts due to technology and pandemics). During the third quarter of 2024, Trustmark activated the External Factor – Credit Quality Review qualitative factor. This qualitative factor ensures reserve adequacy for collectively evaluated commercial loans that may not have been identified and downgraded timely for various reasons. This qualitative factor population is all commercial loans risk rated 1-5. These loans are then applied to the historical average of the Watch/Special Mention rated percentage. Then the balance of these loans are applied additional reserves based on the same reserve rates utilized in the performance trends qualitative factor for Watch/Special Mention rated loans. Then the Watch/Special Mention population is applied the historical Substandard rated percentage and then subsequently applied the Substandard reserve rate utilized in the performance trends qualitative factor as well. The historical Watch/Special Mention and Substandard rated percentage averages captures the weighted average life of the commercial loan portfolio. Thus, Trustmark will allocate additional reserves to capture the proportion of potential Watch/Special Mention and Substandard rated credits that may not have been categorized as such at any given point in time through the life of the commercial loan portfolio.

During the third quarter of 2025, Management determined that the risk related to delayed identification and downgrading of commercial loans had sufficiently diminished and, as a result, resolved the External Factor – Credit Quality Review qualitative factor and released the associated reserves.

The following tables disaggregate the ACL and the amortized cost basis of the loans by the measurement methodology used at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Changes in the ACL, LHFI were as follows for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

The following tables detail changes in the ACL, LHFI by loan class for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

The PCL, LHFI for the three months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to loan growth and changes in the macroeconomic forecast.

The negative PCL, LHFI for the other construction, secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties and state and other political subdivisions portfolios for the three months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to positive credit migration and the release in reserves associated with the resolution of the External Factor - Credit Quality Review qualitative factor.

The PCL, LHFI for the commercial and industrial portfolio for the three months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to specific reserves on individually analyzed credits. The PCL, LHFI for all other portfolios for the three months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to net changes in the qualitative factors.

The negative PCL, LHFI for the secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties portfolio for the three months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to changes in the macroeconomic forecast.

The PCL, LHFI for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to loan growth, changes in the macroeconomic forecast, coupled with net adjustments to the qualitative factors due to credit migration and modeling assumption updates to utilize bank historical data.

The negative PCL, LHFI for the other construction and secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties portfolios for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to segmentation migration, positive credit migration and a decline in loan balances.

The PCL, LHFI for the secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties, other construction and other real estate secured portfolios for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to changes in the macroeconomic forecast associated with these specific loss driver models as a result of the loss driver update, coupled with net adjustments to the qualitative factors due to credit migration and loan growth. The PCL, LHFI for the secured by 1-4 family residential properties portfolio for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to adjustments to the Nature and Volume of Portfolio qualitative factor, coupled with implementing the credit mark reserve as a result of the mortgage loan sale. The PCL, LHFI for the commercial and industrial portfolio for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to net adjustments to the qualitative factors due to credit migration coupled with an increase in specific reserves for individually analyzed credits.

The negative PCL, LHFI for the construction, land development and other land, other secured by 1-4 family residential properties, and other commercial loans and leases portfolios for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to changes in the macroeconomic forecast associated with these specific loss driver models as a result of the loss driver update for these loan portfolios

Note 5 – Mortgage Banking

MSR

The activity in the MSR is detailed in the table below for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Trustmark determines the fair value of the MSR using a valuation model administered by a third party that calculates the present value of estimated future net servicing income. Trustmark considers the conditional prepayment rate (CPR), which is an estimated loan prepayment rate that uses historical prepayment rates for previous loans similar to the loans being evaluated, the float rate, which is the interest rate earned on escrow balances, and the discount rate as some of the primary assumptions used in determining the fair value of the MSR. An increase in either the CPR or discount rate assumption will result in a decrease in the fair value of the MSR, while a decrease in either assumption will result in an increase in the fair value of the MSR. An increase in the float rate will result in an increase in the fair value of the MSR, while a decrease in the float rate will result in a decrease in the fair value of the MSR. At September 30, 2025, the fair value of the MSR included an assumed average prepayment speed of 9 CPR and an average discount rate of 10.66% compared to an assumed average prepayment speed of 9 CPR and an average discount rate of 10.64% at September 30, 2024.

Mortgage Loans Serviced/Sold

During the first nine months of 2025 and 2024, Trustmark sold $858.3 million and $843.6 million, respectively, of residential mortgage loans. Gains on these sales were recorded as noninterest income in mortgage banking, net and totaled $15.1 million for the first nine months of 2025 compared to $14.8 million for the first nine months of 2024.

The table below details the mortgage loans sold and serviced for others at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Trustmark is subject to losses in its loan servicing portfolio due to loan foreclosures. Trustmark has obligations to either repurchase the outstanding principal balance of a loan or make the purchaser whole for the economic benefits of a loan if it is determined that the loan sold was in violation of representations or warranties made by Trustmark at the time of the sale, herein referred to as mortgage loan servicing putback expenses. Such representations and warranties typically include those made regarding loans that had missing or insufficient file documentation, loans that do not meet investor guidelines, loans in which the appraisal does not support the value and/or loans obtained through fraud by the borrowers or other third parties. Generally, putback requests may be made until the loan is paid in full. However, mortgage loans delivered to Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) on or after January 1, 2013 are subject to the Representations and Warranties Framework, which provides certain instances in which FNMA and FHLMC will not exercise their remedies, including a putback request, for breaches of certain selling representations and warranties, such as payment history and quality control review.

When a putback request is received, Trustmark evaluates the request and takes appropriate actions based on the nature of the request. Trustmark is required by FNMA and FHLMC to provide a response to putback requests within 60 days of the date of receipt. The total mortgage loan servicing putback expense is included in other expense. Trustmark hadno mortgage loan servicing putback expense for thethree and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024. At both September 30, 2025 and 2024, Trustmark had a reserve for mortgage loan servicing putback expenses of $500 thousand.

There is inherent uncertainty in reasonably estimating the requirement for reserves against potential future mortgage loan servicing putback expenses. Future putback expenses are dependent on many subjective factors, including the review procedures of the purchasers and the potential refinance activity on loans sold with servicing released and the subsequent consequences under the representations and warranties. Trustmark believes that it has appropriately reserved for potential mortgage loan servicing putback requests.

Note 6 – Other Real Estate

At September 30, 2025, Trustmark’s geographic other real estate distribution was concentrated in its Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas market regions. The ultimate recovery of a substantial portion of the carrying amount of other real estate is susceptible to changes in market conditions in these regions.

For the periods presented, changes and gains (losses), net on other real estate were as follows ($ in thousands):

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, other real estate by type of property consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, other real estate by geographic location consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

(1)

Mississippi includes Central and Southern Mississippi Regions.

(2)

Tennessee includes Memphis, Tennessee and Northern Mississippi Regions.

At September 30, 2025, the balance of other real estate included $3.9 million of foreclosed residential real estate properties recorded as a result of obtaining physical possession of the property compared to $2.3 million at December 31, 2024. At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the recorded investment of consumer mortgage loans secured by residential real estate properties for which formal foreclosure proceedings are in process was$7.4 millionand $7.6 million, respectively.

Note 7 – Leases

Lessor Arrangements

Trustmark leases certain types of machinery and equipment to its customers through sales-type and direct financing leases as part of its equipment financing portfolio. These leases generally have remaining lease terms ofone tonine years, some of which include renewal options and/or options for the lessee to purchase the leased property near or at the end of the lease term. Trustmark recognized interest income from its sales-type and direct financing leases of $5.0 million and $12.8 million for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, compared to $3.6 million and $9.1 million for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2024, respectively. Trustmark does not have any significant operating leases in which it is the lessor.

The table below summarizes the components of Trustmark's net investment in its sales-type and direct financing leases for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

The table below details the minimum future lease payments for Trustmark's leases receivable at September 30, 2025 ($ in thousands):

Lessee Arrangements

For Trustmark's lessee arrangements, the leases of FBBI are included in discontinued operations and as a result, have been excluded from the amounts below. The following table details the components of net lease cost for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

The following table details the cash payments included in the measurement of lease liabilities during the periods presented ($ in thousands):

The following table details balance sheet information, as well as weighted-average lease terms and discount rates, related to leases at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

At September 30, 2025, future minimum rental commitments under finance and operating leases were as follows ($ in thousands):

Note 8 – Deposits

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, deposits consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

(1) During the first quarter of 2025, Trustmark ceased the daily sweep from low transaction interest-bearing demand deposits to savings deposits. The prior period has been reclassified accordingly.

Note 9 – Securities Sold Under Repurchase Agreements

Trustmark utilizes securities sold under repurchase agreements as a source of borrowing in connection with overnight repurchase agreements offered to commercial deposit customers by using its unencumbered investment securities as collateral. Trustmark accounts for its securities sold under repurchase agreements as secured borrowings in accordance with FASB ASC Subtopic 860-30, “Transfers and Servicing – Secured Borrowing and Collateral.” Securities sold under repurchase agreements are stated at the amount of cash received in connection with the transaction. Trustmark monitors collateral levels on a continual basis and may be required to provide additional collateral based on the fair value of the underlying securities. Trustmark hadno securities sold under repurchase agreements at September 30, 2025. The securities sold under repurchase agreements at December 31, 2024 were secured by securities with a carrying amount of$40.3 million. Trustmark’s repurchase agreements are transa cted under master repurchase agreements that give Trustmark, in the event of default by the counterparty, the right of offset with the same counterparty. At December 31, 2024, all repurchase agreements were short-term and consisted primarily of sweep repurchase arrangements, under which excess deposits are

“swept”into overnight repurchase agreements with Trustmark. The following table presents the securities sold under repurchase agreements by collateral pledged at December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Note 10 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers

Trustmark accounts for revenue from contracts with customers in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers,” which provides that revenue be recognized in a manner that depicts the transfer of goods or services to a customer in an amount that reflects the consideration Trustmark expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. Revenue from contracts with customers is recognized either over time in a manner that depicts Trustmark’s performance, or at a point in time when control of the goods or services are transferred to the customer. Trustmark’s noninterest income (loss), excluding all of mortgage banking, net and securities gains (losses), net and portions of bank card and other fees and other, net, are considered within the scope of FASB ASC Topic 606. Gains or losses on the sale of other real estate, which are included in Trustmark’s noninterest expense as other expense, are also within the scope of FASB ASC Topic 606.

Trustmark records a gain or loss from the sale of other real estate when control of the property transfers to the buyer. Trustmark records the gain or loss from the sale of other real estate in noninterest expense as other expense. Other real estate sales for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 resulted in net losses of $179 thousand and $323 thousand, respectively, compared to net losses of $92 thousand and $1.1 million for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2024, respectively.

The Insurance Segment is included in discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2024. See Note 2 - Discontinued Operations for additional information about discontinued operations.

The following tables present noninterest income (loss) disaggregated by reportable operating segment and revenue stream for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

(1)

Noninterest income (loss) not in scope for FASB ASC Topic 606 includes customer derivatives revenue and miscellaneous credit card fee income within bank card and other fees; mortgage banking, net; amortization of tax credits, cash surrender value on various life insurance policies, earnings on Trustmark’s non-qualified deferred compensation plans, other partnership investments and rental income within other, net; and securities gains (losses), net.

(1)

Noninterest income (loss) not in scope for FASB ASC Topic 606 includes customer derivatives revenue and miscellaneous credit card fee income within bank card and other fees; mortgage banking, net; amortization of tax credits, cash surrender value on various life insurance policies, earnings on Trustmark’s non-qualified deferred compensation plans, other partnership investments and rental income within other, net; and securities gains (losses), net.

Note 11 – Defined Benefit and Other Postretirement Benefits

Qualified Pension Plan

Trustmark maintains a noncontributory tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan titled the Trustmark Corporation Pension Plan for Certain Employees of Acquired Financial Institutions (the Continuing Plan) to satisfy commitments made by Trustmark to associates covered through plans obtained in acquisitions.

The following table presents information regarding the net periodic benefit cost for the Continuing Plan for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

For the plan year ending December 31, 2025, Trustmark’s minimum required contribution to the Continuing Plan is$109 thousand; however, Management and the Board of Directors of Trustmark will monitor the Continuing Plan throughout 2025 to determine any additional funding requirements by the plan’s measurement date, which is December 31.

Supplemental Retirement Plans

Trustmark maintains a nonqualified supplemental retirement plan covering key executive officers and senior officers as well as directors who have elected to defer fees. The plan provides for retirement and/or death benefits based on a participant’s covered salary or deferred fees. Although plan benefits may be paid from Trustmark’s general assets, Trustmark has purchased life insurance contracts on the participants covered under the plan, which may be used to fund future benefit payments under the plan. The annual measurement date for the plan is December 31. As a result of mergers prior to 2014, Trustmark became the administrator of nonqualified supplemental retirement plans, for which the plan benefits were frozen prior to the merger date.

The following table presents information regarding the net periodic benefit cost for Trustmark’s nonqualified supplemental retirement plans for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Note 12 – Stock and Incentive Compensation

Trustmark has granted restricted stock units subject to the provisions of the Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the Stock Plan). Current outstanding and future grants of restricted stock units are subject to the provisions of the Stock Plan, which is designed to provide flexibility to Trustmark regarding its ability to motivate, attract and retain the services of key associates and directors. The Stock Plan also allows Trustmark to grant nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units and performance units to key associates and directors.

Restricted Stock Grants

Performance Units

Trustmark’s performance units vest over three years and are granted to Trustmark’s executive and senior management teams. Performance units granted vest based on performance goals of return on average tangible equity and total shareholder return. Performance units are valued utilizing a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate fair value of the units at the grant date. The Monte Carlo simulation was performed by an independent valuation consultant and requires the use of subjective modeling assumptions. These units are recognized using the straight-line method over the requisite service period. These units are granted at 100% of target, yet provide for achievement units if performance measures exceed 100%. The restricted stock agreement for these units provides for dividend privileges, but no voting rights.

Time-Based Units

Trustmark’s time-based units granted to Trustmark’s executive and senior management teams vest over three years. Trustmark’s time-based units granted to members of Trustmark’s Board of Directors vest overone year. Time-based units are valued utilizing the fair value of Trustmark’s stock at the grant date. These units are amortized on the straight-line method over the earlier of the requisite service period or at age 65. The restricted stock agreement for these units provides for dividend privileges, but no voting rights.

The following tables summarize the Stock Plan activity for the period presented:

The following table presents information regarding compensation expense for units under the Stock Plan for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Note 13 – Contingencies

Lending Related

Trustmark makes commitments to extend credit and issues standby and commercial letters of credit (letters of credit) in the normal course of business in order to fulfill the financing needs of its customers. The carrying amount of commitments to extend credit and letters of credit approximates the fair value of such financial instruments.

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend money to customers pursuant to certain specified conditions. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. Because many of these commitments are expected to expire without being fully drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the commitments to extend credit is represented by the contract amount of those instruments. Trustmark applies the same credit policies and standards as it does in the lending process when making these commitments. The collateral obtained is based upon the nature of the transaction and the assessed creditworthiness of the borrower. At September 30, 2025 and 2024, Trustmark had unused commitments to extend credit of $4.410 billionand $4.469 billion, respectively.

Letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by Trustmark to insure the performance of a customer to a third-party. A financial standby letter of credit irrevocably obligates Trustmark to pay a third-party beneficiary when a customer fails to repay an outstanding loan or debt instrument. A performance standby letter of credit irrevocably obligates Trustmark to pay a third-party beneficiary when a customer fails to perform some contractual, nonfinancial obligation. When issuing letters of credit, Trustmark uses the same policies regarding credit risk and collateral, which are followed in the lending process. At September 30, 2025 and 2024, Trustmark’s maximum exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the customer for letters of credit was$142.5 million and $127.5 million, respectively. These amounts consist primarily of commitments with maturities of less than three years, which have an immaterial carrying value. Trustmark holds collateral to support standby letters of credit when deemed necessary.

ACL on Off-Balance Sheet Credit Exposures

Trustmark maintains a separate ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures, including unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit, which is included on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

During the first quarter of 2024, Management decided to implement a performance trends qualitative factor for unfunded commitments. The same assumptions are applied in this calculation that the funded balances utilize with the addition of using the funding rates on the unfunded commitments. The performance trends qualitative factor reserve is then added to the other calculated reserve to get a total reserve for off-balance sheet credit exposures.

During the third quarter of 2024, Management implemented the External Factor – Credit Quality Review qualitative factor for unfunded commitments. The same assumptions are applied in this calculation that the funded balances utilize with the addition of using the funding rates on the unfunded commitments. The Credit Quality Review qualitative factor reserve is then added to the other calculated reserve to get a total reserve for off-balance sheet credit exposures.

During the third quarter of 2025, Management determined that the risk related to delayed identification and downgrading of commercial loans had sufficiently diminished and, as a result, resolved the External Factor – Credit Quality Review qualitative factor and released the associated reserves.

Changes in the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures were as follows for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Adjustments to the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures are recorded to PCL, off-balance sheet credit exposures. The increase in the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures for the three months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to an increase in unfunded commitments and changes to the macroeconomic forecast and was partially offset by adjustments to the qualitative factors. The decrease in the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 was primarily due to the decrease in required reserves as a result of a decrease in unfunded commitments coupled with positive credit migration.

The decrease in the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures for the three months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to the decrease in required reserves as a result of a decrease in unfunded commitments coupled with the decrease in the quantitative reserve rates due to changes in the macroeconomic factors. The decreases were partially offset by an increase in required reserves as a result of implementing the External Factor - Credit Quality Review qualitative factor. The decrease in the ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 was primarily due to the decrease in required reserves as a result of a decrease in unfunded commitments partially offset by an increase in required reserves as a result of implementing the performance trend and External Factor - Credit Quality Review qualitative factors.

No credit loss estimate is reported for off-balance sheet credit exposures that are unconditionally cancellable by Trustmark or for undrawn amounts under such arrangements that may be drawn prior to the cancellation of the arrangement.

Legal Proceedings

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

In accordance with FASB ASC Subtopic 450-20, “Loss Contingencies,” Trustmark will establish an accrued liability for any litigation matter if and when such matter presents loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. At the present time, Trustmark believes, based on its evaluation and the advice of legal counsel, that a loss in any currently pending legal proceeding is not probable and a reasonable estimate cannot be made.

Note 14 – Earnings Per Share (EPS)

The following table reflects weighted-average shares used to calculate basic and diluted EPS for the periods presented (in thousands):

Weighted-average antidilutive stock awards are excluded in determining diluted EPS. Trustmark hadno weighted-average antidilutive stock awards for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024.

Note 15 – Statements of Cash Flows

The following table reflects specific transaction amounts for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Note 16 – Shareholders’ Equity

Regulatory Capital

Trustmark and TB are subject to minimum risk-based capital and leverage capital requirements, as described in the section captioned “Capital Adequacy” included in Part I. Item 1. – Business of Trustmark’s 2024 Annual Report, which are administered by the federal bank regulatory agencies. These capital requirements, as defined by federal regulations, involve quantitative and qualitative measures of assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet instruments. Trustmark’s and TB’s minimum risk-based capital requirements include a capital conservation buffer of 2.50%. Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, is not included in computing regulatory capital. Trustmark elected the five-year phase-in transition period (through December 31, 2024) related to adopting FASB ASU 2016-13 for regulatory capital purposes. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can result in certain mandatory and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the financial statements of Trustmark and TB and limit Trustmark’s and TB’s ability to pay dividends. As of September 30, 2025, Trustmark and TB exceeded all applicable minimum capital standards. In addition, Trustmark and TB met applicable regulatory guidelines to be considered well-capitalized at September 30, 2025. To be categorized in this manner, Trustmark and TB maintained, as applicable, minimum common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital, total risk-based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios as set forth in the accompanying table, and were not subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by their primary federal regulators to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measures. There are no significant conditions or events that have occurred since September 30, 2025, which Management believes have affected Trustmark’s or TB’s present classification.

The following table provides Trustmark’s and TB’s actual regulatory capital amounts and ratios under regulatory capital standards in effect at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Stock Repurchase Program

On December 5, 2023, Trustmark’s Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase program effective January 1, 2024, under which $50.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding shares could be acquired through December 31, 2024. Under this authority, Trustmark repurchased 203 thousand shares of its common stock valued at $7.5 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2024.

On December 3, 2024, Trustmark’s Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase program effective January 1, 2025, under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding shares may be acquired through December 31, 2025. The repurchase program, which is subject to market conditions and management discretion, will be implemented through open market repurchases or privately negotiated transactions. Under this authority, Trustmark repurchased 1.0 million shares of its common stock valued at $37.1 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2025.

Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The following table presents the net change in the components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and the related tax effects allocated to each component for the periods presented ($ in thousands). The amortization of prior service cost, recognized net loss due to lump sum settlements and change in net actuarial loss are included in the computation of net periodic benefit cost (see Note 11 – Defined Benefit and Other Postretirement Benefits for additional details). Reclassification adjustments related to pension and other postretirement benefit plans are included in salaries and employee benefits and other expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss). Reclassification adjustments related to the cash flow hedge derivatives are included in interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI in the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss).

The following table presents the changes in the balances of each component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for the periods presented ($ in thousands). All amounts are presented net of tax.

Note 17 – Fair Value

Financial Instruments Measured at Fair Value

The methodologies Trustmark uses in determining the fair values are based primarily on the use of independent, market-based data to reflect a value that would be reasonably expected upon exchange of the position in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The predominant portion of assets that are stated at fair value are of a nature that can be valued using prices or inputs that are readily observable through a variety of independent data providers. The providers selected by Trustmark for fair valuation data are widely recognized and accepted vendors whose evaluations support the pricing functions of financial institutions, investment and mutual funds, and portfolio managers. Trustmark has documented and evaluated the pricing methodologies used by the vendors and maintains internal processes that regularly test valuations for anomalies.

Trustmark utilizes an independent pricing service to advise it on the carrying value of the securities available for sale portfolio. As part of Trustmark’s procedures, the price provided from the service is evaluated for reasonableness given market changes. When a questionable price exists, Trustmark investigates further to determine if the price is valid. If needed, other market participants may be utilized to determine the correct fair value. Trustmark has also reviewed and confirmed its determinations in thorough discussions with the pricing source regarding their methods of price discovery.

Mortgage loan commitments are valued based on the securities prices of similar collateral, term, rate and delivery for which the loan is eligible to deliver in place of the particular security. Trustmark acquires a broad array of mortgage security prices that are supplied by a market data vendor, which in turn accumulates prices from a broad list of securities dealers. Prices are processed through a mortgage pipeline management system that accumulates and segregates all loan commitment and forward-sale transactions according to the similarity of various characteristics (maturity, term, rate, and collateral). Prices are matched to those positions that are deemed to be an eligible substitute or offset (i.e., “deliverable”) for a corresponding security observed in the marketplace.

Trustmark estimates the fair value of the MSR through the use of prevailing market participant assumptions and market participant valuation processes. This valuation is periodically tested and validated against other third-party firm valuations.

Trustmark obtains the fair value of interest rate swaps from a third-party pricing service that uses an industry standard discounted cash flow methodology. In addition, credit valuation adjustments are incorporated in the fair values to account for potential nonperformance risk. In adjusting the fair value of its interest rate swap contracts for the effect of nonperformance risk, Trustmark has considered any applicable credit enhancements such as collateral postings, thresholds, mutual puts, and guarantees. In conjunction with the FASB’s fair value measurement guidance, Trustmark made an accounting policy election to measure the credit risk of these derivative financial instruments, which are subject to master netting agreements, on a net basis by counterparty portfolio.

Trustmark has determined that the majority of the inputs used to value its interest rate swaps offered to qualified commercial borrowers fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, while the credit valuation adjustments associated with these derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads. Trustmark has assessed the significance of the impact of the credit valuation adjustments on the overall valuation of its interest rate swaps and has determined that the credit valuation adjustment is not significant to the overall valuation of these derivatives. As a result, Trustmark classifies its interest rate swap valuations in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Trustmark also utilizes exchange-traded derivative instruments such as Treasury note futures contracts and option contracts to achieve a fair value return that offsets the changes in fair value of the MSR attributable to interest rates. Fair values of these derivative instruments are determined from quoted prices in active markets for identical assets therefore allowing them to be classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. In addition, Trustmark utilizes derivative instruments such as interest rate lock commitments in its mortgage banking area which lack observable inputs for valuation purposes resulting in their inclusion in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

At this time, Trustmark presents no fair values that are derived through internal modeling. Should positions requiring fair valuation arise that are not relevant to existing methodologies, Trustmark will make every reasonable effort to obtain market participant assumptions, or independent evaluation.

Financial Assets and Liabilities

The following tables summarize financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, segregated by the level of valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value ($ in thousands). There were no transfers between fair value levels for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and the year ended December 31, 2024.

The changes in Level 3 assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis for thenine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024 are summarized as follows ($ in thousands):

(1)

Total net (loss) gain included in Mortgage banking, net relating to the MSR includes changes in fair value due to market changes and due to run-off.

Trustmark may be required, from time to time, to measure certain assets at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in accordance with GAAP. Assets at September 30, 2025, which have been measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, include collateral-dependent LHFI. A loan is collateral dependent when the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty and repayment of the loan is expected to be provided substantially through the sale of the collateral. The expected credit loss for collateral-dependent loans is measured as the difference between the amortized cost basis of the loan and the fair value of the collateral, adjusted for the estimated cost to sell. Fair value estimates for collateral-dependent loans are derived from appraised values based on the current market value or as is value of the collateral, normally from recently received and reviewed appraisals. Current appraisals are ordered on an annual basis based on the inspection date or more often if market conditions necessitate. Appraisals are obtained from state-certified appraisers and are based on certain assumptions, which may include construction or development status and the highest and best use of the property. These appraisals are reviewed by Trustmark’s Appraisal Review Department to ensure they are acceptable, and values are adjusted down for costs associated with asset disposal. At September 30, 2025, Trustmark had outstanding balances of $34.0 million with a related ACL of $9.5 million in collateral-dependent LHFI, compared to outstanding balances of $37.1 million with a related ACL of $13.7 million in collateral-dependent LHFI at December 31, 2024. The collateral-dependent LHFI are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy.

Nonfinancial Assets and Liabilities

Certain nonfinancial assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis include foreclosed assets (upon initial recognition or subsequent impairment), nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities measured at fair value in the second step of a goodwill impairment test, and intangible assets and other nonfinancial long-lived assets measured at fair value for impairment assessment.

Other real estate includes assets that have been acquired in satisfaction of debt through foreclosure and is recorded at the fair value less cost to sell (estimated fair value) at the time of foreclosure. Fair value is based on independent appraisals and other relevant factors. In the determination of fair value subsequent to foreclosure, Management also considers other factors or recent developments, such as changes in market conditions from the time of valuation and anticipated sales values considering plans for disposition, which could result in an adjustment to lower the collateral value estimates indicated in the appraisals. Periodic revaluations are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy since assumptions are used that may not be observable in the market.

Foreclosed assets of $2.7 million were remeasured during the first nine months of 2025, requiring write-downs of $502 thousand to reach their current fair values compared to $803 thousand of foreclosed assets that were remeasured during the first nine months of 2024, requiring write-downs of $130 thousand.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

FASB ASC Topic 825, “Financial Instruments,” requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis or non-recurring basis.

The carrying amounts and estimated fair values of financial instruments at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, are as follows ($ in thousands):

Fair Value Option

Trustmark has elected to account for its LHFS under the fair value option, with interest income on these LHFS reported in interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI. The fair value of the LHFS is determined using quoted prices for a similar asset, adjusted for specific attributes of that loan. The LHFS are actively managed and monitored and certain market risks of the loans may be mitigated through the use of derivatives. These derivative instruments are carried at fair value with changes in fair value recorded as noninterest income (loss) in mortgage banking, net. The changes in the fair value of LHFS are largely offset by changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, a net loss of $207 thousand and a net gain of $1.2 million, respectively, were recorded as noninterest income (loss) in mortgage banking, net for changes in the fair value of LHFS accounted for under the fair value option, compared to anet gain of $480 thousand and a net loss of $1.2 million, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024. Interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 included $2.4 million and $6.8 million, respectively, of interest earned on LHFS accounted for under the fair value option, compared to $2.4 million and $6.3 million for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2024, respectively. Election of the fair value option allows Trustmark to reduce the accounting volatility that would otherwise result from the asymmetry created by accounting for the financial instruments at the lower of cost or fair value and the derivatives at fair value. The fair value option election does not apply to GNMA optional repurchase loans which do not meet the requirements under FASB ASC Topic 825 to be accounted for under the fair value option. GNMA optional repurchase loans totaled $104.8 million and $97.6 million at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, and are included in LHFS on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. For additional information regarding GNMA optional repurchase loans, please see the section captioned “Past Due LHFS” included in Note 3 – LHFI and ACL, LHFI.

The following table provides information about the fair value and the contractual principal outstanding of the LHFS accounted for under the fair value option at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 ($ in thousands):

Note 18 – Derivative Financial Instruments

Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments

Trustmark engages in a cash flow hedging program to add stability to interest income and to manage its exposure to interest rate movements. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of fixed-rate amounts from a counterparty in exchange for Trustmark making variable-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount. Interest rate floor spreads designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts if interest rates fall below the purchased floor strike rate on the contract and payments of variable-rate amounts if interest rates fall below the sold floor strike rate on the contract. Trustmark uses such derivatives to hedge the variable cash flows associated with existing and anticipated variable-rate loan assets. At September 30, 2025, the aggregate notional value of Trustmark's interest rate swaps and floor spreads designated as cash flow hedges totaled $1.515 billion compared to $1.500 billion at December 31, 2024.

Trustmark records any gains or losses on these cash flow hedges in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Gains and losses on derivatives representing hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized over the life of the hedge on a systematic and rational basis, as documented at hedge inception in accordance with Trustmark’s accounting policy election. The earnings recognition of excluded components included in interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI totaled $132 thousand and $393 thousand of amortization expense for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, compared to$132 thousand and $341 thousand of amortization expense for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2024, respectively. As interest payments are received on Trustmark's variable-rate assets, amounts reported in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are reclassified into interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI in the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss) during the same period. During the next twelve months, Trustmark estimates that $2.7 million will be reclassified as a reduction to interest and fees on LHFS and LHFI. This amount could differ due to changes in interest rates, hedge de-designations or the addition of other hedges.

Derivatives not Designated as Hedging Instruments

Trustmark utilizes a portfolio of exchange-traded derivative instruments, such as Treasury note futures contracts and option contracts, to achieve a fair value return that economically hedges changes in the fair value of the MSR attributable to interest rates. These transactions are considered freestanding derivatives that do not otherwise qualify for hedge accounting. The total notional amount of these derivative instruments was $337.5 million at September 30, 2025 compared to $311.5 million at December 31, 2024. Changes in the fair value of these exchange-traded derivative instruments are recorded as noninterest income (loss) in mortgage banking, net and are offset by changes in the fair value of the MSR. The impact of this strategy resulted in a net negative ineffectiveness of $858 thousand and $2.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the impact was a net negative ineffectiveness of $2.0 million and $8.1 million, respectively.

As part of Trustmark’s risk management strategy in the mortgage banking area, derivative instruments such as forward sales contracts are utilized. Trustmark’s obligations under forward sales contracts consist of commitments to deliver mortgage loans, originated and/or purchased, in the secondary market at a future date. Changes in the fair value of these derivative instruments are recorded as noninterest income (loss) in mortgage banking, net and are offset by changes in the fair value of LHFS. Trustmark’s off-balance sheet obligations under these derivative instruments totaled $149.5 million at September 30, 2025, with a negative valuation adjustment of $215 thousand, compared to $110.0 million, with a positive valuation adjustment of $679 thousand, at December 31, 2024.

Trustmark also utilizes derivative instruments such as interest rate lock commitments in its mortgage banking area. Interest rate lock commitments are residential mortgage loan commitments with customers, which guarantee a specified interest rate for a specified time period. Changes in the fair value of these derivative instruments are recorded as noninterest income (loss) in mortgage banking, net and are offset by the changes in the fair value of forward sales contracts. Trustmark’s off-balance sheet obligations under these derivative instruments totaled $92.0 million at September 30, 2025, with a positive valuation adjustment of $1.3 million, compared to $52.1 million, with a positive valuation adjustment of $229 thousand, at December 31, 2024.

Trustmark offers certain derivatives products directly to qualified commercial lending clients seeking to manage their interest rate risk. Trustmark economically hedges interest rate swap transactions executed with commercial lending clients by entering into offsetting interest rate swap transactions with institutional derivatives market participants. Derivatives transactions executed as part of this program are not designated as qualifying hedging relationships and are, therefore, carried at fair value with the change in fair value recorded as noninterest income (loss) in bank card and other fees. Because these derivatives have mirror-image contractual terms, in addition to collateral provisions which mitigate the impact of non-performance risk, the changes in fair value are expected to substantially offset. The offsetting interest rate swap transactions are either cleared through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for clearable transactions or booked directly with institutional derivatives market participants for non-clearable transactions. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange rules legally characterize variation margin collateral payments made or received for centrally cleared interest rate swaps as settlements rather than collateral. As a result, centrally cleared interest rate swaps included in other assets and other liabilities are presented on a net basis in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. At September 30, 2025, Trustmark had interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $1.800 billion related to this program, compared to $1.819 billion at December 31, 2024.

Credit-risk-related Contingent Features

Trustmark has agreements with its financial institution counterparties that contain provisions where if Trustmark defaults on any of its indebtedness, including default where repayment of the indebtedness has not been accelerated by the lender, then Trustmark could also be declared in default on its derivatives obligations.

At September 30, 2025, there wasno termination value of interest rate swaps in a liability position, which includes accrued interest but excludes any adjustment for nonperformance risk, related to these agreements compared to$568 thousand at December 31, 2024. At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Trustmark had posted collateral of $2.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively, against its obligations because of negotiated thresholds and minimum transfer amounts under these agreements. If Trustmark had breached any of these triggering provisions at September 30, 2025, it could have been required to settle its obligations under the agreements at the termination value.

Credit risk participation agreements arise when Trustmark contracts with other financial institutions, as a guarantor or beneficiary, to share credit risk associated with certain interest rate swaps. These agreements provide for reimbursement of losses resulting from a third-party default on the underlying swap. At September 30, 2025, Trustmark had entered intoten risk participation agreements as a beneficiary with aggregate notional amounts of $111.1 million compared toeleven risk participation agreements as a beneficiary with an aggregate notional amount of $83.9 million at December 31, 2024. At September 30, 2025, Trustmark had entered into twenty-eight risk participation agreements as a guarantor with aggregate notional amounts of $283.3 million compared totwenty-eight risk participation agreements as a guarantor with aggregate notional amounts of $229.1 million at December 31, 2024. The aggregate fair values of these risk participation agreements were immaterial at both September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

Tabular Disclosures

The following tables disclose the fair value of derivative instruments in Trustmark’s consolidated balance sheets at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 as well as the effect of these derivative instruments on Trustmark’s results of operations for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

(1)

In accordance with GAAP, the variation margin collateral payments made or received for interest rate swaps that are centrally cleared are legally characterized as settled. As a result, the centrally cleared interest rate swaps included in other assets and other liabilities are presented on a net basis in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

The following table discloses the amount included in other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, for derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Trustmark’s interest rate swap derivative instruments are subject to master netting agreements, and therefore, eligible for offsetting in the consolidated balance sheets. Trustmark has elected to not offset any derivative instruments in its consolidated balance sheets. Information about financial instruments that are eligible for offset in the consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 is presented in the following tables ($ in thousands):

Note 19 – Segment Information

Trustmark’s management reporting structure includestwo segments: General Banking and Wealth Management. For a complete overview of Trustmark’s operating segments, see Note 21 – Segment Information included in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of Trustmark’s 2024 Annual Report.

Trustmark's reportable segments are determined by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is the designated chief operating decision maker (CODM), based upon information provided about Trustmark's products and services offered. The reportable segments are also distinguished by the level of information provided to the CEO, who uses such information to review performance of various lines of business, which are then aggregated if operating performance, products and services and customers are similar. The CEO evaluates the financial performance of Trustmark's lines of business, such as evaluating revenue streams, significant expenses and budget to actual results, in assessing the performance of Trustmark's reportable segments and in the determination of allocating resources.

The Insurance Segment is included in discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 in the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss). See Note 2 - Discontinued Operations for additional information about discontinued operations.

The accounting policies of each reportable segment are the same as those of Trustmark except for its internal allocations. Noninterest expenses for back-office operations support are allocated to segments based on estimated uses of those services. Trustmark measures the net interest income of its business segments with a process that assigns cost of funds or earnings credit on a matched-term basis. This process, called “funds transfer pricing”, charges an appropriate cost of funds to assets held by a business unit, or credits the business unit for potential earnings for carrying liabilities. The net of these charges and credits flows through to the General Banking Segment, which contains the management team responsible for determining TB’s funding and interest rate risk strategies.

The following tables disclose financial information by reportable segment for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

(1)

Other segment expenses for the General Banking Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, other real estate expense, net, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense. Other segment expenses for the Wealth Management Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense.

(1)

Other segment expenses for the General Banking Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, other real estate expense, net, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense. Other segment expenses for the Wealth Management Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense.

(1)

Other segment expenses for the General Banking Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, other real estate expense, net, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense. Other segment expenses for the Wealth Management Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense.

(1)

Other segment expenses for the General Banking Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, other real estate expense, net, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense. Other segment expenses for the Wealth Management Segment include net occupancy-premises, equipment expense, FDIC assessment expense, loan expense and other miscellaneous expense.

Note 20 – Accounting Policies Recently Adopted and Pending Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting Policies Recently Adopted

Except for the changes detailed below, Trustmark has consistently applied its accounting policies to all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

ASU 2023-07, “Segment Reporting (Topic 280): Improvements to Reportable Segment Disclosures.”Issuedin November 2023, ASU 2023-07 is intended to improve disclosures about a public entity’s reportable segments and address requests from investors and other allocators of capital for additional, more detailed information about a reportable segment’s expenses. The amendments of ASU 2023-07 require a public entity to disclose, on an annual and interim basis, significant segment expenses that are regularly provided to the chief operating decision maker (CODM) and included within each reported measure of segment profit or loss, and an amount for other segment items by reportable segment and a description of its composition. The other segment items category is the difference between segment revenue less the significant expenses disclosed and each reported measure of segment profit or loss. ASU 2023-07 also requires a public entity to provide all annual disclosures about a reportable segment’s profit or loss and assets currently required under FASB ASC Topic 280 in interim periods. The amendments of ASU 2023-07 clarify that if the CODM uses more than one measure of a segment's profit or loss in assessing segment performance and deciding how to allocate resources, a public entity may report one or more of those additional measures of segment profit. However, at least one of the reported segment profit or loss measures (or the single reported measure if only one is disclosed) should be the measure that is most consistent with the measurement principles used in measuring the corresponding amounts in the public entity's consolidated financial statements. ASU 2023-07 requires a public entity to disclose the title and position of the CODM, together with an explanation of how the CODM uses the reported measure(s) of segment profit or loss in assessing segment performance and deciding how to allocate resources. In addition, ASU 2023-07 requires that a public entity with a single reportable segment provide all the disclosures required by the amendments of ASU 2023-07 and all existing segment disclosuresin FASB ASC Topic 280. The amendments of ASU 2023-07 were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and for interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in ASU 2023-07 should be applied retrospectively to all periods presented on the financial statements. Upon implementation, the segment expense categories and amounts disclosed in the prior periods should be based on the significant segment expense categories identified and disclosed in the period of adoption. Trustmark adopted the amendments of ASU 2023-07 related to annual disclosure requirements effective January 1, 2024, and the newly required annual disclosures were included in Note 21 – Segment Information of the 2024 Annual Report. Trustmark adopted the amendments of ASU 2023-07 related to interim disclosure requirements effective January 1, 2025, and the newly required interim disclosures are included in Note 19 - Segment Information of this report. Adoption of ASU 2023-07 didnot have a material impact to Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.

ASU 2023-09, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures.” Issued in December 2023, ASU 2023-09 is intended to improve the disclosures for income taxes to address requests from investors, lenders, creditors and other allocators of capital (collectively, "investors") that use the financial statements to make capital allocation decisions. During the FASB's 2021 agenda consultation process and other stakeholder outreach, investors highlighted that the current system of income tax disclosures does not provide enough information to understand the tax provision for an entity that operates in multiple jurisdictions. Investors currently rely on the rate reconciliation table and other disclosures, including total income taxes paid in the statement of cash flows, to evaluate income tax risks and opportunities. The amendments in ASU 2023-09 will require consistent categories and greater disaggregation of information in the rate reconciliation disclosure as well as disclosure of income taxes paid disaggregated by jurisdiction. The amendments of ASU 2023-09 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2024, and early adoption is permitted for annual financial statements that have not yet been issued or made available for issuance. Trustmark adopted the amendments of ASU 2023-09 effective January 1, 2025, and will include the required disclosures in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2025. Trustmark is currently evaluating the changes to disclosures required by ASU 2023-09; however, adoption of ASU 2023-09 isnot expected to have a material impact to Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.

Pending Accounting Pronouncements

ASU 2024-03, “Income Statement-Reporting Comprehensive Income-Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses.” Issued in November 2024, ASU 2024-03 with the objective of providing investors with more decision-useful information regarding a public business entity's expenses by enhancing disclosures on income statement expenses. Investor feedback indicated a strong preference for the disclosure of disaggregated financial reporting information as a top priority for the FASB. Detailed knowledge of an entity's expenses is crucial for understanding its prospects for future cash flows and for making performance comparisons over time and with other entities. Investors emphasized that information regarding cost of sales, selling, general, and administrative expenses, employee compensation costs, depreciation and amortization, and research and development expenditure would enhance their comprehension of an entity's cost structure and ability to forecast future cash flows. The ASU applies exclusively to public business entities and mandates additional disclosures about specific expense categories on both annual and interim bases in the notes to financial statements that are not currently required. The amendments do not alter or eliminate existing expense disclosure requirements nor change requirements for presenting expenses on the face of the income statement. However, they do specify that certain existing disclosures must now appear in the same tabular format as the new disaggregation requirements. The FASB issued ASU 2025-01 in January 2025, clarifying that the amendments in ASU 2024-03 are effective for public business entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and for interim reporting periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027. Early adoption is permitted. Trustmark intends to adopt the amendments of ASU 2024-03 effective January 1, 2027, and will include the required annual disclosures in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2027, and required interim disclosures in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2028. Trustmark is currently evaluating the changes to disclosures required by ASU 2024-03; however, adoption of ASU 2024-03 isnot expected to have a material impact to Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.

ASU 2025-06, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Targeted Improvements to the Accounting for Internal-Use Software.” Issued in September 2025, ASU 2025-06 seeks to update the guidance on accounting for software due to changes in how software is generally developed. When software accounting guidance was first issued, companies developing software generally followed a prescriptive and sequential development method (e.g., waterfall). Since then, many companies have adopted a more incremental and iterative development method (i.e., agile). As a result, many stakeholders noted the challenges of applying current internal-use software accounting requirements that do not specifically address software developed using an incremental and iterative method, which has led to diversity in practice in determining when to begin capitalizing software costs. The amendments of ASU 2025-06 remove all references to a prescriptive and sequential software development method (referred to as "project stages") throughout FASB ASC Subtopic 350-40, and require an entity to start capitalizing software costs when both of the following occur: (1) Management has authorized and committed to funding the software project; and (2) it is probable that the project will be completed and the software will be used to perform the function intended (referred to as the "probable-to-complete recognition threshold"). In evaluating the probable-to-complete recognition threshold, a company is required to consider whether there is significant uncertainty associated with the development activities of the software. ASU 2025-06 is effective for all entities for annual reporting periods beginning after

December 15, 2027, and for interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an annual reporting period. Trustmark intends to adopt the amendments of ASU 2025-06 effective January 1, 2028. Trustmark is currently evaluating the impact the amendments of ASU 2025-06 will have in regards to its internal-use software; however, adoption of ASU 2025-06 is not expected to have a material impact to Trustmark’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.