Mercantile Bank vs Peapack Gladstone Financial
MBWM and PGC side by side, both in commercial banks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MBWM and PGC compare
Mercantile Bank is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Peapack Gladstone Financial ($1.1B against $821M).
On earnings, Mercantile Bank is cheaper: it trades at 10.9× trailing earnings, against 13.9× for Peapack Gladstone Financial.
Peapack Gladstone Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (25.4% versus 13.6% for Mercantile Bank).
Mercantile Bank keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 35.2% compared with 18.3% at Peapack Gladstone Financial.
Both pay dividends: Mercantile Bank yields 2.5% and Peapack Gladstone Financial 0.43%.
Mercantile Bank scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 11 for Peapack Gladstone Financial), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | MBWM | PGC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $821M |
| Share price | $61.22 | $46.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 34.8% | 78.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 70.6% | 33.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.80 |
| Employees | 786 | 682 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.9× (better) | 13.9× |
| P/S | 3.9× | 2.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.4× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 13.2× |
| PEG | 0.88 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 7.6% |
| Fair value | $56.70 | $44.21 |
| Margin of safety | −8.0% | −4.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.6% | 25.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 8.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.7% | 78.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.3% | 72.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.1% (better) | 8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 35.2% (better) | 18.3% |
| FCF margin | – | 18.6% |
| Return on equity | 13.6% (better) | 8.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.23 (better) | 0.10 |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% (better) | 0.43% |
| Payout ratio | 27.4% | 5.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% (better) | 0.43% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.7% | 77.3% |
| Held by insiders | 3.2% | 5.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$289K |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- MBWM stock overview
- MBWM income statement
- MBWM valuation and score
- PGC stock overview
- PGC income statement
- PGC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.