2

Forward-Looking Statements

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

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

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

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

The Corporation

Description of Business

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark), a Mississippi business corporation incorporated in 1968, is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. Trustmark’s principal subsidiary is Trustmark National Bank (TNB), initially chartered by the State of Mississippi in 1889. At December 31, 2017,2023, TNB had total assets of $13.796$18.720 billion, which represented approximately 99.98%99.99% of the consolidated assets of Trustmark.

Through TNB and its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and other financial solutions through 198 offices and 2,8932,757 full-time equivalent associates (measured at December 31, 2017)2023) located in the states of Alabama (includes the Georgia Loan Production Office (LPO), which are collectively referred to herein as Trustmark's Alabama market region), Florida (primarily in the northwest or “Panhandle” region of that state, which is referred to herein as Trustmark’s Florida market), Mississippi, Tennessee (in the Memphis and the Northern Mississippi regions, which are collectively referred to herein as Trustmark’s

Tennessee market), and Texas (primarily in Houston, which is referred to herein as Trustmark’s Texas market). The principal products produced and services rendered by TNB and Trustmark’s other subsidiaries are as follows:

3

Trustmark National Bank

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Trust

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

Strategy

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

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

* Consistent with Trustmark’s audited financial statements, revenue is defined as net interest income plus noninterest income.

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

Geographic Information

The following table shows Trustmark’s percentage of loans, deposits and revenue for each of the geographic regions in which it operates as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 ($ in thousands):

5

Segment Information

For the year ended December 31, 2017, Trustmark operated through three operating segments: General Banking Division, Insurance Division and Wealth Management Division.  The table below presents a summary of segment financial data for each segment for the last three years ($ in thousands):

For more information on Trustmark’s operating segments, please see the section captioned “Results of Segment Operations” in Part II. Item 7. - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 20 - Segment Information included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Overview of Lending Business

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

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

As a general matter, extending credit to businesses and consumers exposes Trustmark to credit risk, which is the risk that the principal balance and any related interest may not be collected according to the original terms due to the inability or unwillingness of the borrower to repay the loan. Trustmark mitigates credit risk through a set of internal controls, which includes adherence to conservative lending practices and underwriting guidelines, collateral monitoring, and oversight of its borrower’s financial performance and collateral. The risks inherent in specific subsets of lending are discussed below.

LHFI Secured by Construction, Land Development, and Other Land – Construction and land development loans include loans for both commercial and residential properties to builders/developers, other commercial borrowers and to consumers. This category also includes loans secured by vacant land, except land known to be used or usable for agricultural purposes, such as crop and livestock production. Repayment is normally derived from the sale of the underlying property or from permanent financing, which refinances Trustmark’s

initial loan. Trustmark’s

6

engagement in this type of lending is generally extended to those builders and developers exhibiting the highest credit quality with significant equity invested in the project and is primarily restricted to projects within itsTrustmark’s geographic markets. The underwriting process for these loans includes analysis of the financial position and strength of both the borrower and guarantor, experience with similar projects in the past, market demand and prospects for successful completion of the proposed project within the established budget and schedule, values of underlying collateral and availability of permanent financing. Risk within this portfolio is mitigated through adherence to policies and lending limits, periodic target credit reviews of the different segments of this portfolio, inspection of projects throughout the life of the loan and routine monitoring of financial information and collateral values as they are updated.

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial and Industrial LHFI – Commercial loans (other than commercial loans related to real estate assets, which are summarized above) are made to many types of businesses for various purposes, such as short-term working capital loans that are usually secured by accounts receivable and inventory, equipment and fixed asset purchases that are secured by those assets and term financing for those within Trustmark’s geographic markets. Trustmark’s credit underwriting process for commercial loans includes analysis of historical and projected cash flows and performance, evaluation of financial strength of both borrowers and guarantors as reflected in current and detailed financial information and evaluation of underlying collateral to support the credit. Credit risk within the commercial loan portfolio is managed through adherence to specific commercial lending policies and internally established lending authorities, diversification within the portfolio and monitoring of the portfolio on a continuing basis.

Credit risk in commercial and industrial loans can arise due to fluctuations in borrowers’ financial condition, deterioration in collateral values and changes in market conditions. The credit risk inherent in these loans depends on, to a significant degree, the general economic

conditions of these areas. Further, credit risk can increase if Trustmark’s loans are concentrated to borrowers engaged in the

7

same or similar activities, or to groups of borrowers who may be uniquely or disproportionately affected by market or economic conditions.

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

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

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

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

Recent Economic and Industry Developments

The economy continued to show moderate signs of improvement in 2017;Economic activity improved slightly during 2023; however, economic concerns remain as a result of the cumulative weight of volatility in crude oil prices and uncertain growth prospects in Russia and other emerging markets, combined with uncertainty regarding the potential economic impact of further tightening ofgeopolitical developments, such as the monetary policy byconflicts in Ukraine and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB),Middle East, inflation, the consequences of bank failures in the decisionfirst half of 2023 and other economic and industry volatility, the 2024 political cycle in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union,States, supply chain issues, higher energy prices and the potential impact on the economy of the current presidential administration’s policies.broader price pressures. Doubts surrounding the near-term direction of global markets and the potential impact of these trends on the United States economy are expected to persist for the near term. While Trustmark’sTrustmark's customer base is wholly domestic, international economic conditions affect domestic economic conditions, and thus may have an impact upon Trustmark’sTrustmark's financial condition or results of operations.

Market interest rates began to rise during 2022 after an extended period at historical lows. Starting in March 2022, the FRB began raising the target federal funds rate for the first time in three years and continued with multiple increases throughout 2022 and 2023, up to a range of 5.25% to 5.50% as of December 2023. In addition, the FRB increased the interest that it pays on reserves multiple times during 2022 and 2023 from 0.10% to 5.40% as of December 2023. As interest rates have increased, so have competitive pressures on the deposit cost of funds. This has been exacerbated by bank failures and the resulting heightened competition for deposits, which has also affected the interest that Trustmark pays on deposits. It is not possible to predict the pace and magnitude of changes in interest rates, or the impact rate changes will have on Trustmark's results of operations.

In the January 20182024 “Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve Districts,District,” the twelve Federal Reserve Districts’ reports suggested nationalthat economic activity continued to expand at a modest to moderate pace during the reporting period.period (covering the period from November 18, 2023 through January 8, 2024) was mixed across Districts, with three Districts reporting modest increases in overall activity, eight Districts reporting little or no change and one District reporting a moderate decline. Reports by the twelve Federal Reserve Districts noted modest growththe following during the reporting period:

Reports by the near term.  The Federal Reserve’s Sixth District, Atlanta (which includes Trustmark’s Alabama, Florida and Mississippi market regions), reported that economic activity expanded at a modest pace with optimistic outlooks for steady growth in the near-term, labor markets remained tight and wage growth was stable, holiday retail sales exceeded expectations and increased demand in commercial construction.  The Federal Reserve’s Sixth District also reported that residential real estate activity increased modestly and commercial real estate demand continued to improve, but cautioned that the rate of improvement varied by metropolitan area, submarket, and property type.  The Federal Reserve’s Sixth District noted increased business activity in manufacturing and that credit remained readily available for qualified borrowers.  The Federal Reserve’s Eighth District, St. Louis (which includes Trustmark’s Tennessee market region), and Eleventh District, Dallas (which includes Trustmark’s Texas market region), noted similar findings for the reporting period as those discussed above. The Federal Reserve’s Sixth District also noted lending increased during the reporting period, especially for multifamily and home equity loans; however, consumer lending contracted overall, alongside a rise in delinquencies in credit cards, auto loans and unsecured personal loans. The Federal Reserve's Sixth District reported that economic conditions improved at a modest pace, labor markets remained tight with moderate growthdemand and large time deposit balances continued to increase as financial institutions paid higher interest rates on deposits; however, these higher funding costs have led to earnings concerns resulting in wages, improvements in consumer spending, modest improvements in residential real estate conditions, slight improvements in commercial constructionsome banks restructuring securities portfolios and continued growth in the banking sectors.reinvesting proceeds into higher-yielding securities to protect margins. The Federal Reserve’s Eighth District also reported that loan growth which had slowed gradually sinceat a modest pace during the start of 2017, levelled off at year-endreporting period, but banking conditions and noted that lending activity improved moderately with positive loan growth across all categories other than open-ended home equity loans.remained healthy. The Federal Reserve’s EleventhEighth District Dallas (which includes Trustmark’s Texas market region),also noted that commercial and industrial loan growth decreased slightly despite an increase in overall loan volume, demand for loans continues to be lower than the prior year and an ongoing modest decline in real estate loan growth. The Federal Reserve’s Eighth District also reported economic activity expanded at a robust pace at year-end and acceleratedthat total deposit growth acrossincreased modestly although faster than the manufacturing, retail, nonfinancial services and energy sectors.national rate. The Federal Reserve’s Eleventh District also reported increasedloan volumes stabilized during the reporting period and the pace of credit tightening decelerated, loan demand forcontinued to decline, though at a slower pace, loan nonperformance continued to rise, still largely driven by consumer loans, and loan pricing and a tightening in credit standards and terms and

8

noted that overall loan volumes increasedcontinued to increase but at a faster pace.slower rate. The Federal Reserve’s Eleventh District also noted that home sales were returningbankers reported increased core deposit volumes and although banking outlooks remain pessimistic and future business activity and loan demand are expected to a normal pace after Hurricane Harvey. decline, the rate of decline is anticipated to be milder than prior expectations.

The Federal Reserve’s Eleventh District also reported drilling activity increased, well completions continued to grow, demand for oil field services remained steady and outlooks for 2018 improved.

During June 2017, the FRB increased the target range for the federal funds rate for the third consecutive quarter.  In December 2017, the FRB further increased rates and commenced reducing the size of its balance sheet.  In December 2017, the FRB predicted an additional threerising interest rate hikesenvironment during 2022 and 2023, the resulting industry-wide reduction in 2018.  It is not possible to predict the impact, if any, on market interest ratesfair value of efforts by the FRB to reduce the size of its balance sheet.  The extended period of low interest rates continues to place pressure on net interest margins for Trustmark (as well as its competitors); however, interest rates have increased during 2017securities portfolios and the FRB has indicatedbank runs that it intendsled to continuethe failures of some financial institutions in March 2023, among other events, have resulted in a current state of volatility and uncertainty with respect to raise rates in 2018.  Any increases in interest rates will place competitive pressures on the health of the United States banking system. There is heightened awareness around liquidity, uninsured deposits, deposit cost of funds.  It is not possible to predict the pacecomposition, unrecognized investment losses and magnitude of rising interest rates, or the impact rising rates will have on Trustmark’s results of operations.capital.

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

Competition

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

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

At June 30, 2017,2023, Trustmark’s deposit market share ranked within the top three positions in 58%56.0% of the 55 counties served and within the top five positions in 73%69.0% of the counties served. The following table below presents FDICFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit data regarding TNB’s deposit market share by state as of June 30, 2017.2023. The FDIC deposit market share data presented below does not align with Trustmark’s reported geographic market regions, which in some instances cross state lines, and Trustmark’s

geographic coverage within certain states presented below is not statewide (see the sectionssection captioned “Description of Business” and “Geographic Information” above).

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

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

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

9

Supervision and Regulation

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

Regulation of Trustmark

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

Federal Oversight Over Mergers and Acquisitions, Investments and Branching

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

The BHC Act, as amended by the interstate banking provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal Act), permits a bank holding company, such as Trustmark, to acquire a bank located in any other state, regardless of state law to the contrary, subject to certain deposit-percentage, aging requirements, and other restrictions, if the company is

well-capitalized. The Riegle-Neal Act also generally permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states, if the resulting institution would be well-capitalized and well-managed.

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

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

The BHC Act, as amended by the interstate banking provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal Act), permits Trustmark to acquire a bank located in any other state, regardless of state law to the contrary, subject to certain deposit-percentage, aging requirements, and other restrictions.  The Riegle-Neal Act also generally permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states.  Bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed to obtain federal bank regulatory approval of an interstate acquisition without regard to state law prohibiting the transaction.

Under provisionsprovision of the BHC Act referred toknown as the “VolckerVolcker Rule” limitations are placed places limits on the ability of insured depository institutions, insured depository institution holding companiesTrustmark and their affiliates (“Banking Entities”)TNB to acquire or retain ownership interests in, or act as sponsor to, certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds.  The Volcker Rule also places restrictions onfunds, or to engage in proprietary trading by(i.e., engaging as principal in any purchase or sale of one or more financial instruments for a Banking Entity.trading account).

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

10

Certain acquisitions of Trustmark’s voting stock may be subject to regulatory approval or notice under federal law. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of Trustmark’s stock in excess of the amount that can be acquired without regulatory approval underUnder the Change in Bank Control Act and the BHC Act, which prohibit anya person or company from acquiringthat directly or indirectly acquires control of Trustmark without, in most cases,a bank holding company or bank must obtain the prior writtennon-objection or approval of the FRB.institution’s appropriate federal banking agency in advance of the acquisition. For a publicly-traded bank holding company such as Trustmark, control for purposes of the Change in Bank Control Act is presumed to exist if the acquirer will have 10% or more of any class of the company’s voting securities.

Source of Strength

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

Capital Adequacy

Bank holding companies and banks are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and federal bank regulatory agencies. Capital adequacy regulations and, additionally for banks, prompt corrective action regulations involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators about components, risk weighting and other factors. United States capital regulations were substantially revised in 2013 as a result of changes in the Dodd-Frank Act and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s December 2010 final capital framework, referred to as “Basel III.”  The FRB and the OCC, the primary regulators of Trustmark and TNB, respectively, have established substantially similar minimum risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements.requirements for bank holding companies and banks.

Under capital requirements applicable to Trustmark and TNB, as of January 1, 2015, Trustmark and TNB are required to meet a common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 7.0% (a minimum of 4.5% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%, which will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019)), a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 8.5% (a minimum of 6.0% plus a phased-in capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 10.5% (a minimum of 8%8.0% plus a phased-in capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), and a leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to total consolidated assets of at least 4.0%.   In addition, for an insured depository institution to be “well-capitalized” under the banking agencies’ prompt corrective action framework, it must have a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%, Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.0%, a total capital ratio of 10.0%, and a leverage ratio of 5.0%, and must not be subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by its primary federal regulator to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

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

may be included in Tier 2 capital, provided they do not include features that are disallowed by the capital rules, such as the acceleration of principal other than in the event of a bankruptcy, insolvency, or receivership of the issuer.

Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could subject a bank to a variety of enforcement remedies.  The FDI Act identifies fiveremedies, including issuance of a capital categories for insured depository institutions: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalizeddirective, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC and critically undercapitalized.  An insured depository institution is subject to differential regulation corresponding to the capital category within which the institution falls.  The FDI Act requires banking regulators to take prompt corrective action whenever financial institutions do not meet minimum capital requirements.  Failure to meet the capital guidelines could also subject an insured depository institution to capital raising requirements. In addition, an insured depository institution is generally prohibited from making capital distributions, including paying dividends, or paying management fees to a holding company, if the institution would thereafter be undercapitalized.  In addition, the FDI Act requires the various regulatory agencies to prescribe certain noncapital

11

standards for safety and soundness relating generally to operations and management, asset quality and executive compensation, and permits regulatory action against an insured depository institution that does not meet such standards.  

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

In addition, the FDI Act’s “prompt corrective action” framework identifies five capital conservation buffercategories for insured depository institutions: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. For an insured depository institution to be “well-capitalized,” it must have a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 6.5%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 8.0%, a total capital ratio of at least 10.0% and a leverage ratio of at least 5.0%, and must not be subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive or prompt corrective action directive issued by its primary federal regulator to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An insured depository institution is being phased in until January 1, 2019.subject to differential regulation corresponding to the capital category within which the institution falls. For example, an insured depository institution is generally prohibited from making capital distributions, including paying dividends, or paying management fees to a holding company, if the institution would thereafter be undercapitalized.

At December 31, 2017,2023, Trustmark exceeded its minimum capital requirements with common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital and total capital equal to 11.77%10.04%, 12.33%10.44% and 13.10%12.29% of its total risk-weighted assets, respectively. At December 31, 2017,2023, TNB also exceeded these requirements with common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital and total capital equal to 12.16%10.58%, 12.16%10.58% and 12.93%11.61% of its total risk-weighted assets, respectively. At December 31, 2017,2023, the leverage ratios for Trustmark and TNB were 9.67%8.62% and 9.54%8.75%, respectively. As ofAt December 31, 2017, the most recent notification from the OCC categorized2023, TNB aswas well-capitalized based on the ratios and guidelines described above.

Stress Testing

Bank holding companiesIn December 2018, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule that allows institutions to elect to phase in the regulatory capital effects of the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) accounting standard over three years. In addition, as a result of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and national banksEconomic Security Act (the CARES Act) enacted on March 27, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued rules that allow banking organizations that implemented CECL in 2020 to elect to mitigate the effects of the CECL accounting standard on their regulatory capital for two years. This two-year delay is in addition to the three-year transition period that the agencies had already made available. Trustmark elected to defer the regulatory capital effects of CECL in accordance with average total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $50 billion must conduct annual company-run stress tests using data asthese rules, which largely delayed the effects of the adoption of CECL on its regulatory capital through December 31, of each year under one baseline and at least two stress scenarios as provided by the FRB and the OCC, respectively.  Stress test results must be provided to the FRB and OCC by July2021. The effects are being phased-in over a three-year period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, of the following year.  Trustmark has been subject to annual company-run stress test requirements since September 2014.2024.

Trustmark anticipates that capital ratios, as reflected in the stress test calculations under the required stress test scenarios, will be an important factor considered by the agencies in evaluating the capital adequacy of Trustmark and TNB and whether proposed payments of dividends or stock repurchases are consistent with prudential expectations.

Payment of Dividends and Stock Repurchases

Trustmark is limited in its ability to pay dividends or repurchase its stock by the FRB, including if doing so would be an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Where a bank holding company intends to declare or pay a dividend that could raise safety and soundness concerns, it generally will be required to inform and consult withIn addition, the FRB in advance.  It ishas adopted the policy of the FRB that a bank holding company should generally pay cash dividends on common stock only outto the extent that the company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover the cash dividends, and that the company’s rate of earnings, and only if prospective earningsearning retention is consistent with the company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall current and prospective financial condition.

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

Trustmark also is required to obtainconsult with or notify the approvalFRB prior to purchasing or redeeming its outstanding equity securities in certain circumstances, including if the gross consideration for the purchase or redemption, when aggregated with the net consideration paid by the company for all such purchases or redemptions during the preceding twelve months, is equal to 10% or more of the FRB in advance of redeeming or repurchasing its stock.  In evaluating the appropriateness of a proposed redemption or repurchase of stock, the FRB will consider, among other things, the potential loss that acompany’s consolidated net worth. A bank holding company may sufferthat is well-capitalized, well-managed and not the subject of any unresolved supervisory issues is exempt from the prospective need to increase reserves and write down assets as a result of continued asset deterioration, and its ability to raise additional common equity and other capital to replace the stock that will be redeemed or repurchased.  The FRB also will consider the potential negative effects on the bank holding company’s capital structure of replacing common stock with any lower-tier form of regulatory capital issued.this notice requirement.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Initiatives and Sanctions Compliance

Trustmark and TNB are subject to extensive laws and regulations aimed at combattingcombating money laundering and terrorist financing.  Thefinancing, including the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (USA Patriot Act) substantially broadenedand the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States.  United States Department of the Treasury regulationsBank Secrecy Act. Regulations implementing the USA Patriot Actthese statutes impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers and of beneficial owners of their legal entity customers. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and financial consequences for the institution. The federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury, in addition to federal bank regulatory agencies, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of these requirements, and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with state and federal banking regulators, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. Violations of AML requirements can also lead to criminal penalties. In addition, the federal banking agencies are required to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s AML activities when reviewing proposed bank mergers and bank holding company acquisitions.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is responsible for helping to insureensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with certain prohibited parties, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC publishesadministers and enforces economic and trade sanctions programs, including publishing lists of persons, organizations, and countries suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, known as Specially

12

Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. OFAC administers and enforces applicable economic and trade sanctions programs.  These sanctions are usually targeted against foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers and those believed to be involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  These regulations generally require either the blocking of accounts or other property of specified entities or individuals, but they may also require the rejection of certain transactions involving specified entities or individuals. Trustmark maintains policies, procedures and other internal controls designed to comply with these sanctions programs.

Other Federal Regulation of Trustmark

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

Regulation of TNB

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

Restrictions on Lending, Insider Transactions and Affiliate Transactions

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

Under section 22 of the Federal Reserve Act, as implemented by the FRB’s Regulation O, restrictions also apply to extensions of credit by a bank to its executive officers, directors, principal shareholders and their related interests, and to similar individuals at the holding company or affiliates. In general, such extensions of credit (i) may not exceed certain dollar limitations, (ii) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with third parties and (iii) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act establish parameters for an insured bank to conduct “covered transactions” with its affiliates, generally (i) limiting the extent to which the bank or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10 percent10% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus, and limiting the aggregate of all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20 percent20% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus, and (ii) requiring that all such transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the bank or subsidiary as those that would be provided to a non-affiliate. In addition, an insured bank’s loans to affiliates must be fully collateralized. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans to the affiliate, purchase of assets from the affiliate, issuance of a guarantee on behalf of the affiliate and several other types of transactions.

Payment of Dividends

The principal source of Trustmark’s cash revenue is dividends from TNB. There are various legal and regulatory provisions that limit the amount of dividends TNB can pay to Trustmark without regulatory approval. Under the National Bank Act, approval of the OCC is required if the total of all dividends declared in any calendar year exceeds the total of TNB’s net income for that year combined with its retained net income from the preceding two years. Also, under the National Bank Act, TNB may not pay any dividends in excess of undivided profits (retained earnings).  In addition, subsidiary banks

Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires an insured depository institution’s appropriate federal banking regulator to evaluate the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, and to

consider this record in its evaluation of certain applications to banking regulators, such as an application for approval of a merger or the establishment of a branch.

As of its last examination from the OCC, TNB received a CRA rating of “Needs to Improve.” The evaluation covered activities in the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021. TNB received performance ratings of “High Satisfactory” on each of the three individual components of the CRA examination. The TNB’s final overall rating, however, was downgraded from “Satisfactory” to “Needs to Improve” as a result of alleged discriminatory credit practices in the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area between 2014 and 2018. As previously disclosed on October 22, 2021, TNB entered into a consent order with the OCC and a separate consent order jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice and the CFPB, to resolve allegations that TNB previously violated the FHA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act within the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area. The OCC Performance Evaluation states that “Following the findings, the bank holding companyundertook significant corrective actions to address the impact of these practices and ensure that the conduct does not recur.”

A “Needs to Improve” rating adversely affects TNB’s ability to obtain regulatory approvals to engage in certain expansionary activities, including certain mergers and acquisitions and the establishment of bank branches. These limitations will remain in place until TNB receives a CRA rating of at least “Satisfactory” following a subsequent CRA examination. The precise timing of the completion of that examination and any results therefrom will not be known until later.

On October 24, 2023, the federal banking agencies released a final rule significantly revising the framework that the agencies use to evaluate banks’ records of meeting the credit needs of their entire communities under the CRA. Under the revised framework, banks with assets of at least $2 billion, including TNB, are considered large banks and, accordingly, will have their retail lending, retail services and products, community development financing and community development services subject to certain restrictions imposed byperiodic evaluation under complex, multi-part standards. Large banks will be subject to enhanced data collection and reporting requirements, with additional data collection and reporting requirements applying to banks, such as TNB, with assets greater than $10 billion. Depending on a large bank’s geographic concentrations of lending, the Federal Reserve Act on extensionsevaluation of retail lending may include assessment areas in which the bank extends loans but does not operate any deposit-taking facilities, in addition to assessment areas in which the bank has deposit-taking facilities. The rule becomes effective April 1, 2024. Compliance with most provisions of the final rule will be required beginning January 1, 2026, and compliance with the remaining provisions will be required beginning January 1, 2027. Trustmark is evaluating the impact of the final rule.

Consumer Protection Laws

TNB is subject to a number of federal and state laws designed to protect customers and promote lending to various sectors of the economy and population. These consumer protection laws apply to a broad range of TNB’s activities and to various aspects of its business, and include laws relating to interest rates, fair lending, disclosures of credit terms and estimated transaction costs to consumer borrowers, debt collection practices, the bank holding company or anyuse of its subsidiaries.  Further, subsidiary banksand the provision of a bank holding company are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extensioninformation to consumer reporting agencies and the prohibition of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of any services to the bank holding company.  Moreover, an institution’s failure to exceed the capital conservation buffer set forth in the capital rules with common equity Tier 1 capital would result in limitations on an institution’s ability to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments.

CFPB

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB within the Federal Reserve System as an independent bureau with responsibility for consumer financial protection.  The CFPB is responsible for issuing rules, orders and guidance implementing federal consumer financial laws.  The CFPB has primary enforcement authority over “very large” insured depository institutions or insured credit unions and their affiliates.  An insured depository institution is deemed “very large” if it reports assets of more than $10 billion in its quarterly Call Report for four consecutive quarters.  The CFPB has near exclusive supervision authority, including examination authority, over

13

these “very large” institutions and their affiliates to assess compliance with federal consumer financial laws, to obtain information about the institutions’ activities and compliance systems and procedures, and to detect and assess risks to consumers and markets.   The CFPB has broad authority to prevent “unfair,unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices” and ensure consistent enforcement of laws so that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services that are fair, transparent and competitive.  The CFPB has rulemaking and interpretive authority underpractices in connection with the Dodd-Frank Act and other federal consumer financial services laws, as well as broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over large providersoffer, sale or provision of consumer financial products and services, such as TNB.  TNB’s total assets exceeded $10 billion at December 31, 2017 and 2016, and therefore, TNB is subject to CFPB supervision.

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

Other Federal and State Laws

Banking organizations are subject to numerous laws and regulations intended to protect consumers in addition to those discussed above.services. These laws include among others:the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, (TILA); Truth in Savings Act; Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA); Expedited Funds Availability Act; Equal Credit Opportunity Act; Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act; Fair Housing Act; Fair Credit Reporting Act; Fair Debt Collection Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act;the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; Right to Financial Privacy Act;Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and their state law counterparts. At the federal level, most consumer financial protection laws regarding unfairare administered by the CFPB, which supervises TNB. The CFPB also has authority to issue regulations and deceptive actshas proposed several rules that would restrict various fees that financial institutions can charge consumers, including credit card late fees, overdraft fees and practices;certain insufficient funds (NSF) fees.

Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can result in significant potential liability, including actual damages, restitution and usury laws.injunctive relief, from litigation brought by customers, state attorneys general and other plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by banking regulators and reputational harm.

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

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

Financial Privacy Laws and Cybersecurity

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

In addition, the federal banking agencies pay close attention to the cybersecurity practices of banks, and the agencies include review of an institution’s information technology and its ability to thwart cyberattacks in their examinations. An institution’s failure to have adequate cybersecurity safeguards in place can result in supervisory criticism, monetary penalties and/or reputational harm. Additionally, banking organizations are required to notify their primary federal regulator of significant computer security incidents within 36 hours of determining that such an incident has occurred.

Debit Interchange Regulation

The FRB has issued rules under the EFTA,Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, to limit interchange fees that an issuer with $10.0 billion or more in assets, such as TNB, may receive or charge for an electronic debit card transaction. Under the FRB’s rules, the maximum permissible interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and five basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. In addition, the FRB’s rules allow for an upward adjustment of no more than one cent to an issuer’s debit card interchange fee if the issuer develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the fraud-prevention standards set out in the rule.

14

IssuersIn October 2023, the FRB proposed changes to its EFTA rules that together with their affiliates, have assetswould decrease the maximum interchange fees that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction to the sum of less than $10.0 billion14.4 cents and four basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction and increase the fraud prevention adjustment to 1.3 cents. Trustmark is evaluating the impact of this proposal.

The FRB also has established rules governing routing and exclusivity that require debt card issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on the annual measurement date (December 31) are exempt from theeach debit card interchange fee standards.  At the December 31, 2013 annual measurement date, Trustmark had assets greater than $10.0 billion; and, therefore, was required to comply with the debit card interchange fee standards by July 1, 2014.or prepaid product.

FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments

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

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

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

Under a rule adopted by The methodology that the FDIC in 2011,uses to calculate assessment amounts is also based on the range of base assessment rates for all banks is to decrease in phases as the DIF’sFDIC’s designated reserve ratio, grows to 1.15 percent, 2.00 percent and 2.50 percent.  Thewhich is currently 2.0%. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount of total estimated insured deposits has grown rapidly while the funds in the DIF have grown at a normal rate, causing the DIF reserve ratio reached 1.17 percent asto fall below the statutory minimum of 1.35%. The FDIC adopted a restoration plan in September 2020, which it amended in June 2022, to restore the DIF reserve ratio to at least 1.35% by September 30, 2016.  In March 2016, the Board of Directors of2028. On October 18, 2022, the FDIC approvedadopted a final rule to increase initial base deposit insurance assessment rates for insured depository institutions by 2 basis points, which began with the first quarterly assessment period of 2023. The increased assessment rate schedules will remain in effect unless and until the DIF reserve ratio meets or exceeds 2.00%. As a result of this rule, the FDIC insurance costs of insured depository institutions, including TNB, have generally increased. TNB incurred an additional $2.6 million of FDIC assessment expense during 2023 as a result of this rule.

On November 16, 2023, the FDIC adopted a final rule implementing a special assessment to recover the loss to the FDIC’s DIF incurred in the receiverships of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Under the final rule, the FDIC will collect special assessments at a quarterly rate of 3.36 basis points, or approximately 13.4 basis points annually, over eight quarterly assessment periods beginning with the first quarterly assessment period of 2024. The assessment base for the special assessment is equal to an insured depository

institution's estimated uninsured deposits, reported as of December 31, 2022, adjusted to exclude the first $5 billion in estimated uninsured deposits. The FDIC retained the ability to cease collection early, extend the special assessment collection period one or more quarters beyond the initial eight-quarter collection period to collect the difference between estimated or actual losses and the amounts collected, or impose a surchargefinal shortfall special assessment on a one-time basis after the receiverships for Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank terminate. The special assessment is not expected to be material to Trustmark's financial condition or results of 4.5 cents per $100operations.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including the assessment base,TNB, if the FDIC determines after making certain adjustments, on banks with $10.0 billion or more in assets, through the quartera hearing that the DIF’s reserve ratio reachesinstitution has engaged or is engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, order or any condition imposed by an agreement with the statutorily required minimum levelFDIC. The FDIC also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of 1.35 percent, whichinsurance if the FDIC expects will occur after approximately two years of payments of these surcharges.  The surcharges became effective and began on July 1, 2016.  Following the effectiveness of the decrease in base assessment rates and surcharges on July 1, 2016, the total base assessment rate for an institution with $10.0 billion or more in assets ranges from a minimum of 1.5 basis points to a maximum of 40.0 basis points, plus applicable surcharges, but this range is subject to change as the DIF’s reserve ratio continues to grow.has no tangible capital.

TNB’s FDIC assessment expenses declined during 2017 as the lower regular assessment rates and the allowable adjustments more than offset the surcharge of 4.5 cents per $100 of assessment base.  In 2017,2023, TNB’s expenses related to deposit insurance premiums totaled $10.4$13.5 million.

TNB also paid approximately $660 thousand in Financing Corporation (FICO) assessments related to outstanding FICO bonds for which the FDIC serves as collection agent.  The bonds issued by FICO are due to mature from 2018 through 2019.  For the quarter ended December 31, 2017, the FICO assessment rate was equal to 0.46 basis points.

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

TNB Subsidiaries

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

During April 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule related to fiduciary standards that apply to the provision of advice to clients with respect to the investing of certain of their retirement accounts.  The final rule expands the definition of a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.  Those who provide investment advice to plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan participants, beneficiaries and IRAs and IRA owners generally must either avoid payments that create conflicts of interest or satisfy an exemption from these requirements issued by the DOL.  Under exemptions adopted with the rule, financial institutions will generally be obligated to acknowledge their status and the status of their individual advisers as “fiduciaries.”  Among other obligations, firms and advisers will be required to make prudent investment recommendations that are in their clients’ best interests and charge only reasonable compensation.  Additionally, the rule requires certain disclosures to be made to the client, and ongoing compliance must be monitored and documented.  On June 9, 2017, following a 60-day extension of the final rule’s applicability date, certain provisions of the final rule became applicable, including provisions that apply to Trustmark.  The remaining provisions of the final rule are scheduled to be phased in by July 1, 2019.  It is not clear if that applicability date will be further

15

delayed, and it is also possible that the Securities and Exchange Commission or another governmental entity could impose separate regulations regarding the provision of investment advice with respect to retirement accounts.  Management does not expect the final DOL rule to have a significant impact on the results of operations or financial condition of Trustmark or TNB.

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

Available Information

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

Employees

At December 31, 2017,2023, Trustmark employed 2,8932,757 full-time equivalent associates, none of which are represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Trustmark believes its employee relations to be satisfactory.

Information about Executive Officers of Trustmark

As of the Registrant

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

Gerard R. Host, 6369

Trustmark Corporation

Chairman since May 2022

Executive Chairman from January 2021 to April 2022

Chairman from April 2020 to December 2020

President and Chief Executive Officer from January 2011 to December 2020

Trustmark National Bank

Chairman since May 2022

Executive Chairman from January 2021 to April 2022

Chairman from April 2020 to December 2020

Chief Executive Officer from January 2011 to December 2020

President from January 2011 to December 2019

Duane A. Dewey, 65

Trustmark Corporation

President and Chief Executive Officer since January 20112021

Trustmark National Bank

President and Chief Executive Officer since January 20112021

Louis E. Greer, 63President since January 2020

Chief Operating Officer from January 2019 to December 2020

George T. Chambers, Jr., 64

Trustmark Corporation

Treasurer and Principal FinancialAccounting Officer since January 2007March 2021

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialAccounting Officer since February 2007March 2021

Granville Tate, Jr., 61

Trustmark Corporation

Secretary since December 2015

Trustmark National Bank

ExecutiveSenior Vice President Secretary, General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer since June 2016Controller from March 2009 to February 2021

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

Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

Partner from January 2010 to December 2015

Board of Directors from January 2010 to November 2015

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

Monica A. Day, 5763

Trustmark National Bank

President – Institutional Banking since April 2019

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

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

Duane A. Dewey, 59

Trustmark National Bank

President – Corporate Banking since September 2011

16

Robert Barry Harvey, 5864

Trustmark National Bank

Chief Credit and Operations Officer since June 2021

Chief Credit Officer from March 2010 to May 2021

Executive Vice President since March 2010

Thomas C. Owens, 59

Trustmark Corporation

Treasurer and Chief CreditPrincipal Financial Officer since March 20102021

Donald Glynn Ingram, 66

Trustmark National Bank

Chief Financial Officer since March 2021

Bank Treasurer from September 2013 to February 2021

Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer since September 20082013

James M. Outlaw, Jr., 65

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer since August 2014

President and Chief Operating Officer – Texas from August 2006 to August 2014

Thomas C. Owens, 53

Trustmark National Bank

Executive Vice President and Bank Treasurer since September 2013

Webster Financial Corporation – Waterbury, Connecticut

Assistant Treasurer – Asset Liability Management from 2008 to September 2013

W. Arthur Stevens, 5359

Trustmark National Bank

President – Retail Banking since September 2011

Breck W. Tyler, 59Maria Luisa "Ria" Sugay, 42

Trustmark National Bank

President – Mortgage ServicesBank Treasurer since March 20122021

C. Scott Woods, 61Bank Co-Treasurer from July 2020 to February 2021

Executive Vice President since July 2020

USAA

Director, Asset Liability Management from June 2016 to June 2020

Granville Tate, Jr., 67

Trustmark Corporation

Secretary since December 2015

Trustmark National Bank

President – Insurance and Wealth ManagementChief Administrative Officer since November 2017January 2021

President – Insurance ServicesChief Risk Officer from March 2012June 2016 to November 20172021

General Counsel from December 2015 to November 2021

Executive Vice President and Secretary since December 2015

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Trustmark and its subsidiaries could be adversely impacted by various risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. As a financial institution, Trustmark has significant exposure to market risks, including interest rate risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. This

section includes a description of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions identified by Management that could, individually or in combination, materially affect Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations, as well as the value of Trustmark’s financial instruments in general, and Trustmark common stock, in particular. Additional risks and uncertainties that Management currently deems immaterial or is unaware of may also impair Trustmark’s financial condition and results of operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by the risk factors that are identified below.

Risks Related to Trustmark’s Business

Interest Rate Risks

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

Trustmark’s profitability depends to a large extent on net interest income, which is the difference between income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Trustmark is exposed to interest rate risk in its core banking activities of lending and deposit taking, since assets and liabilities reprice at different times and by different amounts as interest rates change. Trustmark is unable to predict changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond Trustmark’s control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, domestic and international events and changes in the United States and other financial markets. During June 2017,Market interest rates began to rise during 2022 after an extended period at historical lows. Starting in March 2022, the FRB increasedbegan raising the target range for the federal funds rate for the third consecutive quarter.first time in three years and continued with multiple increases throughout 2022 and 2023, up to a range of 5.25% to 5.50% as of December 2023. In December 2017,addition, the FRB further increased the interest that it pays on reserves multiple times during 2022 and 2023 from 0.10% to 5.40% as of December 2023. As interest rates have increased, so have competitive pressures on the deposit cost of funds. This has been exacerbated by the bank failures in the first half of 2023 and commenced reducing the size of its balance sheet.  In December 2017,resulting heightened competition for deposits, which has also affected the FRB also predicted an additional three interest rate hikes in 2018.that Trustmark pays on deposits. It is not possible to predict the impact, if any, on marketpace and magnitude of changes in interest rates, or the impact rate changes will have on Trustmark's results of efforts by the FRB to reduce the size of its balance sheet.operations.

Financial simulation models are the primary tools used by Trustmark to measure interest rate exposure. Using a wide range of scenarios, Management is provided with extensive information on the potential impact to net interest income caused by changes in interest rates. Models are structured to simulate cash flows and accrual characteristics of Trustmark’s balance sheet. Assumptions are made about the direction and volatility of interest rates, the slope of the yield curve and the changing composition of Trustmark’s balance sheet, resulting from both strategic plans and customer behavior. In addition, the model incorporates Management’s assumptions and expectations regarding such factors as loan and deposit growth, pricing, prepayment speeds and spreads between

17

interest rates. Trustmark’s simulation model using static balances at December 31, 2017,2023, estimated that in the event of a hypothetical 200 basis point increase in interest rates, net interest income may decrease 2.1%increase 0.5%, while a hypothetical 100 basis point increase in interest rates, may decreaseincrease net interest income 1.0%0.3%. In the event of a hypothetical 100 basis point decrease in interest rates using static balances at December 31, 2017,2023, it is estimated net interest income may decrease by 4.2%0.4%, while a hypothetical 200 basis point decrease in interest rates, may decrease net interest income 1.0%.

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

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

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

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

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

In 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates LIBOR, announced that after the end of 2021 it would no longer compel banks to submit the rates required to calculate LIBOR. On March 5, 2021, the FCA confirmed that the publication of most LIBOR term rates would end on June 30, 2023 (excluding one-week U.S. LIBOR and two-month U.S. LIBOR, the publication of which ended on December 31, 2021). The Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC), a committee of U.S. financial market participants, identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as the reference rate that represents best practice as the alternative to LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts that are currently indexed to USD-LIBOR. However, there are conceptual and technical differences between LIBOR and SOFR. The federal banking agencies encouraged banking organizations to cease entering into new contracts that use US$ LIBOR as a reference rate by no later than December 31, 2021, and to ensure existing contracts have robust fallback language that includes a clearly defined alternative reference rate.

On December 16, 2022, the FRB adopted a final rule that implemented the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act by identifying benchmark rates based on SOFR that will replace LIBOR in certain financial contracts after June 30, 2023. Following the LIBOR cessation date of June 30, 2023, the nationwide process for replacing LIBOR in financial contracts that mature thereafter and that do not provide for an effective means to replace LIBOR upon its cessation took effect pursuant to the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act. For contracts in which a party has the discretion to identify a replacement rate, the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act also provides a safe harbor to parties if they choose the SOFR-based benchmark replacement rate to be identified by the FRB. Trustmark transitioned to SOFR for new variable rate loans, derivative contracts, borrowings and other financial instruments as of January 1, 2022.

Trustmark had a significant number of loans, derivative contracts, borrowings and other financial instruments with attributes that were either directly or indirectly dependent on LIBOR. As of December 31, 2023, all of Trustmark’s LIBOR exposure was remediated or in the process of being remediated. The transition from LIBOR has resulted in and could continue to result in added costs and employee efforts and could present additional risk. Since alternative reference rates are calculated differently than LIBOR, payments under contracts referencing new alternative reference rates will differ from those referencing LIBOR. Trustmark cannot predict what the ultimate impact of the transition from LIBOR will be; however, Trustmark has implemented various measures to manage the transition and mitigate risks.

Credit and Lending Risks

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

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

Additionally, Trustmark may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties in deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions. This information could include financial statements, credit reports, business plans, and

other information. Trustmark may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports or other information could have a material adverse impact on Trustmark’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Trustmark is subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.

A significant portion of Trustmark’s loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, Trustmark forecloses on and takes title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, Trustmark may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage, civil fines and criminal penalties regardless of when the hazardous conditions or toxic substances first affected any particular property. Environmental laws may require Trustmark to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit Trustmark’s ability to use or ability to sell the affected property or to repay the indebtedness secured by the property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase Trustmark’s exposure to environmental liability. Environmental reviews of nonresidential real estate before initiating foreclosure actions may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

On a quarterly basis, Trustmark evaluates investments and other assets for expected credit losses. At December 31, 2023, gross unrealized losses on securities for which an allowance for credit losses has not been recorded totaled $196.1 million. Trustmark may be required to record credit loss expense if these investments suffer a decline in value that is the result of a credit loss. If Trustmark determines that a credit loss exists, the credit portion of the allowance would be measured using a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis using the effective interest rate as of the security’s purchase date. The amount of credit loss Trustmark may record is limited to the amount by which the amortized cost exceeds the fair value, which could have a material adverse effect on results of operations in the period in which a credit loss, if any, occurs.

Liquidity Risk

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

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

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

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

External and Market-Related Risks

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

The economy continued to show moderate signs of improvement in 2017;Economic activity improved slightly during 2023; however, economic concerns remain as a result of the cumulative weight of volatility in crude oil prices and uncertain growth prospects in Russia and other emerging markets, combined with uncertainty regarding the potential economic impact of further tightening ofgeopolitical developments, such as the monetary policy byconflicts in Ukraine and the FRB,Middle East, inflation, the consequences of bank failures and other economic and industry volatility, the decision of2024 political cycle in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union,States, supply chain issues, higher energy prices and the potential impact on the economy of the current presidential administration’s policies.broader price pressures. Doubts surrounding the near-term direction of global markets, and the potential impact of these trends on the United States economy, are expected to persist for the near term. While Trustmark’s customer base is wholly domestic, international economic conditions affect domestic conditions, and thus may have an impact upon Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations. While domestic demand for loans has improved, particularly for commercial loans, further meaningful gains will depend on sustained economic growth.  Strategic risk, including threats to business models from rising rates and modest economic growth, remains high. Management’s ability to plan, prioritize and allocate resources in this new environment will be critical to Trustmark’s ability to sustain earnings that will attract capital. Because of the complexities presented by current economic conditions, Management will continue to be challenged in identifying alternative sources of revenue, prudently diversifying assets, liabilities and revenue and effectively managing the costs of compliance.

18

During June 2017, the FRB increased the target range for the federal funds rate for the third consecutive quarter.  In December 2017, the FRB further increased rates and commenced reducing the size of its balance sheet.  In December 2017, the FRB predicted an additional three interest rate hikes in 2018.  It is not possible to predict the impact, if any, on marketMarket interest rates of efforts by the FRBbegan to reduce the size of its balance sheet.  Therise during 2022 after an extended period of low interest rates continuesat historical lows and continued to place pressure on net interest margins for Trustmark (as well as its competitors); however,rise in 2023. As interest rates have increased, during 2017 and the FRB has indicated that it intends to continue to raise rates in 2018.  Any increases in interest rates will placeso have competitive pressures on the deposit cost of funds. This has been exacerbated by bank failures and the resulting heightened competition for deposits, which has also affected the interest that Trustmark pays on deposits. It is not possible to predict the pace and magnitude of risingchanges to interest rates, or the impact rising ratesrate changes will have on Trustmark’s results of operations.

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

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

Trustmark is subject to lending risk,operates in a highly competitive financial services industry.

Trustmark faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which could impact the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and results of operations.

There are inherent risks associated with Trustmark’s lending activities.  While the housing and real estate markets have shown continued improvement, they remain at depressed levels in certain regions.  If trends in the housing and real estate markets were to revert or further decline below recession levels, Trustmark may experience higher than normal delinquencies and credit losses.  Moreover, if the United States economy returns to a recessionary state, Management expects that it could severely affect economic conditions in Trustmark’s market areas and that Trustmark could experience significantly higher delinquencies and credit losses.  In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review Trustmark’s allowance for loan losseslarger and may require an increasehave greater financial resources. Such competitors primarily include banks, as well as community banks operating nationwide and regionally within the various markets in which Trustmark operates. Trustmark also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies and other financial intermediaries. Additionally, fintech developments, such as blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies, have the provision for loan losses orpotential to disrupt the recognition of further charge-offs, based on judgments different from those of Management.  Asfinancial industry and change the way banks do business. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result Trustmarkof legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation.

Some of Trustmark’s competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may elect, orhave lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many of Trustmark’s larger competitors may be requiredable to to make further increases in its provisionachieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for loan losses in the future, particularly if economic conditions deteriorate.those products and services than Trustmark.

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

19

statements, credit reports, or other information could have a material adverse impact on Trustmark’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

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

Liquidity refers to Trustmark’s ability to ensure that sufficient cash flow and liquid assets are available to satisfy current and future financial obligations, including demand for loans and deposit withdrawals, funding operating costs and other corporate purposes.  Liquidity risk arises whenevercompete successfully depends on a number of factors, including: the maturities of financial instruments included in assets and liabilities differ or when assets cannot be liquidated at fair market value as needed.  Trustmark obtains funding through deposits and various short-term and long-term wholesale borrowings, including federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase, the Federal Reserve Discount Window (Discount Window) and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances.  Any significant restriction or disruption of Trustmark’s ability to obtain funding from these or other sources could have a negative effectdevelop, maintain and build upon long-term customer relationships based on Trustmark’stop quality service, high ethical standards and safe, sound assets; the ability to satisfycontinue to expand Trustmark’s market position through organic growth and acquisitions; the scope, relevance and pricing of products and services offered to meet customer needs and demands; the rate at which Trustmark introduces new products and services relative to its currentcompetitors; and future financial obligations,industry and general economic trends. Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken Trustmark’s competitive position, which could materiallyadversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

In addition to the risk thatThe soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect Trustmark.

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

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

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

Trustmark, primarily through TNB and certain nonbank subsidiaries, is subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision, which vests a significant amount of discretion in the various regulatory authorities. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not security holders. These regulations and supervisory guidance affect Trustmark’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in interpretation or implementation or statutes, regulations, policies and supervisory guidance, could affect Trustmark in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject Trustmark to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products Trustmark may offer and/or increase the ability of nonbanks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance could result in enforcement and other legal actions by Federal or state authorities, including criminal and civil penalties, the loss of FDIC insurance, the revocation of a banking charter, civil money penalties, other sanctions by regulatory agencies and/or reputational damage. In this regard, government authorities, including bank regulatory agencies, continue to pursue enforcement agendas with respect to compliance and other legal matters involving financial activities, which heightens the risks associated with actual and perceived compliance failures. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

Trustmark is subject to numerous laws designed to protect consumers, including fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A successful regulatory challenge to an institution’s performance under fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of direct or indirect negative consequences, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on geographic expansion and restrictions on entering new business lines. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s business, financial condition or results of operations. In 2021, TNB settled a fair lending enforcement action with the Department of Justice, the OCC and the CFPB and incurred a one-time settlement expense of $5.0 million and made other commitments to enhance credit opportunities to residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis metropolitan statistical area. Trustmark and TNB could be subject to other enforcement actions in the future.

In addition, financial institutions face scrutiny on actions and policies that are deemed to adversely impact consumers under the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s

prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Bank regulators and the CFPB are responsible for enforcing these prohibitions against banking organizations. These prohibitions have been applied to prohibit perceived customer abuse in connection with a range of products, services, and practices, including account openings and fees charged where inadequate or no services are rendered for which charges were imposed, as well as other instances where consumers may have been misled through bank disclosures. In addition, the enforcement priorities of the agencies enforcing consumer protection laws have evolved over time and may continue to do so.

TNB's CRA rating of "Needs to Improve" could make it more difficult for Trustmark’s business to grow.

The performance of a bank under the CRA in meeting the credit needs of its community is a factor that must be taken into consideration when the federal banking agencies evaluate applications related to mergers and acquisitions, as well as branch opening and relocations. As of its last examination, TNB received a CRA rating of “Needs to Improve,” which is downgraded from its prior rating of “Satisfactory.” The rating of “Needs to Improve” adversely affects TNB’s ability to obtain regulatory approvals to engage in certain expansionary activities, including certain mergers and acquisitions and the establishment of bank branches. These limitations will remain in place until TNB receives a CRA rating of at least “Satisfactory” following a subsequent CRA examination. The precise timing of the completion of that examination and any results therefrom will not be known until later, and it is possible that TNB’s current CRA rating would not improve in the next examination.

Trustmark is subject to stringent capital requirements.

On September 12, 2010,Under the Groupregulatory capital rules of Governorsthe FRB, OCC, and HeadsFDIC that implement a set of Supervision, the oversight body ofcapital requirements issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision announced agreement on the calibration and phase-in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as Basel III.  The FRB, OCC,III, Trustmark and FDIC issued final rules establishing regulatoryTNB are required to maintain a common equity Tier 1 capital requirements consistent with Basel IIIto risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 7.0% (a minimum of 4.5% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 8.5% (a minimum of 6.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%), a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 10.5% (a minimum of 8.0% plus a capital conservation buffer of 2.5%) and implementinga leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to total consolidated assets of at least 4.0%. In addition, for TNB to be “well-capitalized” under the capital requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act in July 2013.  These capital rules require, among other things,banking agencies’ prompt corrective action framework, it must have a minimum common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%at least 6.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and establish a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk-weighted assets above the regulatory minimum capital requirement, effectively establishing a minimum common equity Tier 1 ratio of 7%.  In addition, the capital rules increased the minimum Tier 1 capital requirement from 4%ratio of at least 8.0%, a total capital ratio of at least 10.0% and a leverage ratio of at least 5.0%, and must not be subject to 6% of risk-weighted assets.  Theany written agreement, order or capital rules also specify thatdirective, or prompt corrective action directive issued by its primary federal regulator to meet and maintain a banking organization with aspecific capital conservation buffer that does not exceed 2.5% shall face limitations onlevel for any capital distributions and bonus payments to executives.measure.

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

20

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standard Codification (ASC) Topic 326, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” requires Trustmark to recognize all expected credit losses over the life of a loan based on historical experience, current conditions and TNB were requiredreasonable and supportable forecasts. FASB ASC Topic 326 generally is expected to comply withresult in earlier recognition of credit losses, which would increase reserves and decrease capital. Additionally, the revisedallowance for credit losses model could be materially impacted by changes in current and forecasted macroeconomic conditions. It is not possible to predict the timing or magnitude of changes in macroeconomic conditions or the impact such changes could have on Trustmark’s allowance for credit losses; however, material changes in the allowance for credit losses could have a material impact on Trustmark’s reserves and capital.

The regulatory capital rules beginning January 1, 2015.  Certain of the requirements of the revised capital rules, such as the capital conservation buffer, will be phased in until January 1, 2019.  Once the revised capital requirements are fully phased in, Trustmark and TNB will be requiredapplicable to hold a greater amount of capital and a greater amount of common equity than they were previously required to hold.  Management does not expect the capital rules to have a significant impact on Trustmark or TNB.

Unfavorable results from ongoing stress test analyses conducted on Trustmark and TNB may adversely affect Trustmark’s abilitycontinue to approve, declare and pay dividendsevolve as a result of new requirements established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision or legislative, regulatory or accounting changes in the United States. Management cannot predict the effect that any changes to shareholders or compete for new business opportunities.

The FRB and OCC requirecurrent capital requirements would have on Trustmark and TNBTNB.

Trustmark’s use of third-party service providers and Trustmark’s other ongoing third-party business relationships are subject to perform periodic stress testsincreasing regulatory requirements and analysisattention.

Trustmark regularly uses third-party service providers and subcontractors as part of its business. Trustmark also has substantial ongoing business relationships with partners and other third-parties and relies on certain third-parties to evaluate their abilityprovide products and services necessary to absorb losses in various economicmaintain day-to-day operations. These types of third-party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and financial scenarios.  This stress test analysis uses three economic and financial scenarios generatedattention by regulators, including the FRB, OCC, CFPB and OCC, including baseline, adverse and severely adverse scenarios.FDIC. Under regulatory guidance, Trustmark and TNB areis required to makeapply stringent due diligence, conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain effective control over third-party service providers and subcontractors and other ongoing third-party business relationships. These regulatory expectations may change, and potentially become more rigorous in certain assumptionsways, due to an interagency effort to replace existing guidance on the risk management of third-party

relationships with new guidance. Trustmark expects that the regulators will hold Trustmark responsible for deficiencies in modeling futureits oversight and control of its third-party relationships and in the performance and must support these assumptions through statistical analysis and observed market behavior where applicable.  Results of the stress testsparties with which Trustmark has these relationships. Trustmark maintains a system of policies and analysisprocedures designed to ensure adequate due diligence is performed byand to monitor vendor risks. While Trustmark believes these policies and TNB mustprocedures effectively mitigate risk, if the regulators conclude that Trustmark has not exercised adequate oversight and control over third-party service providers and subcontractors or other ongoing third-party business relationships or that such third-parties have not performed appropriately, Trustmark could be submittedsubject to the FRB and the OCC annually to be used in the regulators’ analysis.

The outcome of the FRB’s analysis of Trustmark’s projected performance (including capital, earnings and balance sheet changes) could hinder Trustmark’s ability to pay cash dividends to shareholders at levels consistent with prior practice,enforcement actions, including civil monetary penalties or at all.  The results of the stress tests could also impact decision making regarding future acquisitions by Trustmarkother administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as Trustmark’s ability to effectively competerequirements for new business opportunities.customer remediation.

Additionally, the FRB and OCC may require Trustmark and TNB to raise additional capital or take other actions, or may impose restrictions on its business, based on the results of the stress tests, including requiring revisions or changes to capital plans.  Trustmark and TNB may not be able to raise additional capital if required to do so, or may not be able to do so on favorable terms.  Any such capital raises, if required, may also be dilutive to existing shareholders.Operational Risks

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

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

Also, information Trustmark provides to its regulators based on poorly designed or implemented models could be inaccurate or misleading. Certain decisions that the regulators make, including those related to capital distributions and dividends to Trustmark’s shareholders, could be adversely affected due to the regulator’s perception that the quality of Trustmark’s models used to generate the relevant information is insufficient.

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

WhenIf Trustmark consummates an acquisition, a portion of the purchase price iswould generally be allocated to goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets. The amount of the purchase price that is allocated to goodwill and other intangible assets is determined by the excess of the purchase price over the net identifiable assets acquired. At December 31, 2017,2023, goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets were $396.0$387.2 million. Under current accounting standards, if Trustmark determines goodwill or intangible assets are impaired, Trustmark would be required to write down the carrying value of these assets. Trustmark’s annual goodwill impairment evaluation performed during the fourth quarter of 20172023 indicated no impairment of goodwill for any reporting segment. Management cannot provide assurance, however, that Trustmark will not be required to take an impairment charge in the future. Any impairment charge would have an adverse effect on Trustmark’s shareholders’ equity and financial condition and could cause a decline in Trustmark’s stock price.

21

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

As business necessitates, Trustmark forecloses on and takes title to real estate serving as collateral for loans. At December 31, 2017,2023, Trustmark held $43.2$6.9 million of other real estate, compared to $62.1 million at December 31, 2016.estate. The amount of other real estate held by Trustmark may increase in the future as a result of, among other things, business combinations, increased uncertainties in the housing market or increased levels of credit stress in residential real estate loan portfolios. Increased other real estate balances could lead to greater expenses as Trustmark incurs costs to manage, maintain and dispose of real properties as well as to remediate any environmental cleanup costs incurred in connection with any contamination discovered on real property on which Trustmark has foreclosed and to which Trustmark has taken title. As a result, Trustmark’s earnings could be negatively affected by various expenses associated with other real estate owned, including personnel costs, insurance and taxes, completion and repair costs, valuation adjustments and other expenses associated with real property ownership, as well as by the funding costs associated with other real estate assets. The expenses associated with holding a significant amount of other real estate could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.

On a quarterly basis, Trustmark evaluates investments and other assets for impairment indicators.  As of December 31, 2017, gross unrealized losses on temporarily impaired securities totaled $42.1 million.  Trustmark may be required to record impairment charges if these investments suffer a decline in value that is other-than-temporary.  If it is determined that a significant impairment has occurred, Trustmark would be required to charge against earnings the credit-related portion of the other-than-temporary impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on results of operations in the period in which a write-off, if any, occurs.

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

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

Trustmark operatesChanges in a highly competitive financial services industry.

Trustmark faces substantial competitionretail distribution strategies and consumer behavior may adversely impact Trustmark’s investments in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are largerpremises, equipment, technology and other assets and may have greater financial resources.  Such competitors primarily include nationallead to increased expenditures to change its retail distribution channel.

Trustmark has significant investments in bank premises and regional banks,equipment for its branch network. Advances in technology such as ecommerce, telephone, internet and mobile banking, and in-branch self-service technologies including interactive teller machines (ITMs) and other equipment, as well as community banks withinan increasing customer preference for these other methods of accessing Trustmark’s products and services, could decrease the various markets in whichvalue of its branch network, technology, or other retail distribution physical assets and may cause Trustmark operates.  At this time, major international banks do not materially compete directly with to change its retail distribution strategy, close and/or sell certain branches or parcels of land held for development and restructure or reduce its remaining branches and work force. These actions could lead to losses on these assets or could adversely impact the carrying value of any long-lived assets and may lead to increased expenditures to renovate, reconfigure or close a number of Trustmark’s remaining branches or to otherwise reform its retail distribution channel.

Trustmark may experience disruptions of its operating systems or breaches in its markets, although they may do so ininformation system security.

Trustmark is dependent upon communications and information systems to conduct business as such systems are used to manage virtually all aspects of Trustmark’s business. Trustmark’s operations rely on the future.  Trustmark also faces competition from many other typessecure processing, storage and transmission of financial institutions, including savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companiesconfidential and other financial intermediaries.  Additionally, fintech developments, suchinformation within its computer systems and networks. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in significant disruption to Trustmark's operations. Trustmark has taken protective measures, which are continuously monitored and modified as blockchainwarranted; however, Trustmark’s computer systems, software and other distributed ledger technologies, have the potentialnetworks may fail to disrupt the financial industry and change the way banks do business.  The financial services industry couldoperate properly or become even more competitivedisabled or damaged as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation.

22

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

Trustmark’s ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including:including events that are wholly or partially beyond Trustmark’s control. There could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume; electrical, telecommunications or other major physical infrastructure outages; natural disasters; and events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts.

Further, Trustmark’s operational and security systems and infrastructure may be vulnerable to breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents including, but not limited to, attempts to access information, including customer and company information, malicious code, computer viruses and denial of service attacks that could result in unauthorized access, theft, misuse, loss, release or destruction of data (including confidential customer information), account takeovers, unavailability of service or other events. These types of threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the ability to develop, maintain and build upon long-term customer relationships based on top quality service, high ethical standards and safe, sound assets; the ability to continue to expand Trustmark’s market position through organic growth and acquisitions; the scope, relevance and pricingpart of products and services offered to meet customer needs and demands; the rate at which Trustmark introduces new products and services relative to its competitors; and industry and general economic trends.  Failure to perform in anyexternal or internal parties, or may result from accidental technological failure. If one or more of these areasevents were to occur, Trustmark’s or its customers’ confidential and other information would be jeopardized, or such an event could significantly weakencause interruptions or malfunctions in Trustmark’s competitive position,or its customers’ or counterparties’ operations. Any failures related to upgrades and maintenance of Trustmark's technology and information systems could further increase its information and system security risk. Trustmark's increased use of cloud and other technologies, such as remote work technologies, also increases its risk of being subject to a cyber-attack. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attack or cyber intrusion, has increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Trustmark may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify its protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures in its computer systems and networks, and Trustmark may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by Trustmark. Any such losses, which may be difficult to detect, could adversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the occurrence of such a loss could expose Trustmark to reputational risk, the loss of customer business and additional regulatory scrutiny.

Security breaches in Trustmark’s internet and mobile banking activities (myTrustmark®) could further expose Trustmark to possible liability and reputational risk. Any compromise in security could deter customers from using Trustmark’s internet and mobile banking services that involve the transmission of confidential information. Trustmark relies on standard internet security systems to provide the

security and authentication necessary to effect secure transmission of data. However, these precautions may not protect Trustmark’s systems from compromise or breaches of security, which could result in significant legal liability and significant damage to Trustmark’s reputation and business.

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

As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, Trustmark has seen no material adverse impact on its business or operations from cyber-attacks or events. Trustmark's customers, employees and third parties that it does business with have been, and will continue to be, targeted by parties using fraudulent e-mails and other communications in attempts to misappropriate passwords, bank account information or other personal information or to introduce viruses or other malware programs to its information systems, the information systems of its merchants or third-party service providers and/or its customers' personal devices, which are beyond Trustmark's security control systems. Though Trustmark endeavors to mitigate these threats through product improvements, use of encryption and authentication technology and customer and employee education, such cyber-attacks against Trustmark, its merchants, third-party service providers and customers remain a serious issue and have been successful in the past.

Although Trustmark makes significant efforts to maintain the security and integrity of its information systems and has implemented various measures to manage the risks of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that its security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. Even well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable to attempted security breaches or disruptions because the techniques used in such attempts are constantly evolving and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. Accordingly, Trustmark may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate security barriers or other preventative measures, and thus it is virtually impossible for Trustmark to entirely mitigate this risk. Furthermore, in the event of a cyber-attack, Trustmark may be delayed in identifying or responding to the attack, which could increase the negative impact of the cyber-attack on its business, financial condition and results of operations. A security breach or other significant disruption of Trustmark's information systems or those related to its customers, merchants or third-party vendors, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could (i) disrupt the proper functioning of its networks and systems and therefore its operations and/or those of its customers; (ii) result in the unauthorized access to, and destruction, loss, theft, misappropriation or release of confidential, sensitive or otherwise valuable information of Trustmark or its customers; (iii) result in a violation of applicable privacy, data breach and other laws, subjecting Trustmark to additional regulatory scrutiny and exposing it to civil litigation, enforcement actions, governmental fines and possible financial liability; (iv) require significant management attention and resources to remedy the damages that result; or (v) harm Trustmark's reputation or cause a decrease in the number of customers that choose to do business with Trustmark. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on Trustmark's business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substantial legal liability against Trustmark, including its subsidiaries, could materially adversely affect Trustmark’s business, financial condition or results of operations, or cause significant harm to its reputation. TNB recently agreed to settlements relating to litigation involving the Stanford Financial Group and Adams/Madison Timber. For additional information regarding these settlements, see the section captioned “Legal Proceedings” in Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

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

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

Risk Related to Acquisition Activity

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

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

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

The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect Trustmark.

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

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

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

23

may be difficult to detect, could adversely affect Trustmark’s financial condition or results of operations.  In addition, the occurrence of such a loss could expose Trustmark to reputational risk, the loss of customer business and additional regulatory scrutiny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24

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

The volatility in the stock prices of companies in the financial services industry, such as Trustmark, may make it more difficult for shareholders to resell Trustmark common stock at attractive prices in a timely manner. Trustmark’s stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors, including factors affecting the financial industry as a whole.whole, such as the bank failures in March 2023. The factors affecting financial stocks generally and Trustmark’s stock price in particular include:

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

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

Trustmark’s accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how Trustmark records and reports its financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)FASB changes the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of Trustmark’s financial statements. The most recent economic recession resulted in increased scrutiny of accounting standards by regulators and legislators, particularly as they relate to fair value accounting principles. In addition, ongoing efforts to achieve convergence between U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards may result in changes to GAAP. Any such changes can be difficult to predict and can materially affect how Trustmark records and reports its financial condition or results of operations. For example, in June 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-13, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which replaces the current incurred loss impairment methodology with a methodology that reflects all current expected credit losses (CECL) and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to determine credit loss estimates.  Trustmark intends to adopt ASU 2016-13 during the first quarter of 2020, and adoption of this ASU could materially affect its allowance for loan losses methodology, financial condition, capital levels and results of operations, including expenses Trustmark may incur in implementing this ASU.  For additional details regarding recently adopted and pending accounting pronouncements, see Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

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

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

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

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

25

Trustmark may be subject to increased claimsExpectations around Environmental, Social and litigation, whichGovernance (ESG) practices as well as climate change and related legislative and regulatory initiatives could result in legal liability and reputational damage.

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

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

Substantial legal liability against Trustmark, including its subsidiaries, could materially adversely affect Trustmark’s business financial condition orand results of operations, or cause significant harmincluding indirectly through impact to our reputation.its customers.

DamageCompanies are facing increased scrutiny from customers, regulators and other stakeholders with respect to their ESG practices and disclosures. Institutional investors, and investor advocacy groups, in particular, are increasingly focused on these matters and expectations in many of these areas can vary widely. In addition, increased ESG related compliance costs could result in increases to Trustmark’s reputationoverall operational costs. Failure to adapt to or comply with regulatory requirements or investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, and fluctuations in these standards, could have a significant negativenegatively impact on Trustmark’s business.

Trustmark’sreputation, ability to attractdo business with certain partners and retain customers, clients, investors,its stock price. New government regulations could also result in new or more stringent forms of ESG oversight and highly-skilled managementexpanding mandatory and employees is affected by its reputation.  Public perceptionvoluntary reporting, diligence and disclosure.

In addition to regulatory and investor expectations on environmental matters in general, the current and anticipated effects of climate change are creating an increasing level of concern for the state of the financial services industry declinedglobal environment. As a result, political and social attention to the issue of climate change has increased. In recent years, governments across the world have entered into international agreements to attempt to reduce global temperatures, in part by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The United States Congress, state legislatures and

federal and state regulatory agencies have continued to propose and advance numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change. These agreements and measures may result in the imposition of taxes and fees, the required purchase of emission credits and the implementation of significant operational changes, each of which may require businesses to expend significant capital and incur compliance, operating, maintenance and remediation costs. Consumers and businesses also may change their behavior on their own as a result of the economic downturnthese concerns.

It is not possible to predict how climate change may impact Trustmark’s financial condition and related government response.operations; however, Trustmark faces increased public and regulatory scrutiny resulting from the financial crisis and economic downturn.  Significant harm to Trustmark’s reputation can also arise from other sources, including employee misconduct, actual or perceived unethical behavior, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failing to deliver minimum or required standards of service and quality, compliance failures, disclosure of confidential information, significant or numerous failures, interruptions or breaches ofoperates in areas where its information systemsbusiness and the activities of its clients, customers and counterparties, including vendors.  Actionscould be impacted by the financial services industry generallyeffects of climate change. The effects of climate change may include increased frequency or by certain membersseverity of weather-related events, such as severe storms, hurricanes, flooding and droughts and rising sea levels. These effects can disrupt business operations, damage property, devalue assets and change customer and business preferences, which may adversely affect borrowers, increase credit risk and reduce demand for Trustmark’s products and services. Trustmark and its customers will need to respond to new laws and regulations as well as consumer and business preferences resulting from climate change concerns. Trustmark and its customers may face cost increases, asset value reductions, operating process changes and the like. The impact to Trustmark’s customers will likely vary depending on their specific attributes, including reliance on or individualsrole in carbon intensive activities. In addition, Trustmark could face reductions in creditworthiness on the part of some customers or in the industryvalue of assets securing loans. Trustmark’s efforts to take these risks into account may not be effective in protecting it from the negative impact of new laws and regulations or changes in consumer or business behavior and could have a significantmaterial adverse effect on Trustmark’s reputation.  financial condition and results of operations.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None

ITEM 1C. CYBERSECURITY

Trustmark couldrecognizes the critical importance of identifying, assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats. Trustmark is committed to implementing and maintaining a comprehensive information security program to manage such risks and safeguard its systems and data.

Trustmark’s Board of Directors has ultimate oversight of cybersecurity-related risks and it is assisted in this role by the Enterprise Risk Committee and the Audit Committee. Processes for identifying, assessing and managing cybersecurity-related risks are integrated into Trustmark’s overall enterprise risk management process, which is overseen by the Enterprise Risk Committee. The Enterprise Risk Committee is responsible for monitoring risks that are being taken by Trustmark, understanding the enterprise-wide effect of those risks and reporting such risks to the Board. In fulfilling this role, the Enterprise Risk Committee has primary oversight responsibility over management’s efforts to manage and mitigate cybersecurity-related risk and reviews and approves Trustmark’s cybersecurity strategy for protecting Trustmark’s information assets and technology platforms. The Audit Committee oversees Trustmark’s Internal Audit Department, which conducts reviews and assessments related to information security. Management provides periodic reports to the Enterprise Risk Committee and the Audit Committee, both of which provide reports of their meetings to the full Board. These reports to the Board and its Committees address the threat environment, vulnerability assessments, specific cyber incidents and management’s efforts to monitor, detect and prevent cyber threats.

Trustmark’s information security program is primarily administered at the management level by the Information Security Department, which is led by Trustmark’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), and is supported by the Information Technology Department, which is led by Trustmark’s Chief Information Officer (CIO). The CISO reports to the CIO, who in turn reports to Trustmark’s Chief Credit and Operations Officer. Trustmark’s Information Security Department is responsible for day-to-day management of Trustmark’s information security program, including data loss prevention, access control, threat monitoring, incident response and employee education and training. The Information Security Department also suffer significant reputational harm if it failsmaintains policies related to properly identifycybersecurity and manage potential conflictsdata security that provide the required governance for the information security program. Additionally, Trustmark’s Information Technology Department maintains policies that govern technical aspects of interest.Trustmark’s information security program. Each policy is reviewed and approved by the Enterprise Risk Committee at least every three years and is mapped to applicable regulatory guidance. The Cybersecurity Operations team within the Information Technology Department maintains and runs Trustmark’s security operations center and is responsible for cybersecurity event management and maintaining security tooling. Trustmark also maintains an Information Security / Cybersecurity Management Committee, which is comprised of potential conflictsrepresentatives from the Information Security, Information Technology, Enterprise Risk, Corporate Security, Internal Audit and Legal departments and members of interestsexecutive management. This committee meets quarterly to discuss and review Trustmark’s information security program and receives qualitative and quantitative update reports from the Information Security Department, Internal Audit Department and Information Technology Department.

Trustmark engages third party assessors, consultants and auditors in connection with its information security program, including to conduct external penetration testing, independent audits and risk assessments. Trustmark also utilizes third party service providers in

the ordinary course of business. The Information Security Department performs information security assessments for third party service providers that store or process Trustmark confidential data. These information security assessments include a review of any systems and organization control reports, proof of the vendor’s independent testing of their data protection controls, as well as a review of any exceptions noted and assessment of management responses, results of vulnerability and penetration testing, incident response processes and third party data protection controls (which can include, but is not limited to: access reviews and controls, backups, monitoring, encryption standards and disaster recovery). The review of these areas is taken into account in order to provide an overall information security conclusion and risk rating for the vendor.

As a regulated financial institution, Trustmark is also subject to financial privacy laws and its cybersecurity practices are subject to oversight by the federal banking agencies. For additional information, see “Supervision and Regulation – Financial Privacy Laws and Cybersecurity” included in Part I. Item 1 – Business of this report.

Although Trustmark has become increasingly complexnot, as Trustmark expandsof the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, experienced a cybersecurity threat or incident that materially affected its business activities through more numerous transactions, obligationsstrategy, results of operations or financial condition, there can be no guarantee that Trustmark will not experience such an incident in the future. For additional information regarding the risk Trustmark faces from cybersecurity threats, please see the risk factors titled “Trustmark may experience disruptions of its operating systems or breaches in its information system security” and interests with“Trustmark must utilize new technologies to deliver its products and among its clients.  The actual or perceived failure to adequately address conflicts of interest could affect the willingness of clients to deal with Trustmark,services, which could adversely affect Trustmark’s businesses.require significant resources and expose Trustmark to additional risks, including cyber-security risks” included in Part I. Item 1A. – Risk Factors of this report.

NoneITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Trustmark’s principal offices are housed in its complexmain office building located in downtown Jackson, Mississippi and owned by TNB. Approximately 235,000 square feet, or 89%, of the available space in theTrustmark’s main office building is primarily allocated tofor bank use with the remainder occupied ora small portion available for occupancy by tenants on a lease basis.  As ofbasis, although such incidental leasing activity is not material to Trustmark’s operations. At December 31, 2017,2023, Trustmark, through TNB, also operated 178163 full-service branches, 207 limited-service branches and an ATMautomated teller machine (ATM) network, which included 180131 ATMs and 128 ITMs at on-premise locations, 66 ATMs located at off-premise sitesits branches and three interactive teller machines (ITMs) located at off-premise sites.other locations. In addition, Trustmark’s Mortgage Banking Group utilized six off-siteTrustmark operated 13 offices in various locations the Wealth Management Division utilized one off-site locationproviding mortgage banking, wealth management and the Insurance Division utilized five off-site locations.insurance services. Trustmark leases 9032 of its 279branch and other office locations with the remainder being owned. Trustmark believes its properties are suitable and adequate to operate its financial services business.

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

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In AugustITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

26

2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to interveneInformation required in this action.  In September 2012,section is set forth under the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearingheading “Legal Proceedings” of Note 16 – Commitments and determinationContingencies in Part II. Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of certain pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC’s motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions.  In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.  this report.

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

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

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

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

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

27

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

All pending legal proceedings described above are being vigorously contested.  In accordance FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) TopicASC Subtopic 450-20, “Loss Contingencies,” Trustmark will establish an accrued liability for litigation matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. As a result of the entry into the Stanford Settlement relating to the litigation involving the Stanford Financial Group, Trustmark recognized a $100.0 million litigation settlement expense included in noninterest expense during 2022, plus an additional $750 thousand in related legal fees. As a result of the entry into the Adams/Madison Timber Settlement relating to the litigation involving Adams/Madison Timber, Trustmark recognized a $6.5 million litigation settlement expense included in noninterest expense during 2023. At the present time, ManagementTrustmark believes, based on its evaluation and the advice of legal counsel, and Management’s evaluation, that a loss in any suchcurrently pending legal proceeding is not probable and reasonably estimable. All matters will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, Trustmark cannot predict the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters or the timing of their ultimate resolution. Management currently believes, however, based upon the advice of legal counsel and Management’s evaluation and after taking into account its current insurance coverage, that the legal proceedings currently pending should not have a material adverse effect on Trustmark’s consolidated financial condition.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Common Stock Prices and Dividends

Trustmark’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQNasdaq Stock Market and is traded under the symbol TRMK.  The table below represents, for each quarter“TRMK.”

Trustmark paid quarterly cash dividends to shareholders of 2017 and 2016, the high and low intra-day sales price$0.23 per share, or $0.92 per share annually, in 2023. As a component of Trustmark’sreturn to common stock and theshareholders, Trustmark intends to pay cash dividends when corporate financial performance and capital strength allow it to do so. All dividend payments must be approved and declared per common share.by the Board of Directors of Trustmark and are required to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

At January 31, 2018,2024, there were approximately 3,7002,936 registered shareholders of record and approximately 38,00015,952 beneficial account holders of shares in nominee name of Trustmark’s common stock. Other information required by this item can be found in Note 17 - Shareholders’ Equity included in Part II. Item 8. - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report.

Stock Repurchase Program

On March 11, 2016,January 28, 2020, the Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a stock repurchase program, effective April 1, 2020, under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding common stock maycould be acquired through March 31, 2019.  The shares may be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions.  Trustmark repurchased none of its common stock during the year ended December 31, 2017.2021. Under this authority, Trustmark repurchased approximately 341.9 million shares of its outstanding common stock valued at $61.8 million during 2021.

On December 7, 2021, the Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a stock repurchase program, effective January 1, 2022, under which $100.0 million of Trustmark’s outstanding common stock could be acquired through December 31, 2022. Under this authority, Trustmark repurchased approximately 789 thousand shares of its common stock valuedvalue at approximately $750 thousand$24.6 million during 2022.

On December 6, 2022, the year endedBoard of Directors of Trustmark authorized a stock repurchase program, effective January 1, 2023, under which $50.0 million of Trustmark's outstanding common stock could be acquired through December 31, 2016.2023. No shares were repurchased under this authority.

28On December 5, 2023, the Board of Directors of Trustmark authorized a new stock repurchase program, effective January 1, 2024, under which $50.0 million of Trustmark's outstanding common stock may be acquired through December 31, 2024. The repurchase program, which is subject to market conditions and management discretion, will be implemented through open market repurchases or privately negotiated transactions. No shares have been repurchased under this authority.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares Trustmark’s annual percentage change in cumulative total return on common shares over the past five years with the cumulative total return of companies comprising the NASDAQNasdaq market value index and the Morningstar BanksS&P 500 – Regional – USBanks index. The Morningstar BanksS&P 500 – Regional – USBanks index is an industry index published by MorningstarS&P Dow Jones Indices, a division of S&P Global, and consistsis comprised of 1,000 large, regional, diverse financial institutions serving the corporate, government and consumer needs of retail banking, investment banking, trust management, credit cards and mortgage bankingstock in the United States.S&P Total Market Index that are classified in the Global Industry Classification Standard regional banks sub-industry. This presentation assumes that $100 was invested in shares of the relevant issuers on December 31, 2012,2018, and that dividends received were immediately invested in additional shares. The graph plots the value of the initial $100 investment at one-year intervals for the fiscal years shown.

Prepared by Zacks Investment Research, Inc. Used with permission. All rights reserved. Copyright 1980-2024.

Index Data: Copyright NASDAQ OMX, Inc. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Index Data: Copyright Standard and Poor’s, Inc. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

29

The following unaudited consolidated financial data is derived from Trustmark’s audited financial statements as of and for the fivethree years ended December 31, 20172023 ($ in thousands, except per share data). The data should be read in conjunction with Part II. Item 7. - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.