MODEL VERDICT
CB Financial Services, Inc. (CBFV)
Relative Valuation•Peer multiples, Monte Carlo simulation & quality-adjusted fair value
Popular:
Composite score derived from valuation, quality, and risk factors
Quantitative model thresholds · For educational and research purposes only
| Methodology | Fair Value | vs Current | Weight | Quality | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Median P/E 290 industry peers | $35.28 | -5.5% | 30% | A | Peer Data |
| Price / Book 308 industry peers | $35.61 | -4.7% | 25% | B | Model Driven |
| Price / Tangible Book 308 bank peers | $39.50 | +5.8% | 20% | B+ | Bank Primary |
| Dividend Yield 234 industry peers | $39.72 | +6.3% | 10% | B | Supplementary |
| Earnings Yield 290 industry peers | $35.28 | -5.5% | 8% | B | Data |
| Forward P/E 282 analyst estimates | $30.60 | -18.1% | 7% | A- | Analyst Est. |
| Weighted Output Blended model output | $33.23 | -11.0% | 100% | 87 | SLIGHTLY OVERVALUED |
| EPS Growth ↓ | P/E Multiple → | 12× | 14× | 16× (Current) | 18× | 20× |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bear Case (2%) | $29 | $34 | $39 | $44 | $49 |
| Conservative (5%) | $30 | $35 | $40 | $45 | $50 |
| Base Case (-2.0%) | $28 | $33 | $37 | $42 | $47 |
| Bull Case (-3%) | $28 | $32 | $37 | $42 | $46 |
Cross-sectional regression predicting expected multiples based on growth, margins, ROIC, and beta.
| Multiple | Avg | Median | Min | Max | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 11.27 | 11.33 | 5.41 | 17.70 | 3.96 |
| EV/EBIT | 7.39 | 6.28 | 2.08 | 17.84 | 5.80 |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.95 | 5.21 | 1.75 | 13.17 | 4.20 |
| P/FCF | 15.44 | 11.15 | 7.86 | 44.12 | 12.89 |
| P/FFO | 8.92 | 9.18 | 4.82 | 12.35 | 2.49 |
| P/TBV | 1.14 | 1.10 | 0.93 | 1.46 | 0.19 |
| P/AFFO | 11.50 | 10.15 | 5.55 | 21.99 | 5.73 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.80 | 1.09 | 0.10 |
| Div Yield | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.26 | 2.03 | 1.91 | 2.85 | 0.36 |
Based on our peer multiples analysis with 17 valuation metrics, the model estimates CBFV's fair value at $33.23 vs the current price of $37.35, implying -11.0% downside potential. Model verdict: Slightly Overvalued. Confidence: 87/100. This is a quantitative estimate, not a recommendation.
The blended fair value of $33.23 is calculated using four lenses: industry median multiples (40%), historical multiples (30%), forward estimates (20%), and quality-adjusted multiples (10%). Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations) gives a range of $29.99 (P10) to $35.65 (P90), with a median of $32.74.
CBFV's current P/E of 15.7x compares to the industry median of 14.8x (290 peers in the group). This represents a +5.9% premium to the industry. The historical average P/E is 11.3x over 6 years. Signal: Fair Value.
3 analysts cover CBFV with a consensus rating of Hold. The consensus price target is N/A (range: N/A — N/A), implying N/A upside from the current price. Grade breakdown: Strong Buy (0), Buy (1), Hold (2), Sell (0), Strong Sell (0).
The model confidence score is 87/100, based on: data completeness (30), peer quality (25), historical depth (20), earnings stability (8), and model agreement (4). Cyclicality penalty: -0 points. The model shows strong agreement across inputs.
The model flags several key risks: (1) Multiple compression: CBFV trades at the 5970th percentile of its historical P/E range. A reversion to median (11.3×) would imply significant downside. (2) Macro/regulatory risks are not captured in this model but remain material.
Peak earnings risk data is not available for CBFV.
No. This dashboard is a quantitative research tool for educational and informational purposes only. It is not investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. The operator of this platform is not a registered investment advisor (RIA), broker-dealer, or financial planner. All model outputs, fair value estimates, signals, and scenarios are the result of automated quantitative computations and should not be construed as professional financial guidance. You should consult a qualified, licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Past model performance is not indicative of future results.