This report provides a multifaceted examination of Amerant Bancorp Inc. (AMTB), updated October 27, 2025, dissecting its business, financials, past performance, future growth, and intrinsic value. Our analysis benchmarks AMTB against competitors like Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida (SBCF), Veritex Holdings, Inc. (VBTX), and Home BancShares, Inc. (HOMB). The key takeaways are framed through the proven investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
Mixed outlook for Amerant Bancorp, balancing clear risks against its growth potential.
The stock appears undervalued, trading at a discount to its asset value (0.81x tangible book value).
Its prime location in the high-growth markets of Florida and Texas provides a strong path for future loan growth.
However, this is undermined by a history of volatile earnings and poor operational efficiency.
The bank's profitability is held back by high costs and a risky concentration in commercial real estate loans.
This makes AMTB a high-risk investment best suited for investors comfortable with turnaround situations.
US: NASDAQ
Amerant Bancorp Inc. operates as a traditional, relationship-focused regional bank, concentrating its services primarily in the attractive, high-growth metropolitan areas of South Florida and Houston, Texas. The bank's business model is centered on gathering deposits from local individuals and businesses and using those funds to originate loans. Its core products and services include commercial real estate (CRE) lending, commercial and industrial (C&I) lending to small and medium-sized businesses, residential real estate mortgages, and a suite of deposit and wealth management services. Amerant aims to be the primary financial partner for its clients by leveraging deep local market knowledge and personalized service, a classic community banking strategy applied to major urban markets. The business generates revenue primarily through net interest income—the spread between the interest it earns on loans and the interest it pays on deposits—supplemented by a smaller stream of noninterest (fee) income from services like wealth management, treasury services, and deposit account fees. The bank's success is therefore closely tied to the economic health of its specific geographic footprints and its ability to manage interest rate risk.
Commercial Real Estate (CRE) lending is Amerant's largest and most significant business line, consistently comprising over 50% of its total loan portfolio. The bank provides financing for a range of properties, including multi-family residential, owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied commercial buildings, retail centers, and industrial spaces. The total market for CRE lending in the U.S. is valued in the trillions, but Amerant's addressable market is the highly dynamic South Florida and Houston regions, which have seen robust growth (CAGR of 5-7% in property values pre-pandemic) driven by population and business migration. Competition is intense, featuring large national banks like JPMorgan Chase, super-regional players like Truist, and numerous local community banks all vying for deals. Profit margins depend heavily on underwriting quality and the interest rate environment. Amerant's primary competitors in this space are other Florida-focused banks like BankUnited and City National Bank of Florida, which possess similar local expertise. The typical customers are local real estate developers, investors, and business owners seeking financing from $5 million to $50 million. These relationships can be sticky, as CRE lending often involves complex deal structures and a high degree of personal interaction with loan officers who understand the local landscape. Amerant's competitive moat in CRE is its entrenched local knowledge and long-standing relationships, which theoretically allow for better risk assessment and client retention than out-of-market lenders. However, this intense concentration in CRE within two specific geographic markets represents its single greatest vulnerability, exposing the bank disproportionately to regional real estate downturns.
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) lending, which accounts for approximately 20% of Amerant's loan book, is another cornerstone of its operation. This involves providing loans and lines of credit to small and medium-sized businesses for operational needs such as working capital, equipment purchases, and expansion projects. The market for C&I lending in South Florida and Houston is vibrant, fueled by a diverse and growing commercial base. While the national C&I market is vast, the competitive landscape is localized and fragmented. Amerant competes with a wide array of institutions, from the small business divisions of money-center banks to specialized commercial lenders and local credit unions. Competitors like Ocean Bank and First Horizon Bank are particularly active in this space in Florida. The bank's target customers are established local businesses with annual revenues typically ranging from $5 million to $100 million. The stickiness of these relationships is high, as C&I lending is rarely a standalone product. It is almost always bundled with essential treasury and cash management services, such as payroll, ACH transfers, and fraud prevention, which integrate deeply into a client's daily operations and create significant switching costs. Amerant's competitive position here is built on its 'relationship banking' model, where a dedicated banker serves as a single point of contact for a suite of services. This personalized approach is a key differentiator against larger, more impersonal competitors. The moat is therefore based on service quality and the high switching costs created by bundling C&I loans with indispensable treasury management services.
Deposits and Wealth Management form the other side of Amerant's balance sheet and a key source of its franchise value. The bank offers a standard range of deposit products, including checking, savings, and money market accounts, as well as time deposits (CDs) for both retail and commercial clients. These deposits provide the low-cost funding necessary to make loans. Through its subsidiary, Amerant Investments, the company also offers wealth management and brokerage services to high-net-worth individuals, a natural extension of its private banking focus in a wealthy market like South Florida. The market for deposits is hyper-competitive, with every financial institution fighting for low-cost funding. Wealth management is also a crowded field, with competition from global players like Morgan Stanley and UBS, as well as local registered investment advisors. Customers for deposit services range from individuals to large businesses, while wealth management targets affluent clients, often the same entrepreneurs and executives who use the bank's commercial services. The stickiness of basic retail deposits is low, but commercial deposits linked to treasury services are very sticky. Wealth management relationships, once established, also have high retention rates due to trust and personal connection. Amerant's moat in this area is its ability to bundle services. A business owner who has a C&I loan and treasury services with the bank is highly likely to also use it for personal deposits and, potentially, wealth management. This cross-selling deepens the client relationship and strengthens the bank's funding base. However, a key weakness has emerged as rising interest rates have forced Amerant to pay more for deposits, eroding its cost of funds advantage.
In conclusion, Amerant Bancorp's business model is that of a geographically focused, relationship-driven bank. Its competitive moat is not derived from proprietary technology, national scale, or a unique product, but from its deep integration into the economic fabric of South Florida and Houston. This local-centric approach allows for specialized knowledge in underwriting local real estate and commercial loans, fostering sticky, multi-product customer relationships that create high switching costs. This is a durable, time-tested model for community and regional banking.
However, the durability of this moat faces significant tests. The bank's heavy concentration in commercial real estate makes it highly susceptible to a downturn in that sector or in the regional economies it serves. Furthermore, its revenue is overwhelmingly dependent on net interest income, making it vulnerable to margin compression in a volatile interest rate environment. While the bank possesses fee-generating businesses like wealth management, they are not yet at a scale to provide a meaningful hedge. The resilience of its business model, therefore, depends almost entirely on prudent risk management and the continued economic prosperity of its core markets. While the model has proven effective, its lack of diversification in both geography and revenue streams constitutes a material, long-term risk for investors.
Amerant Bancorp's recent financial performance illustrates a story of sharp recovery. After posting a net loss of -$15.75 million for the full year 2024, driven by substantial provisions for credit losses and investment markdowns, the bank has course-corrected in 2025. Revenue has shown positive momentum, with net interest income growing sequentially from $85.9 million in Q1 to $90.48 million in Q2. This improvement in its core lending business has been the primary driver of its return to profitability, with Return on Equity rebounding to 10.05% in the latest data from -1.94% for the full year 2024.
The balance sheet appears stable and is expanding, with total assets crossing the $10 billion mark. Capital and liquidity metrics are sound, evidenced by a tangible common equity to total assets ratio of 8.76% and a loan-to-deposit ratio of 86.5%. This indicates the bank has a solid deposit base to fund its lending activities without excessive reliance on wholesale funding. The growth in total deposits, which increased from $7.86 billion at year-end 2024 to $8.31 billion by mid-2025, further underscores this stability.
However, there are two significant red flags for investors to monitor. First, the bank's cost structure is high. Its efficiency ratio has hovered around 68%, which is significantly weaker than the industry benchmark of below 60%. This suggests that a high level of expense is required to generate revenue, which could pressure margins. Second, the very large $60.46 million provision for credit losses in 2024, while moderating significantly in 2025, points to potential volatility in its loan portfolio. While the recent trend is positive, the financial foundation carries risks related to cost discipline and the memory of recent credit issues, making its current stability one that requires careful observation.
An analysis of Amerant Bancorp's performance over the last five fiscal years (FY2020–FY2024) reveals a period of significant strategic change marked by balance sheet growth but plagued by inconsistent profitability and operational inefficiency. The bank has been successful in expanding its core business, as evidenced by growth in loans and deposits. However, this expansion has not been accompanied by the steady earnings progression that investors typically look for in a regional bank. Instead, the historical record is defined by volatility, with results heavily influenced by large swings in credit loss provisions and non-recurring items, making it difficult to discern a clear, positive trend in core operations.
Looking at growth and profitability, the picture is choppy. Revenue has fluctuated without a clear upward trend, and earnings per share (EPS) have been extremely erratic, ranging from -$0.44 in FY2024 to a high of $3.04 in FY2021. This peak year was heavily influenced by a release of loan loss reserves, not sustainable core performance. The bank's profitability, measured by Return on Equity (ROE), has been similarly unstable, peaking at '13.66%' in 2021 before declining sharply and turning negative in 2024 with a result of '-1.94%'. This level of performance is significantly below high-quality regional bank peers, who often target ROEs consistently above 10% and maintain much more stable earnings paths.
The bank's operational metrics highlight underlying issues. Most notably, its efficiency ratio, which measures how much it costs to generate a dollar of revenue, has deteriorated significantly. After showing improvement in 2021, it climbed to nearly 90% in FY2024, indicating that expenses are consuming almost all of the bank's revenue. This compares very unfavorably to efficient competitors whose ratios are often in the 50-65% range. On a more positive note, the bank did initiate a dividend in 2021 and has maintained it, while also reducing its share count over the five-year period, although some dilution occurred in the most recent year. This shows a commitment to shareholder returns, but the sustainability of these returns is questionable without a stable earnings base.
In conclusion, Amerant's historical record does not inspire confidence in its execution or resilience. While the bank operates in attractive high-growth markets and has expanded its balance sheet, its past performance has been defined by volatility in earnings, poor cost control, and profitability metrics that lag well behind its competitors. The data suggests a business in transition that has yet to prove it can consistently turn growth into shareholder value.
The regional banking industry is poised for significant change over the next 3-5 years, driven by a confluence of economic, technological, and regulatory pressures. The era of near-zero interest rates is over, forcing banks to compete fiercely for deposits and manage profitability in a higher-cost funding environment. This will likely accelerate industry consolidation, as smaller banks lacking scale struggle to absorb the high fixed costs of technology upgrades and enhanced regulatory compliance. Key shifts will include a continued migration of customer interactions from physical branches to digital platforms, demanding significant investment in mobile banking, online account opening, and automated services. The competitive landscape is also intensifying, with large national banks using their scale to offer competitive rates and fintech companies chipping away at profitable niches like payments and personal loans. Entry into traditional banking remains difficult due to high capital requirements and regulatory hurdles, but the threat from non-bank competitors is growing.
Several catalysts could shape demand in the coming years. A potential easing of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve could lower funding costs and stimulate loan demand, particularly in rate-sensitive sectors like real estate. Continued demographic and business migration to Sun Belt states like Florida and Texas, where Amerant operates, is a powerful secular tailwind, expected to drive 3-5% annual growth in local economies, outpacing the national average. The U.S. regional banking market is expected to grow at a CAGR of approximately 2-3%, but hubs like Miami and Houston could see localized deposit and loan growth closer to 4-6%. Technology adoption will be critical; banks that successfully integrate AI for underwriting and customer service, and offer seamless digital experiences, will capture share. The challenge for banks like Amerant will be to fund the necessary tech investments while defending their net interest margins against larger, more efficient competitors.
As of October 24, 2025, Amerant Bancorp Inc. (AMTB) presents a compelling case for being undervalued, trading at $17.56 per share. A triangulated valuation approach, combining multiples, asset values, and income, points towards a significant potential upside, though not without notable risks. The analysis suggests the stock's current price does not fully reflect its earnings potential or the intrinsic value of its assets, especially considering its recent return to solid profitability.
The trailing P/E ratio of 194.57 is misleadingly high due to depressed earnings in the trailing twelve months which included a net loss in 2024. A forward-looking view is more instructive. The forward P/E ratio is a much more reasonable 8.08. Compared to the regional banking industry's average forward P/E of around 11.8x, AMTB appears significantly discounted. Applying this peer average multiple to AMTB's estimated forward EPS of $2.17 ($17.56 price / 8.08 forward P/E) would imply a fair value of approximately $25.60. This suggests the market is pricing in a higher level of risk or lower growth for AMTB than for its peers.
For banks, the Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value (P/TBV) is a cornerstone valuation metric. AMTB's tangible book value per share as of the most recent quarter was $21.70. With a current price of $17.56, the P/TBV ratio is 0.81x. This means investors can purchase the bank's net tangible assets at a 19% discount. Regional banks with a healthy Return on Equity (ROE) typically trade at or above their tangible book value, often in the 1.15x to 1.5x range. Given AMTB's recent quarterly Return on Equity of 10.05%, a valuation closer to its tangible book value of $21.70 (a 1.0x multiple) seems justified, suggesting an upside of over 20% from the current price.
AMTB offers a dividend yield of 2.05%, based on an annual payout of $0.36. While this yield is modest compared to some larger banks, its sustainability has improved dramatically. The TTM payout ratio is an alarming 398.9%, but this is based on backward-looking depressed earnings. Based on forward EPS estimates of $2.17, the forward payout ratio is a very healthy and sustainable 16.6%. The primary concern in capital return is the significant share dilution, with shares outstanding increasing substantially over the last year. This issuance of new shares works against existing shareholders and tempers the positive outlook from the dividend. After triangulating these methods, a fair value range of $21.70 to $26.04 appears reasonable.
Warren Buffett approaches banking as a simple business, seeking institutions with a durable competitive advantage, typically a low-cost deposit base, that produces consistent and high returns on assets without taking undue risks. While Amerant Bancorp operates in the attractive high-growth markets of Florida and Texas, Buffett would be immediately concerned by its subpar profitability metrics. The bank's Return on Average Assets (ROAA) of approximately 0.7% and an efficiency ratio above 70% fall significantly short of the high-quality operators he prefers, which typically earn over 1.0% on assets and operate more efficiently. He would view Amerant as a turnaround story, a category he generally avoids, as its performance indicates it currently lacks the strong economic moat and predictable earnings power he demands. Although the stock appears inexpensive, trading around 1.1x its tangible book value, Buffett would likely see it as a 'fair' company at a 'fair' price, not the wonderful business he seeks. Therefore, he would almost certainly avoid the stock, preferring to pay a higher price for a demonstrably superior competitor. If forced to choose the best banks from this group, Buffett would favor Home BancShares (HOMB) for its elite profitability (ROAA ~1.5%), International Bancshares (IBOC) for its fortress-like low-cost deposit moat, and Veritex Holdings (VBTX) for its high growth paired with strong efficiency. A sustained, multi-year track record of improved profitability (ROA consistently above 1.2%) and better cost control at Amerant could eventually attract his interest if the valuation remained reasonable.
Charlie Munger would approach Amerant Bancorp by first seeking a simple, durable banking franchise with a low-cost deposit base and a culture of avoiding foolish risks. He would be intrigued by Amerant’s exposure to the high-growth markets of South Florida and Houston, recognizing the long-term tailwinds. However, his enthusiasm would quickly fade upon reviewing the bank's performance metrics, as its efficiency ratio above 70% and Return on Average Assets (ROAA) around 0.7% signal a fundamentally less profitable and higher-cost operation compared to elite peers. Munger believed in buying wonderful businesses at fair prices, and he would view Amerant as a mediocre business at a cheap price, a type of investment he learned to avoid. The low price-to-tangible-book value of ~1.1x would not be enough to compensate for the lack of a clear moat and subpar returns on capital. Regarding its cash use, Amerant likely reinvests most of its earnings to fund growth, but these reinvestments generate lower returns than those of superior competitors, making it less effective at compounding shareholder value. If forced to choose the best regional banks, Munger would favor operators like Home BancShares (HOMB) for its operational excellence (ROAA ~1.5%), International Bancshares (IBOC) for its fortress balance sheet and unparalleled low-cost deposit moat (~45% non-interest bearing), and Veritex Holdings (VBTX) for its focused execution in prime Texas markets (ROAA ~1.2%). Ultimately, Munger would avoid AMTB, concluding that it's far better to pay a fair price for a predictable, high-quality banking franchise than a low price for a turnaround story with unproven economics. A sustained, multi-year track record of bringing its ROAA above 1.2% and its efficiency ratio below 60% would be required for him to reconsider.
Bill Ackman would view Amerant Bancorp as a potential turnaround story that currently lacks the clear catalyst he would require for an investment. His thesis for banks centers on either exceptionally high-quality franchises or fixable underperformers, and AMTB's operational metrics show it is not the former, while its path to becoming the latter remains unproven. He would be deeply concerned by its efficiency ratio of over 70% and a resulting Return on Average Assets (ROAA) of ~0.7%, which are significantly weaker than peers and signal an under-earning operation despite its attractive Florida and Texas locations. While the low valuation of ~1.1x tangible book value might seem appealing, Ackman would see it as a potential value trap without a clear plan to close the performance gap. The key takeaway for retail investors is that this is a high-risk bet on an operational fix that has yet to materialize, making it a stock to avoid for now.
Amerant Bancorp Inc. distinguishes itself in the competitive regional banking landscape through its strategic focus on two of the most dynamic metropolitan areas in the United States: South Florida and Houston. This concentrated geographic strategy is both its greatest strength and a significant risk. Unlike larger regional competitors with statewide or multi-state footprints, Amerant's fortunes are closely tied to the economic health and real estate markets of these specific areas. A downturn in these markets could disproportionately affect Amerant compared to more diversified peers. The bank's business model is centered on building deep relationships with commercial clients, real estate developers, and high-net-worth individuals, a classic community banking approach that can foster loyalty but can be challenging to scale.
From a performance standpoint, Amerant is on a journey to improve its operational metrics. Historically, its efficiency ratio—a key measure of a bank's overhead, where lower is better—has been higher than many of its competitors. This indicates that it costs Amerant more to generate a dollar of revenue, impacting its bottom-line profitability. Management has taken steps to address this, including strategic divestitures like the sale of its Amerant Investments business, to streamline operations and focus on core banking activities. The success of these initiatives is crucial for closing the profitability gap with peers and earning a higher valuation from the market.
When viewed against the competitive set, Amerant often trades at a discount. This is typically measured by its price-to-tangible book value (P/TBV) ratio, which compares the stock price to the company's physical net worth. While a lower P/TBV ratio can signal an undervalued stock, in Amerant's case, it also reflects the market's pricing-in of its lower profitability (as seen in its Return on Assets) and higher operational risks. An investment in Amerant is therefore a bet that management can successfully execute its strategic plan to enhance efficiency, improve returns, and capitalize on the long-term growth of its core markets, which would justify a re-rating of its stock to be more in line with higher-performing regional banks.
Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida (SBCF) is a direct, larger, and more established competitor within Amerant's key Florida market. As one of Florida's largest community banks, Seacoast presents a formidable challenge with its greater scale, broader branch network, and more consistent track record of profitability. While Amerant offers a more concentrated play on the lucrative South Florida market, Seacoast provides a more diversified exposure to the entire state's economy. The primary difference for investors lies in choosing between Amerant's potential turnaround story at a lower valuation versus Seacoast's established, premium-quality franchise.
In terms of Business & Moat, Seacoast has a distinct advantage. Its brand is recognized statewide, supported by a dense network of over 70 branches across Florida, giving it a significant scale advantage over Amerant's more localized presence. Seacoast's total assets of approximately $15 billion dwarf Amerant's $9.8 billion, providing economies of scale in marketing, technology, and compliance. Both banks benefit from high switching costs typical of banking, but Seacoast's larger and more granular deposit base provides a more stable funding source. While Amerant has a strong brand in its specific niches, Seacoast's broader reach is a more powerful moat. Winner: Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida due to its superior scale and wider brand recognition across the state.
Financially, Seacoast demonstrates superior operational execution. Its efficiency ratio typically hovers in the low 60% range, significantly better than Amerant's, which often sits above 70%. A lower efficiency ratio means Seacoast spends less to generate revenue, which translates directly to better profitability. Seacoast's Return on Average Assets (ROAA) is consistently higher, often near the 1.0% industry benchmark, whereas Amerant's has been closer to 0.7%. This shows Seacoast is more effective at turning its assets into profits. In terms of balance sheet strength, Seacoast also holds an edge with a stronger Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio (~13.5% vs. Amerant's ~12.5%), providing a larger capital cushion. Winner: Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida for its stronger profitability and greater efficiency.
Looking at Past Performance, Seacoast has been a more consistent performer. Over the past five years, Seacoast has delivered steadier earnings per share (EPS) growth, aided by both organic growth and successful acquisitions. Its total shareholder return (TSR) has also generally outpaced Amerant's, reflecting the market's confidence in its business model. For example, Seacoast's 5-year revenue CAGR has been around 15% (driven by acquisitions) versus a much lower figure for Amerant. In terms of risk, Seacoast's larger, more diversified loan book has resulted in more stable credit quality over time. Winner: Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida due to its superior track record of growth and shareholder returns.
For Future Growth, both banks are positioned in the attractive Florida market, which benefits from strong population and business growth. However, Seacoast's strategy of disciplined acquisitions across the state gives it an additional lever for growth that Amerant currently lacks. Amerant's growth is more organically focused and highly dependent on the South Florida and Houston economies. While this concentration can lead to high growth if those markets boom, it also presents higher risk. Seacoast's diversified approach provides a more balanced growth outlook. Analyst consensus typically projects more stable, albeit moderate, earnings growth for Seacoast. Winner: Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida for its more balanced and multi-faceted growth strategy.
From a Fair Value perspective, Amerant typically trades at a discount to Seacoast. Amerant's price-to-tangible book value (P/TBV) ratio is often around 1.1x, while Seacoast commands a premium valuation closer to 1.3x. This valuation gap is justified by Seacoast's superior profitability, lower risk profile, and stronger growth track record. An investor in Amerant is paying less but accepting lower current returns and higher execution risk. Seacoast, while more expensive, is priced for its quality. For a value-oriented investor willing to take a risk on a turnaround, Amerant is cheaper, but on a risk-adjusted basis, Seacoast's premium is earned. Winner: Amerant Bancorp Inc. purely on the basis of its lower valuation multiple, though this comes with caveats.
Winner: Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida over Amerant Bancorp Inc. Seacoast is fundamentally a stronger, more efficient, and more profitable banking institution. Its key strengths are its superior scale ($15B vs. $9.8B in assets), a best-in-class efficiency ratio (low 60% range vs. 70%+), and higher profitability (ROAA near 1.0% vs. 0.7%). Amerant's primary weakness is its operational inefficiency, which has historically dragged on its returns. While Amerant's concentration in prime markets and lower P/TBV valuation (~1.1x) are appealing, the primary risk is that its turnaround efforts falter. Seacoast's proven ability to execute and consistently generate superior returns makes it the clear winner for most investors.
Veritex Holdings, Inc. is a Texas-based commercial bank that serves as a strong competitor to Amerant's Houston operations. With a deep focus on the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston markets, Veritex has built a reputation as a business-focused bank with strong loan growth. The comparison with Amerant highlights two different approaches to the Texas market: Veritex's deep, Texas-centric model versus Amerant's bi-focal strategy split between Florida and Houston. Veritex is generally considered a higher-growth and more efficient operator, but this often comes with a higher valuation.
When analyzing Business & Moat, Veritex has a strong, localized franchise in its core Texas markets. Its brand is well-established among commercial and industrial (C&I) borrowers and small-to-medium-sized businesses in Dallas and Houston. With assets of approximately $12 billion, it has a slight scale advantage over Amerant's $9.8 billion. Its moat is built on deep relationships with Texas business owners, leading to a high-quality, non-interest-bearing deposit base (~35% of total deposits), which is a cheaper funding source than Amerant's. Amerant's moat is its dual-market presence, but it lacks the same depth in Houston that Veritex possesses. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. due to its stronger regional brand and superior low-cost deposit franchise.
From a Financial Statement Analysis perspective, Veritex typically outperforms Amerant on key metrics. Veritex has historically demonstrated stronger revenue growth, driven by robust loan origination in the booming Texas economy. Its efficiency ratio is often in the mid-50% range, which is significantly better than Amerant's 70%+. This operational excellence allows Veritex to achieve a much higher Return on Average Assets (ROAA), often in the 1.1-1.2% range, compared to Amerant's ~0.7%. Both banks are well-capitalized, but Veritex's ability to generate superior returns on its asset base is a clear differentiator. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. based on its significantly better efficiency and profitability.
Examining Past Performance, Veritex has a stronger track record. Over the last five years, Veritex has delivered impressive EPS growth, with a 5-year CAGR often exceeding 10%, fueled by strong organic loan growth. In contrast, Amerant's performance has been more volatile as it underwent strategic repositioning. Veritex's total shareholder return has reflected this operational success, generally outperforming both Amerant and the regional bank index. Its risk profile is tied to the Texas economy, but its disciplined underwriting has kept credit quality in check. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. for its consistent history of high growth and strong returns.
In terms of Future Growth, both banks operate in attractive, high-growth markets. Veritex's growth is squarely focused on deepening its penetration in the Dallas and Houston MSAs, two of the fastest-growing areas in the country. Management guidance often points to continued double-digit loan growth. Amerant's growth is split between Texas and Florida. While both are great markets, this split focus could potentially dilute its impact compared to Veritex's concentrated efforts. Analysts generally forecast higher near-term earnings growth for Veritex, driven by its strong loan pipeline. Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. due to its focused strategy in premier growth markets and a clearer path to near-term expansion.
On Fair Value, Veritex's superior performance commands a premium valuation. Its price-to-tangible book value (P/TBV) ratio is often in the 1.5x-1.7x range, substantially higher than Amerant's ~1.1x. This means investors are willing to pay more for each dollar of Veritex's net assets, betting on its continued high growth and profitability. Amerant is the statistically 'cheaper' stock. However, the question for investors is whether Amerant's potential improvement can close the performance gap to justify a higher valuation in the future. Today, Veritex is priced for its high quality. Winner: Amerant Bancorp Inc. on a relative value basis, as it offers a much lower entry point for exposure to similar growth markets.
Winner: Veritex Holdings, Inc. over Amerant Bancorp Inc. Veritex is a higher-quality, higher-growth regional bank. Its key strengths are its exceptional operational efficiency (efficiency ratio in the mid-50%s), robust profitability (ROAA > 1.1%), and a dominant position in its core Texas markets. Amerant's primary weaknesses in this comparison are its lower returns and less efficient operations. The main risk for Veritex is its concentration in the Texas economy, but its execution has been flawless. While Amerant is valued more cheaply on a P/TBV basis (~1.1x vs. Veritex's ~1.6x), Veritex's superior financial performance and clearer growth trajectory make it the better-run institution and a more compelling investment, despite the premium price.
City Holding Company (CHCO) is a community bank holding company based in West Virginia, with operations in Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio. It presents an interesting comparison to Amerant as it is a similarly sized bank that operates in much slower-growth markets. CHCO is widely respected for its consistent execution, pristine credit quality, and focus on shareholder returns through dividends and buybacks. The comparison highlights the difference between operating in a high-growth, competitive market (Amerant) versus a stable, mature market (CHCO).
In terms of Business & Moat, City Holding has built a strong franchise in its Appalachian markets. With over 90 branches and assets of around $6 billion, it often holds a leading deposit market share in the smaller towns and cities it serves. Its moat is derived from being the primary, trusted local bank in communities that are not heavily targeted by larger national players. This creates a sticky, low-cost deposit base. Amerant operates in far more dynamic and competitive environments. While Amerant's markets offer more growth, CHCO's position is arguably more defensible and less competitive. Winner: City Holding Company for its dominant position in its less competitive niche markets.
From a Financial Statement Analysis perspective, City Holding is a model of consistency. It consistently produces a Return on Average Assets (ROAA) above 1.4%, placing it in the top tier of the banking industry and far ahead of Amerant's ~0.7%. Furthermore, its efficiency ratio is excellent, typically in the low 50% range, again demonstrating superior operational management compared to Amerant's 70%+. CHCO's strength comes from meticulous expense control and a stable, low-cost deposit franchise that supports a healthy Net Interest Margin. Its credit quality is also historically among the best in the industry, with very low net charge-offs. Winner: City Holding Company due to its elite profitability and efficiency.
Looking at Past Performance, City Holding has a long history of steady, predictable results. While its top-line growth is modest, reflecting its mature markets, it has delivered consistent growth in earnings per share and tangible book value per share through operational improvements and share buybacks. Its stock has been a stable, low-volatility performer with a strong dividend, appealing to conservative, income-focused investors. Amerant's performance has been much more volatile. For investors prioritizing stability and predictable returns, CHCO's track record is far superior. Winner: City Holding Company for its exceptional record of stable, low-risk performance.
For Future Growth, Amerant has a clear advantage. Amerant's presence in South Florida and Houston provides access to economies with robust population and business growth, offering a much larger runway for organic loan growth. City Holding's markets have stagnant or slow-growing demographics, meaning its growth is limited to taking market share or making small, in-market acquisitions. Analyst estimates for revenue and loan growth will almost always be higher for Amerant. The key risk for Amerant is managing this growth profitably, while the risk for CHCO is a lack of growth opportunities. Winner: Amerant Bancorp Inc. for its significantly greater potential for organic growth.
On Fair Value, City Holding typically trades at a premium valuation that reflects its high quality and stable returns. Its price-to-tangible book value (P/TBV) ratio is often in the 1.7x-1.9x range, which is quite high for a bank with modest growth prospects. This premium is paid for its safety and profitability. Amerant's P/TBV of ~1.1x is much lower. In this case, the valuation gap between the two is substantial. An investor in CHCO is paying a high price for safety and current profitability, while an investor in Amerant is paying a low price for future growth potential. Winner: Amerant Bancorp Inc. because CHCO's premium valuation is difficult to justify given its low-growth geographic footprint.
Winner: City Holding Company over Amerant Bancorp Inc. Despite its limited growth prospects, City Holding is the better-run bank and the more reliable investment. Its key strengths are its top-tier profitability (ROAA >1.4%), excellent efficiency (ratio in low 50%s), and a stable, defensible position in its core markets. Amerant's key weakness is its failure to translate its high-growth market location into high-quality returns. The primary risk for City Holding is stagnation, but its management has proven adept at creating value through efficiency and capital returns. While Amerant has more exciting growth potential, City Holding's proven ability to generate consistent, high returns for shareholders makes it the clear winner.
OceanFirst Financial Corp. is a community-focused bank with a strong presence in New Jersey, and expanding operations in New York and Pennsylvania. With assets of approximately $13 billion, it is a relevant peer for Amerant in terms of size. The bank has grown significantly through acquisitions and serves a densely populated, wealthy, but slower-growing region compared to Amerant's markets. This comparison highlights the trade-offs between operating in mature but wealthy markets versus high-growth but more volatile ones.
Regarding Business & Moat, OceanFirst has a solid and established brand in its core New Jersey markets, where it has operated for over a century. Its moat is built on a long history of community involvement and a sizable branch network that gives it a strong local deposit-gathering franchise. Its scale, with assets around $13 billion, gives it an advantage over Amerant's $9.8 billion. However, the banking landscape in the Northeast is intensely competitive. Amerant's moat is its specialized focus on the international business communities in South Florida, which is a more unique and faster-growing niche. The moats are comparable but different in nature. Winner: Even as OceanFirst's established local density is matched by Amerant's more dynamic market niche.
From a Financial Statement Analysis perspective, OceanFirst generally demonstrates stronger and more consistent performance than Amerant. Its Return on Average Assets (ROAA) typically lands in the 0.9-1.0% range, hitting the industry benchmark for solid performance and exceeding Amerant's ~0.7%. Its efficiency ratio is also superior, often in the low 60% range compared to Amerant's 70%+. This indicates that OceanFirst runs a more profitable core operation. Both banks are adequately capitalized, but OceanFirst's better profitability and efficiency metrics give it a clear financial edge. Winner: OceanFirst Financial Corp. due to its stronger profitability and more efficient operations.
Looking at Past Performance, OceanFirst has a history of steady growth, largely fueled by a series of successful bank acquisitions over the past decade. This has allowed it to grow its footprint and earnings base consistently. Its total shareholder return has been solid, if not spectacular, reflecting its stable but mature markets. Amerant's performance has been less predictable due to its strategic repositioning. OceanFirst's track record shows a more reliable pattern of execution and growth, albeit often M&A-driven. Winner: OceanFirst Financial Corp. for its more consistent track record of growth and integration.
For Future Growth, Amerant holds the advantage. The demographic and economic trends in South Florida and Houston are far superior to those in New Jersey and the broader tristate area. This provides Amerant with a much stronger tailwind for organic loan and deposit growth. OceanFirst's growth is more reliant on M&A or taking market share in a crowded, slow-growth environment. While OceanFirst has proven it can execute on acquisitions, the underlying organic growth potential of its markets is structurally lower than Amerant's. Winner: Amerant Bancorp Inc. due to the superior economic fundamentals of its geographic footprint.
In terms of Fair Value, both banks often trade at similar valuations, reflecting the market's balancing of their different attributes. Both have frequently traded at price-to-tangible book value (P/TBV) ratios in the 1.0x-1.2x range. At a similar valuation, the choice becomes about investor preference: OceanFirst offers better current profitability and a more stable track record, while Amerant offers higher growth potential. Given that OceanFirst is a more profitable and efficient bank today, a similar valuation arguably makes it the better value on a risk-adjusted basis. Winner: OceanFirst Financial Corp. as it offers superior financial metrics for a comparable valuation multiple.
Winner: OceanFirst Financial Corp. over Amerant Bancorp Inc. OceanFirst stands out as the stronger and more reliable investment at a similar valuation. Its key strengths are its solid profitability (ROAA ~1.0%), better efficiency (ratio in low 60%s), and a proven history of successful M&A integration. Amerant's primary weakness is its subpar profitability and efficiency, which has yet to be fully resolved. The main risk for OceanFirst is the limited organic growth in its mature Northeast markets. However, its superior operational performance and more consistent track record make it a more dependable investment than Amerant, which remains a 'show-me' story.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Amerant Bancorp is a regional bank with a business model deeply rooted in the high-growth markets of South Florida and Houston. Its primary strength lies in its local market expertise, which supports a large commercial real estate lending portfolio and relationship-based banking services. However, this geographic concentration creates significant risk, and the bank is highly sensitive to interest rate fluctuations due to its limited fee income. Its funding base has also become more expensive, pressuring profitability. The investor takeaway is mixed, as its strong regional focus is balanced by considerable concentration risk and a traditional, interest-rate-dependent business model.
The bank remains heavily dependent on interest-based revenue, as its fee-generating businesses like wealth management are not yet large enough to provide a meaningful buffer against interest rate volatility.
A balanced revenue mix between interest income and fee income provides stability. Amerant's noninterest income accounts for only about 17% of its total revenue, a figure that is IN LINE with or slightly BELOW the average for its sub-industry peer group. This heavy reliance on net interest income (83% of revenue) makes its earnings highly sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates and loan demand. While the bank operates a wealth management division and generates fees from deposit services, these sources are not at a scale to meaningfully diversify its revenue stream. For instance, wealth management fees contribute less than 5% of total revenue. This lack of diversification is a structural weakness, limiting its financial flexibility when interest margins are under pressure.
Amerant's focus on commercial and private banking clients in specific international-facing markets creates concentration risk, with a notable portion of its funding coming from uninsured deposits.
While Amerant serves a mix of retail and commercial customers, its strategic focus on business banking, international clients, and high-net-worth individuals leads to a concentrated deposit base. The bank's level of uninsured deposits (funds above the $250,000 FDIC limit) stood at approximately 46% as of early 2024. This level is ABOVE the median for many smaller regional banks and signals a higher reliance on larger, more sophisticated, and potentially less loyal depositors who are more likely to move funds for higher yields or perceived safety. While not inherently bad, this concentration makes the bank's funding more vulnerable to market sentiment or shocks compared to a more granular, retail-focused deposit base. The lack of broader diversification across customer types is a key risk.
Amerant has successfully carved out a powerful geographic niche in South Florida and Houston, leveraging deep local expertise rather than focusing on a specific loan product.
While not a leader in a specific product category like SBA or agriculture loans, Amerant's competitive advantage comes from its deep-rooted specialization in its geographic markets. The bank's lending portfolio is dominated by commercial real estate (~55%), C&I (~20%), and residential loans tailored to the specific dynamics of South Florida and Houston, including serving international clients. This geographic focus acts as its niche, allowing for more informed underwriting and stronger client relationships than out-of-market competitors could achieve. This strategy is validated by its long history and significant market presence in these areas. While this creates concentration risk, its proven ability to operate and compete effectively within these attractive markets represents a clear and defensible lending franchise.
The bank's deposit base has become significantly more expensive as customers shift to higher-yielding accounts, weakening its historically low-cost funding advantage.
A stable, low-cost deposit base is crucial for a bank's profitability. Amerant's foundation here shows signs of weakness. As of early 2024, noninterest-bearing deposits constituted only around 17% of total deposits, which is BELOW the typical 20-30% range seen at many high-performing community banks. This means a smaller portion of its funding is 'free'. Consequently, its total cost of deposits has surged to over 3.15%, a sharp increase reflecting the competitive environment for funds. Furthermore, higher-cost time deposits (CDs) have grown to represent over 35% of the deposit base. This shift indicates that the 'stickiness' of its core deposits is eroding, forcing the bank to pay market rates to retain and attract funds, which directly compresses its net interest margin.
Amerant operates a lean, strategically-placed branch network in its core urban markets, resulting in high deposits per branch that suggest strong operational efficiency.
Amerant Bancorp leverages a small network of approximately 17 banking centers, heavily concentrated in the high-growth, wealthy corridors of South Florida and Houston. With approximately $7.7 billion in total deposits, the bank achieves an average of over $450 million in deposits per branch. This figure is exceptionally strong and sits well ABOVE the average for regional banks of similar size, indicating that its branches are located in prime areas and are highly productive at gathering deposits. This focused physical presence supports its relationship-based model for private and business banking without the high overhead of a sprawling network. The primary risk is the flip side of this efficiency: the bank's fortunes are tied almost exclusively to these few counties, creating significant geographic concentration risk.
Amerant Bancorp's financial statements show a significant recent recovery after a challenging prior year. The bank returned to profitability in the first half of 2025, with Q2 net income reaching $23 million after an annual loss in 2024. Key strengths include strong growth in Net Interest Income, up 14.02% year-over-year, and a healthy loan-to-deposit ratio of 86.5%. However, a high efficiency ratio around 68% and a recent history of high credit loss provisions are notable weaknesses. The overall investor takeaway is mixed, as the positive earnings momentum is balanced against underlying cost control and credit quality concerns.
The bank maintains a solid capital base and a healthy liquidity position, with a strong deposit franchise funding its loan growth.
Amerant Bancorp demonstrates robust capital and liquidity. The Tangible Common Equity to Total Assets ratio, a key measure of a bank's ability to absorb losses, stood at 8.76% in Q2 2025 ($905.09 million in TCE vs. $10.34 billion in assets). This is a solid level for a regional bank and provides a respectable cushion against unexpected events. While specific regulatory capital ratios like CET1 are not provided, this core metric suggests adequate capitalization.
On the liquidity front, the bank's loan-to-deposit ratio was a healthy 86.5% as of Q2 2025 ($7.18 billion in gross loans vs. $8.31 billion in deposits). A ratio below 100% is desirable as it shows the bank is funding its loans primarily through stable customer deposits rather than more volatile borrowings. The bank's ability to grow deposits by over $450 million in the first half of 2025 further highlights the strength of its funding base.
Despite a recent dramatic improvement, the bank's very high provision for loan losses in the recent past raises significant concerns about the underlying credit risk in its portfolio.
Credit quality presents a mixed but concerning picture. The bank's allowance for credit losses as a percentage of gross loans was 1.2% in Q2 2025 ($86.52 million allowance vs. $7.18 billion in loans). This reserve level is generally in line with industry averages. Furthermore, foreclosed assets (OREO) have declined and represent a negligible 0.15% of total assets, which is a positive sign. The most encouraging trend is the sharp decline in the provision for credit losses, which fell from $18.45 million in Q1 to just $6.06 million in Q2 2025.
However, this recent improvement comes after a massive $60.46 million provision for the full year 2024, which was the primary cause of the company's annual net loss. Such a large provision suggests significant credit deterioration occurred recently. While management has since reduced provisions, signaling confidence, the prior spike creates uncertainty about the portfolio's stability and the potential for future credit-related earnings volatility. This recent history of credit stress warrants a cautious stance.
The bank appears to be managing interest rate risk effectively, as indicated by a very small negative impact from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) on its tangible equity.
Amerant Bancorp's exposure to interest rate fluctuations seems well-contained. The most direct measure of this is the bank's Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI), which captures unrealized gains or losses on its securities portfolio. As of the second quarter of 2025, AOCI was -$25.45 million, representing just -2.8% of the bank's $905.09 million in tangible common equity. This is a very low figure compared to many peers, suggesting that rising interest rates have not materially eroded its capital base through its investment holdings.
While specific data on the duration of its securities portfolio is not available, the bank's investment portfolio totals $1.96 billion, with mortgage-backed securities comprising the bulk at $1.77 billion. Despite the rate-sensitive nature of these assets, the bank has successfully grown its Net Interest Income. This performance indicates a proficient balance between what it earns on assets and pays on liabilities, reinforcing the view that its interest rate risk management is sound.
The bank's core earnings power is strong, demonstrated by consistent double-digit growth in its Net Interest Income (NII).
The bank's core lending operation is performing very well. Net Interest Income (NII), the difference between interest earned on loans and paid on deposits, has shown robust growth. In the second quarter of 2025, NII grew 14.02% year-over-year to $90.48 million, following a 10.18% year-over-year increase in the first quarter. This is a clear sign of strength, indicating the bank is effectively managing its asset yields and funding costs in the current interest rate environment.
Sequentially, NII increased by a healthy 5.3% from Q1 to Q2 2025. This growth was achieved even as total interest expense remained relatively flat, while total interest income continued to climb from $146.41 million to $151.1 million. Although the specific Net Interest Margin (NIM) percentage is not provided, this strong NII growth is a powerful positive indicator of the bank's fundamental profitability.
The bank's high cost structure, reflected in a weak efficiency ratio, is a significant drag on its profitability and operational leverage.
Amerant Bancorp struggles with cost control. The bank's efficiency ratio, which measures noninterest expense as a percentage of revenue, was 67.5% in Q2 2025 and 67.9% in Q1 2025. These figures are considerably weaker than the industry benchmark, where a ratio below 60% is considered efficient. This means for every dollar of revenue the bank generates, it spends nearly 68 cents on overhead like salaries, technology, and occupancy costs.
In Q2 2025, noninterest expenses totaled $74.4 million, with salaries and benefits accounting for nearly half at $36.04 million. While revenue has been growing, expenses have also continued to climb. A persistently high efficiency ratio limits the bank's ability to convert top-line growth into bottom-line profit and puts it at a competitive disadvantage against leaner peers.
Amerant Bancorp's past performance has been highly inconsistent, characterized by volatile earnings and weak efficiency. While the bank successfully grew its total deposits from $5.7 billion to $7.9 billion between FY2020 and FY2024, this growth did not translate into stable profits. Earnings per share swung wildly over this period, from a loss of -$0.04 to a profit of $3.04 and back to a loss of -$0.44. Compared to more efficient and consistently profitable competitors like Seacoast Banking and Veritex Holdings, Amerant's track record is notably weaker. The investor takeaway on its past performance is negative, as the bank has failed to demonstrate a reliable path to profitability or operational discipline.
The bank has achieved solid, multi-year growth in both its loan and deposit portfolios while improving its loan-to-deposit ratio, indicating prudent balance sheet expansion.
Over the five-year period from FY2020 to FY2024, Amerant successfully grew its balance sheet. Total deposits increased by 37%, from $5.73 billion to $7.86 billion, providing a stable funding base. At the same time, gross loans expanded by 24% from $5.84 billion to $7.23 billion. This demonstrates the bank's ability to attract customers and deploy capital in its target markets of Florida and Texas.
Importantly, the bank's management of these assets has become more conservative. The loan-to-deposit ratio, a key measure of liquidity and risk, improved significantly. It decreased from a high of '101.9%' in FY2020, where loans exceeded deposits, to a more manageable '92.0%' in FY2024. This lower ratio suggests the bank is funding more of its lending activities through stable customer deposits rather than more volatile wholesale borrowings. This consistent growth in core banking activities is a clear strength in its historical performance.
Despite strong growth in net interest income, the bank's efficiency ratio has worsened dramatically to poor levels, indicating that expense growth has spiraled out of control and is destroying profitability.
Amerant's past performance shows a troubling divergence between its core revenue generation and its cost management. On the positive side, Net Interest Income (NII), the profit from lending and borrowing, showed impressive growth, rising from $189.6 million in FY2020 to $326.0 million in FY2024. This reflects the successful balance sheet growth and a generally favorable interest rate environment for a period.
However, this strong NII growth was completely overshadowed by a severe deterioration in efficiency. The efficiency ratio, which measures non-interest expenses as a percentage of revenue, worsened from a reasonable '63.8%' in FY2020 to an alarmingly high '89.6%' in FY2024. A lower ratio is better, and best-in-class competitors often operate in the 50-60% range. Amerant's trend indicates that expenses have grown much faster than revenues, severely damaging its ability to generate profits. This poor cost discipline is a critical weakness in its historical performance.
The bank's earnings per share (EPS) have been extremely volatile, swinging between significant profits and losses over the past five years, showing no evidence of a consistent growth trend.
Amerant's EPS track record lacks any semblance of stability or predictable growth. Over the last five fiscal years, EPS figures were: -$0.04 (2020), $3.04 (2021), $1.87 (2022), $0.97 (2023), and -$0.44 (2024). This performance is a rollercoaster for investors. The standout year, FY2021, was driven by non-recurring events like a large release of credit reserves and asset sales, not by sustainable improvements in core operations. The subsequent steady decline in EPS, culminating in another loss, highlights the weakness in the bank's core earnings power.
This level of volatility is a significant concern for a bank, where investors prize consistency. The average Return on Equity (ROE) has also been lackluster and erratic, falling from a high of '13.66%' in 2021 to '-1.94%' in 2024. Compared to competitors like Veritex, which has a history of delivering strong and steady EPS growth, Amerant's performance has been poor and unpredictable.
Credit costs have been highly volatile, with large provisions for loan losses in several years, suggesting inconsistent underwriting and a lack of stability in the loan portfolio's performance.
A review of Amerant's income statement reveals a volatile history of credit costs. The provision for loan losses, which is money set aside to cover expected bad loans, has fluctuated dramatically. The bank recorded a massive provision of $88.6 million in FY2020, followed by a net release of -$16.5 million in FY2021 as economic conditions improved. However, provisions ramped back up to $61.3 million in FY2023 and $60.5 million in FY2024. These large swings are a primary driver of the bank's unstable earnings.
This pattern suggests that the bank's loan book may carry higher risk or has been less resilient through economic cycles compared to more conservative peers. Top-tier banks like Home BancShares and IBOC are known for their consistently low credit losses. Amerant's need for such significant and unpredictable provisions indicates that managing credit risk has been a challenge, making its earnings stream less reliable for investors.
The bank established a regular quarterly dividend in 2022 and reduced its share count over five years, but volatile earnings make the current dividend payout look potentially unsustainable.
Amerant initiated a dividend in 2021 with $0.06 per share and significantly increased it to an annual rate of $0.36 from 2022 through 2024. This move established a commitment to returning capital to shareholders. However, the stability of this dividend is a concern given the bank's erratic earnings. For example, the payout ratio in FY2023 was a reasonable '37.13%', but it becomes unsustainable during loss-making years like FY2024. The company also actively managed its share count, reducing diluted shares outstanding from 42 million in FY2020 to 34 million by FY2023 through buybacks. However, this trend reversed slightly in FY2024 when the share count increased to 36 million, indicating some recent dilution.
While the implementation of a dividend and multi-year share count reduction are positive steps, a strong track record requires consistency and sustainability. The sharp swings in profitability cast doubt on the bank's ability to comfortably support its dividend from core earnings over the long term. This inconsistency prevents the capital return program from being a clear signal of financial strength.
Amerant Bancorp's future growth hinges almost entirely on the continued economic expansion of its core South Florida and Houston markets. The primary tailwind is strong loan demand in these high-growth regions, particularly for commercial and real estate lending. However, significant headwinds include intense pressure on its net interest margin from high funding costs and a heavy reliance on interest-based income, with fee-generating businesses remaining underdeveloped. Compared to more diversified regional peers, Amerant's growth path is narrower and carries higher concentration risk. The investor takeaway is mixed, as the attractive geographic focus is offset by a vulnerable earnings model in the current rate environment.
Operating in the high-growth markets of South Florida and Houston provides a strong foundation for loan demand, and the bank's guidance for mid-single-digit growth is solid in the current economic climate.
Amerant's future growth is directly tied to the robust economies of its core geographic footprints. Management has provided loan growth guidance in the mid-single-digits (e.g., 4-6%) for the next fiscal year, a respectable target given the higher interest rate environment. This outlook is supported by continued business and population migration to Florida and Texas, which fuels demand for both commercial and residential real estate loans, as well as C&I lending to support business expansion. The bank's deep local market knowledge allows it to effectively source and underwrite loans in these competitive markets. While a slowdown in the national economy poses a risk, the specific demographic tailwinds in Amerant's markets provide a degree of insulation and support a positive outlook for continued loan portfolio expansion.
The company is actively returning capital to shareholders through a buyback program, demonstrating a commitment to enhancing shareholder value, though its plans for larger-scale M&A remain opportunistic rather than strategic.
Amerant demonstrates discipline in its capital management, primarily through its share repurchase program. The company had a buyback authorization in place and has been actively repurchasing shares, which is accretive to earnings per share and tangible book value. As of its latest reports, its CET1 ratio remains healthy and above regulatory requirements, providing flexibility for future capital actions. However, in the consolidating regional bank landscape, Amerant has not been an active participant in M&A, either as a buyer or seller. While management remains open to opportunities, there is no clear, stated strategy for using M&A to gain scale or enter new markets. This passive stance, while prudent, may cause the bank to be outpaced by more aggressive peers who are using acquisitions to build density and efficiency. The ongoing buyback program is a clear positive, justifying a passing grade for its capital return policy.
While the bank operates a highly efficient branch network, a lack of clear, ambitious targets for digital user growth and related cost savings casts doubt on its ability to evolve its service model for the future.
Amerant's physical footprint is a model of efficiency, with an average of over $450 million in deposits per branch, far exceeding industry norms. This reflects excellent site selection in high-value urban markets. However, future growth depends on integrating this strong physical presence with a robust digital platform. The bank has not publicly announced specific targets for digital active user growth or quantified cost savings from channel optimization. In an era where customers increasingly expect seamless digital services, the absence of a clearly articulated strategy to shift routine transactions online while reserving branches for high-value advisory roles is a weakness. This suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach to technological change, creating a risk that more digitally-savvy competitors could erode its customer base over time.
Intense competition for deposits has driven up funding costs significantly, and the bank's outlook suggests continued pressure on its net interest margin (NIM) with limited prospects for expansion in the near term.
The bank's profitability engine, its net interest margin, is under considerable stress. Its cost of deposits has risen sharply as customers have moved funds from noninterest-bearing accounts (now just ~17% of deposits) to higher-yielding CDs and money market accounts. Management's forward guidance for NIM, often in a range like 3.10% to 3.20%, indicates stabilization at a level significantly compressed from previous years. While the bank is repricing its loans at higher rates, this is not enough to fully offset the surge in funding costs. With over 80% of its revenue tied to NIM, this compression directly impacts earnings growth potential. The outlook does not point to a meaningful recovery or expansion of the margin in the next 12-18 months, representing a major headwind to future profitability.
The bank's heavy reliance on net interest income is a key strategic weakness, and management has not presented a sufficiently aggressive or detailed plan to meaningfully grow its fee-based businesses.
Noninterest income represents only about 17% of Amerant's total revenue, a figure that exposes its earnings to significant volatility from interest rate movements. Key fee-generating areas like wealth management and treasury services remain underdeveloped and lack the scale to provide a meaningful buffer. Management has expressed a desire to grow these areas, but has not provided specific public targets, such as a 10-15% growth target for wealth management assets under management or a goal to increase the fee income contribution to over 20% of revenue. Without concrete goals and a clear investment plan, it is difficult for investors to see a credible path to a more balanced revenue mix. This lack of diversification is a significant competitive disadvantage compared to peers who have successfully built larger and more profitable fee-income streams.
As of October 24, 2025, with a closing price of $17.56, Amerant Bancorp Inc. (AMTB) appears undervalued. This conclusion is primarily based on its low forward-looking valuation metrics when compared to the regional banking sector. Key indicators supporting this view include a forward P/E ratio of 8.08, which is attractive against an industry backdrop of 11x-12x, and a Price-to-Tangible-Book (P/TBV) ratio of 0.81x, indicating the stock trades at a discount to its net asset value. The stock is currently trading in the lower third of its 52-week range of $16.21 to $26.24, suggesting a potential entry point for investors. However, a sky-high trailing P/E ratio and significant recent share dilution warrant caution. The overall takeaway is positive for value-oriented investors who are comfortable with the risks of a company in a turnaround phase.
The stock trades at a significant 0.81x multiple of its tangible book value, a classic sign of undervaluation for a bank that is generating a decent return on its equity.
A core valuation method for banks is comparing the stock price to its tangible book value per share (TBVPS). AMTB's TBVPS is $21.70, while its stock price is $17.56, resulting in a Price-to-Tangible-Book (P/TBV) ratio of 0.81x. This implies that the market values the company's net assets at a 19% discount. With a recent Return on Tangible Common Equity (ROTCE) that would be in the double digits (given the 10.05% ROE), the bank is proving it can generate profits from its asset base. Typically, a bank with this level of profitability would trade at or above its tangible book value. This discount provides a margin of safety for investors.
The company's Return on Equity of over 10% is not reflected in its low Price-to-Book ratio of 0.79, suggesting a misalignment that points to undervaluation.
A bank's Price-to-Book (P/B) multiple should generally correspond with its Return on Equity (ROE). A common benchmark is that a bank earning a 10% ROE should trade around 1.0x its book value. Amerant Bancorp's ROE in the most recent quarter was a solid 10.05%, a significant improvement from the negative return in 2024. However, its P/B ratio is only 0.79x. This discrepancy suggests that the market has not yet given the company credit for its improved profitability. With the 10-Year Treasury yield hovering around 4.0%, a 10% ROE offers a healthy premium. If the bank can sustain this level of return, its P/B multiple would be expected to rise closer to 1.0x, implying stock price appreciation.
The stock appears cheap on a forward-looking basis, with a low Forward P/E ratio of 8.08 that suggests earnings growth is not fully priced in.
The TTM P/E ratio of 194.57 is not useful for analysis due to unusually low recent earnings. The Forward P/E ratio of 8.08 is a much better indicator of value. This metric shows that the stock is trading at a low multiple of its expected future earnings. For comparison, the average for the regional banking industry is currently around 11.7x. AMTB's lower multiple suggests that the market may be overlooking its recovery potential. The strong earnings in the first half of 2025 (Q1 EPS: $0.28, Q2 EPS: $0.55) substantiate the high expected earnings growth, making the low forward P/E an attractive signal for potential undervaluation.
The dividend yield is respectable, but it is severely undermined by a lack of share buybacks and significant shareholder dilution from new stock issuance.
Amerant Bancorp offers a dividend yield of 2.05% with an annual payout of $0.36 per share. While the forward payout ratio of 16.6% suggests the dividend is sustainable with expected earnings growth, the story on total capital return is negative. The company has not engaged in share repurchases recently. Instead, it has significantly increased its shares outstanding, as shown by a 23.96% change in the second quarter of 2025. This dilution means each share represents a smaller piece of the company, which is detrimental to shareholder value and offsets the benefit of the cash dividend. A healthy capital return program should ideally include both dividends and buybacks, or at the very least, avoid heavy dilution.
On key forward-looking multiples like Forward P/E and P/TBV, Amerant Bancorp trades at a noticeable discount to its regional banking peers.
When stacked against the regional banking sector, AMTB appears relatively inexpensive. Its Forward P/E of 8.08 is well below the peer average of around 11.7x-11.8x. Similarly, its P/TBV of 0.81x is discounted compared to a peer median that is typically above 1.0x. The dividend yield of 2.05% is lower than the average of some larger banks, which can be around 3-4%, but is not an outlier. The stock's poor 52-week price performance, trading near its lows, reflects past challenges but also contributes to its current cheapness on a relative basis. The high beta of 1.29 indicates higher volatility than the market, which is a risk factor to consider alongside the attractive valuation.
The primary macroeconomic risk facing Amerant is its deep concentration in the South Florida market. While this region has shown robust growth, any localized economic slowdown would disproportionately impact the bank's loan demand and credit quality compared to more geographically diversified peers. Moreover, Amerant's earnings are highly sensitive to interest rate fluctuations. A rapid decline in interest rates from current levels would likely compress its net interest margin (NIM)—the spread between what it earns on loans and pays on deposits—thus reducing core profitability. Conversely, a 'higher for longer' rate environment could increase the risk of loan defaults as borrowers struggle with sustained high financing costs.
From an industry perspective, Amerant operates in the intensely competitive South Florida banking landscape. It competes directly with money-center giants like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, as well as numerous other community and regional banks, all vying for the same customers. This competitive pressure can make it difficult to grow loans and deposits profitably without taking on additional risk. Additionally, the entire regional banking sector faces heightened regulatory scrutiny following the turmoil in 2023. Potential new regulations could require banks like Amerant to hold more capital, which could limit their ability to lend, grow, or return capital to shareholders through dividends and buybacks.
On a company-specific level, Amerant's balance sheet carries notable exposure to Commercial Real Estate (CRE), a sector facing structural challenges, particularly in the office and retail segments. A downturn in property values or an increase in vacancies could lead to a rise in non-performing loans and potential credit losses. The bank's ability to manage this CRE portfolio through the cycle is critical. Another area to watch is its deposit base. In the current environment, competition for stable, low-cost deposits is fierce. Over-reliance on higher-cost deposits like Certificates of Deposit (CDs) or brokered deposits could weigh on future profitability and represents a less stable funding source compared to core checking and savings accounts.
Click a section to jump