Landmark Bancorp Inc (LARK) Stock Analysis and Metrics

Landmark Bancorp

NASDAQ: LARK

$30.90 ▲ +0.00 (+0.00%)

At close: Jul 24, 2026 · 9:30 AM UTC

Financial Ratios

Market Cap187.97 Bn

P/E10,118.59

P/S2,851.10

Div. Yield0.00

Total Debt (Qtr)2.26 Mn

Add ratio to table…

About

Landmark Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company that was incorporated under the laws of Delaware in 2001. The company owns two wholly owned subsidiaries, Landmark National Bank and Landmark Risk Management, Inc. Its primary operations consist of providing banking services through the bank and offering property and casualty insurance through the captive. Headquartered in Manhattan Kansas the firm serves communities across Kansas and parts of the Missouri metropolitan area. As of the end of 2025 the company held approximately 1.6 billion dollars in total consolidated assets. The bank maintains a network of twenty nine branches spread over twenty three towns in Kansas and has opened a loan production office in Kansas City Missouri to expand its reach. Over time the company has grown through both organic branch openings and strategic acquisitions of other financial institutions. The bank’s board of directors oversees risk management capital planning and overall corporate governance while the captive follows the insurance regulations of the state of Nevada. Together these entities allow the company to deliver a diversified range of financial products to its customers.

Revenue is generated mainly from interest income on loans and securities. The bank earns interest on commercial real estate loans, residential mortgages, commercial loans, agricultural loans and consumer loans. Additional revenue comes from loan servicing fees, deposit service charges and gains on the sale of mortgage loans. The bank also collects fees from treasury management services and from the use of its online banking platform. The captive contributes revenue through insurance premiums it charges for covering risks that are not readily available or cost effective in the commercial market. Investment income on the premium reserves held by the captive further adds to its earnings. Together these sources produce the net interest income and non interest income reported in the financial statements. The company’s net interest margin has remained in the mid three percent range reflecting the difference between asset yields and funding costs. Prudent expense control and a stable core deposit base help sustain profitability over time.

The company operates through the following segments.

• The banking segment, conducted through Landmark National Bank, provides a full range of loan products including commercial real estate, residential mortgage, agricultural and consumer loans. The bank’s loan portfolio is diversified with roughly thirty five percent in commercial real estate, thirty four percent in residential mortgages, sixteen percent in commercial loans, nine percent in agricultural loans and the remaining percentage in other categories. It also offers deposit products such as checking, savings, money market and time deposits along with treasury management services that help businesses manage cash flow. This segment serves individuals, small and medium sized businesses and municipal clients in its geographic footprint. Relationship banking is emphasized through local decision making and personalized service. The bank maintains a conservative underwriting approach that aims to keep credit quality strong while supporting community growth.

• The insurance segment, conducted through Landmark Risk Management, Inc, provides property and casualty coverage to the bank and the parent company for risks that are either unavailable or not economically feasible in the standard insurance marketplace. The captive writes policies that protect against property damage, liability claims and other specific hazards that may arise from the bank’s operations. It operates under Nevada regulations and is subject to periodic examinations by the state insurance division. Premiums are invested in a portfolio of high quality bonds and short term instruments to generate investment income while reserves are held for future claims. This segment contributes to the company’s earnings by retaining underwriting profits and investment income on premium reserves. The captive also provides a strategic advantage by allowing the bank to self insure certain exposures that would otherwise be costly or difficult to obtain from commercial carriers.

Within the regional banking landscape Landmark Bancorp competes with large national banks, regional banks and numerous community banks operating in Kansas and the Kansas City area. The company’s competitive advantage stems from its deep local relationships, its ability to tailor loan and deposit products to the specific needs of farmers, manufacturers and service providers, and its disciplined underwriting approach that has maintained solid asset quality. Its capital position remains strong with ratios consistently above regulatory minimums, which supports both growth initiatives and dividend payments. The captive insurance subsidiary further differentiates the firm by providing a source of revenue that is less correlated with traditional banking cycles. Market analysts note that the bank’s loan to deposit ratio remains in a healthy range indicating prudent balance sheet management. The firm’s focus on relationship based banking has helped it retain a loyal customer base even as larger competitors offer broader product arrays. Continuous investment in technology and staff training enables the bank to deliver efficient service while preserving the personal touch that customers value.

The bank serves a diverse mix of retail customers, commercial enterprises and public sector entities across its branch network. Retail clients include individuals and families seeking checking accounts, savings products and mortgage financing. Commercial clients range from small owner operated businesses to larger firms involved in real estate development, agriculture and manufacturing. Public sector clients consist of municipalities and local government agencies that utilize the bank for deposit services and occasional loans. The bank’s deposit base is composed largely of non interest bearing demand accounts, interest bearing checking, savings and money market balances and a smaller portion of time deposits. While the filing does not disclose individual customer names, the description indicates a broad base of households, businesses and municipal organizations throughout central, eastern, southeast and southwest Kansas as well as the Kansas City metropolitan area. The institution’s community orientation is reflected in its support for local schools, chambers of commerce and economic development groups. By maintaining a presence in both urban and rural markets the bank is able to serve a wide spectrum of economic activities ranging from high technology services in the Kansas City suburbs to farming and energy production in the western parts of the state.

Investment Thesis

▲ Bull case

Landmark is positioned to benefit from a structural shift in regional banking profitability driven by its disciplined asset-liability management and improving net interest margin, which expanded 21 basis points linked-quarter to 4.24% and 48 basis points year-over-year. This improvement was not merely a function of falling rates but was driven by higher investment portfolio yields (up from 3.39% to 3.55%) and lower funding costs, reflecting proactive balance sheet repositioning. Management’s deliberate shift from brokered deposits to lower-cost FHLB borrowings, while maintaining core deposit growth of 1.6% linked-quarter, demonstrates a sustainable funding advantage that is underappreciated by the market. The bank’s ability to grow net interest income by $1.9 million year-over-year despite a slight decline in total loan balances signals effective pricing power and asset mix optimization — particularly the shift from lower-yielding agricultural and residential loans into higher-yielding commercial real estate, which grew $13.6 million in the quarter. This transition is not temporary; it reflects a strategic, long-term pivot toward higher-margin, relationship-based lending in core markets, which should support continued NIM expansion even if rate cuts occur later in 2026, as the asset mix is now inherently more resilient. The market is underestimating the durability of this margin expansion, which, combined with stable credit metrics, supports sustained ROA improvement beyond current levels.
Landmark’s core customer deposit growth of 1.6% on a linked-quarter basis, coupled with declining reliance on volatile brokered and public fund deposits, reveals a hidden competitive moat rooted in deep community relationships — a factor management emphasized but did not quantify in terms of retention or pricing power. Unlike larger banks chasing digital-only customers, Landmark’s focus on “relationship-based banking” is translating into stickier, lower-cost deposits that are less sensitive to rate fluctuations, providing a structural advantage in both rising and falling rate environments. This is evident in the stability of average deposit balances at $1.4 billion despite seasonal outflows, and the fact that interest checking and money market deposits declined only due to seasonal public fund shifts — not core customer attrition. The bank’s ability to grow core deposits while reducing expensive funding sources implies a latent pricing power that could allow for further NIM expansion even if loan growth remains modest. Furthermore, the bank’s tangible book value per share of $20.89 and tangible common equity to assets ratio of 8.11% signal a strong capital base that is being underleveraged for shareholder returns — the 99th consecutive dividend of $0.21 per share reflects commitment, but there is clear capacity to increase payouts or repurchase shares as earnings stabilize. The market is overlooking this as a potential catalyst for multiple expansion, particularly if management begins to explicitly link core deposit strength to future capital return flexibility.
Despite a slight increase in nonperforming loans to 0.94% and a rise in 30–89 day delinquencies to 0.68%, Landmark’s credit quality remains fundamentally sound and underappreciated for its resilience. The increase in nonperforming loans was almost entirely attributable to a single $1.3 million commercial relationship that ceased operations post-quarter end — a borrower-specific event, not systemic stress. Similarly, the delinquency spike was driven by two isolated relationships ($2.2 million agricultural, $1.8 million residential), with management explicitly noting these are “manageable” and expected to improve as resolutions proceed. Net charge-offs remained flat at 0.13% annualized, unchanged from the prior quarter, and the allowance for credit losses increased prudently to 1.15% of gross loans — a conservative buffer that exceeds peer averages for regional banks of similar size. Crucially, management emphasized that economic conditions in Kansas remain stable, employment supports borrower cash flows, and there is no observed systemic stress in the portfolio. The bank’s diversified loan portfolio and consistent underwriting standards continue to limit broad credit migration, meaning the current uptick in delinquencies is a temporary, idiosyncratic issue rather than a sign of deteriorating underwriting. The market is overreacting to these headline credit metrics while ignoring the underlying strength of the portfolio’s composition and the effectiveness of its risk management framework, which has historically prevented losses from escalating during periods of stress.

Landmark is positioned to benefit from a structural shift in regional banking profitability driven by its disciplined asset-liability management and improving net interest margin, which expanded 21 basis points linked-quarter to 4.24% and 48 basis points year-over-year. This improvement was not merely a function of falling rates but was driven by higher investment portfolio yields (up from 3.39% to 3.55%) and lower funding costs, reflecting proactive balance sheet repositioning. Management’s deliberate shift from brokered deposits to lower-cost FHLB borrowings, while maintaining core deposit growth of 1.6% linked-quarter, demonstrates a sustainable funding advantage that is underappreciated by the market. The bank’s ability to grow net interest income by $1.9 million year-over-year despite a slight decline in total loan balances signals effective pricing power and asset mix optimization — particularly the shift from lower-yielding agricultural and residential loans into higher-yielding commercial real estate, which grew $13.6 million in the quarter. This transition is not temporary; it reflects a strategic, long-term pivot toward higher-margin, relationship-based lending in core markets, which should support continued NIM expansion even if rate cuts occur later in 2026, as the asset mix is now inherently more resilient. The market is underestimating the durability of this margin expansion, which, combined with stable credit metrics, supports sustained ROA improvement beyond current levels.
Landmark’s core customer deposit growth of 1.6% on a linked-quarter basis, coupled with declining reliance on volatile brokered and public fund deposits, reveals a hidden competitive moat rooted in deep community relationships — a factor management emphasized but did not quantify in terms of retention or pricing power. Unlike larger banks chasing digital-only customers, Landmark’s focus on “relationship-based banking” is translating into stickier, lower-cost deposits that are less sensitive to rate fluctuations, providing a structural advantage in both rising and falling rate environments. This is evident in the stability of average deposit balances at $1.4 billion despite seasonal outflows, and the fact that interest checking and money market deposits declined only due to seasonal public fund shifts — not core customer attrition. The bank’s ability to grow core deposits while reducing expensive funding sources implies a latent pricing power that could allow for further NIM expansion even if loan growth remains modest. Furthermore, the bank’s tangible book value per share of $20.89 and tangible common equity to assets ratio of 8.11% signal a strong capital base that is being underleveraged for shareholder returns — the 99th consecutive dividend of $0.21 per share reflects commitment, but there is clear capacity to increase payouts or repurchase shares as earnings stabilize. The market is overlooking this as a potential catalyst for multiple expansion, particularly if management begins to explicitly link core deposit strength to future capital return flexibility.
Despite a slight increase in nonperforming loans to 0.94% and a rise in 30–89 day delinquencies to 0.68%, Landmark’s credit quality remains fundamentally sound and underappreciated for its resilience. The increase in nonperforming loans was almost entirely attributable to a single $1.3 million commercial relationship that ceased operations post-quarter end — a borrower-specific event, not systemic stress. Similarly, the delinquency spike was driven by two isolated relationships ($2.2 million agricultural, $1.8 million residential), with management explicitly noting these are “manageable” and expected to improve as resolutions proceed. Net charge-offs remained flat at 0.13% annualized, unchanged from the prior quarter, and the allowance for credit losses increased prudently to 1.15% of gross loans — a conservative buffer that exceeds peer averages for regional banks of similar size. Crucially, management emphasized that economic conditions in Kansas remain stable, employment supports borrower cash flows, and there is no observed systemic stress in the portfolio. The bank’s diversified loan portfolio and consistent underwriting standards continue to limit broad credit migration, meaning the current uptick in delinquencies is a temporary, idiosyncratic issue rather than a sign of deteriorating underwriting. The market is overreacting to these headline credit metrics while ignoring the underlying strength of the portfolio’s composition and the effectiveness of its risk management framework, which has historically prevented losses from escalating during periods of stress.

▼ Bear case

Landmark’s reported loan growth is misleading and masks a deteriorating core lending business, as the $23.3 million year-over-year increase in total loans is entirely driven by commercial real estate growth, which offset significant declines in higher-margin, relationship-based agricultural and residential portfolios. Agricultural loans fell $16.2 million year-over-year, and residential mortgages declined $7.0 million — both critical segments for community bank profitability and customer engagement — while the bank relied on selling more residential originations into the secondary market to boost gain-on-sale income, a tactic that is not sustainable and reduces long-term interest income potential. The shift toward commercial real estate, while boosting balances, introduces concentration risk and lower relational stickiness compared to agricultural and residential lending, which are core to Landmark’s historical identity and community presence. Management’s enthusiasm for CRE growth overlooks the fact that this segment is more cyclical, sensitive to interest rate swings, and less likely to generate the low-cost, sticky deposits that define true community banking advantage. The market may be misled by headline loan growth while failing to recognize that the bank is hollowing out its traditional, relationship-driven lending base in favor of a more transactional, volatile portfolio — a structural shift that could undermine long-term profitability and customer loyalty if CRE valuations correct or if agricultural demand does not rebound.
Despite management’s emphasis on core deposit growth, the bank’s funding model remains fragile and overly reliant on wholesale borrowing, as evidenced by a $57.3 million increase in total borrowings during the quarter — a direct offset to the $66.2 million decline in deposits. While core customer deposits grew 1.6% linked-quarter, this was more than overwhelmed by seasonal outflows in public fund and brokered deposits, which declined by $61.6 million and $10.8 million respectively. The bank’s ability to replace expensive short-term borrowings with FHLB funding is a tactical win, not a strategic one, and reveals an underlying dependence on external funding sources to maintain loan balances. The loan-to-deposit ratio of 82.1% may appear healthy, but it is achieved through artificial balance sheet engineering — reducing deposits while increasing borrowings — rather than organic core deposit growth sufficient to fund lending. This imbalance suggests the bank’s core customer relationships are not generating enough deposit growth to sustain its loan book, forcing reliance on volatile wholesale markets. If interest rates remain elevated or FHLB funding becomes less accessible, Landmark could face a funding squeeze that constrains loan growth or forces costly asset sales, a risk management downplayed in the call despite the significant quarter-over-quarter shift in funding sources.
Landmark’s apparent profitability improvements are being driven by non-recurring and non-core income streams that are unlikely to persist, creating a misleading picture of sustainable earnings power. The increase in noninterest income year-over-year ($406,000) was largely fueled by $87,000 in bank-owned life insurance income and $101,000 in gains from repositioning the investment portfolio — both one-time or accounting-driven items. Simultaneously, noninterest expense decreased due to lower incentive compensation and a prior-period impairment loss on repossessed assets, neither of which reflects ongoing operational efficiency gains. The $433,000 in fraud losses recognized during the quarter — tied to a nonexecutive officer’s activity — were explicitly excluded from insurance recoveries, indicating a potential for further losses if internal controls remain weak, and this item alone offset much of the noninterest income gain. More critically, the bank’s net interest margin expansion, while positive, was achieved partly through lower funding costs from declining short-term rates — a tailwind that may reverse if the Fed pauses or hikes again — and not through organic loan yield improvement, as the tax equivalent yield on loans remained flat at 6.4%. The market is mistaking temporary tailwinds and accounting adjustments for fundamental operational improvement, overlooking that core revenue drivers like loan yield and fee income are stagnant or declining, and that the bank’s earnings quality is propped up by items that lack durability or scalability.

Landmark’s reported loan growth is misleading and masks a deteriorating core lending business, as the $23.3 million year-over-year increase in total loans is entirely driven by commercial real estate growth, which offset significant declines in higher-margin, relationship-based agricultural and residential portfolios. Agricultural loans fell $16.2 million year-over-year, and residential mortgages declined $7.0 million — both critical segments for community bank profitability and customer engagement — while the bank relied on selling more residential originations into the secondary market to boost gain-on-sale income, a tactic that is not sustainable and reduces long-term interest income potential. The shift toward commercial real estate, while boosting balances, introduces concentration risk and lower relational stickiness compared to agricultural and residential lending, which are core to Landmark’s historical identity and community presence. Management’s enthusiasm for CRE growth overlooks the fact that this segment is more cyclical, sensitive to interest rate swings, and less likely to generate the low-cost, sticky deposits that define true community banking advantage. The market may be misled by headline loan growth while failing to recognize that the bank is hollowing out its traditional, relationship-driven lending base in favor of a more transactional, volatile portfolio — a structural shift that could undermine long-term profitability and customer loyalty if CRE valuations correct or if agricultural demand does not rebound.
Despite management’s emphasis on core deposit growth, the bank’s funding model remains fragile and overly reliant on wholesale borrowing, as evidenced by a $57.3 million increase in total borrowings during the quarter — a direct offset to the $66.2 million decline in deposits. While core customer deposits grew 1.6% linked-quarter, this was more than overwhelmed by seasonal outflows in public fund and brokered deposits, which declined by $61.6 million and $10.8 million respectively. The bank’s ability to replace expensive short-term borrowings with FHLB funding is a tactical win, not a strategic one, and reveals an underlying dependence on external funding sources to maintain loan balances. The loan-to-deposit ratio of 82.1% may appear healthy, but it is achieved through artificial balance sheet engineering — reducing deposits while increasing borrowings — rather than organic core deposit growth sufficient to fund lending. This imbalance suggests the bank’s core customer relationships are not generating enough deposit growth to sustain its loan book, forcing reliance on volatile wholesale markets. If interest rates remain elevated or FHLB funding becomes less accessible, Landmark could face a funding squeeze that constrains loan growth or forces costly asset sales, a risk management downplayed in the call despite the significant quarter-over-quarter shift in funding sources.
Landmark’s apparent profitability improvements are being driven by non-recurring and non-core income streams that are unlikely to persist, creating a misleading picture of sustainable earnings power. The increase in noninterest income year-over-year ($406,000) was largely fueled by $87,000 in bank-owned life insurance income and $101,000 in gains from repositioning the investment portfolio — both one-time or accounting-driven items. Simultaneously, noninterest expense decreased due to lower incentive compensation and a prior-period impairment loss on repossessed assets, neither of which reflects ongoing operational efficiency gains. The $433,000 in fraud losses recognized during the quarter — tied to a nonexecutive officer’s activity — were explicitly excluded from insurance recoveries, indicating a potential for further losses if internal controls remain weak, and this item alone offset much of the noninterest income gain. More critically, the bank’s net interest margin expansion, while positive, was achieved partly through lower funding costs from declining short-term rates — a tailwind that may reverse if the Fed pauses or hikes again — and not through organic loan yield improvement, as the tax equivalent yield on loans remained flat at 6.4%. The market is mistaking temporary tailwinds and accounting adjustments for fundamental operational improvement, overlooking that core revenue drivers like loan yield and fee income are stagnant or declining, and that the bank’s earnings quality is propped up by items that lack durability or scalability.

Peer Comparison

Companies in the Banks - Regional

S.No.	Ticker	Company	Market Cap	P/E	P/S	Total Debt (Qtr)
1	KB	KB Financial Group Inc.	42,090.38 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.01 Mn	56.66 Bn
2	SHG	Shinhan Financial Group Co Ltd	33,919.15 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.00 Mn	40.46 Bn
3	BCH	Bank Of Chile	4,123.52 Bn	368.17 Bn	1.57 Mn	0.00 Bn
4	LYG	Lloyds Banking Group plc	360.83 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.00 Mn	42.37 Bn
5	FCAP	First Capital Inc	204.17 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.03 Mn	-
6	LARK	Landmark Bancorp Inc	187.97 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.00 Mn	0.00 Bn
7	NWG	NatWest Group plc	144.82 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.00 Mn	94.66 Bn
8	PNC	Pnc Financial Services Group, Inc.	101.80 Bn	0.00 Bn	0.00 Mn	21.42 Bn

Research Tools

Developers

About

Investment Thesis

Peer Comparison

Research Tools

Developers

About

Investment Thesis

Peer Comparison

Create an account

Sign In

Reset Password