This report, updated October 27, 2025, provides a multi-faceted analysis of Parke Bancorp, Inc. (PKBK), covering its business moat, financial statements, past performance, future growth, and fair value. We benchmark PKBK against key competitors like Northfield Bancorp, Inc. (NFBK), Brookline Bancorp, Inc. (BRKL), and Southside Bancshares, Inc. (SBSI) to provide deeper context. The entire evaluation is framed within the investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
Mixed: Parke Bancorp is a highly profitable but specialized regional bank. Its primary strength is top-tier operational efficiency, driving strong returns. However, the business is highly concentrated in commercial real estate lending. It also faces liquidity risks with loans exceeding its core deposit base. Recent earnings have declined sharply from their 2022 peak due to rate pressures. Despite these risks, the stock appears undervalued, trading below its tangible book value. This presents a high-risk, high-reward situation for value-focused investors.
US: NASDAQ
Parke Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Parke Bank, a community bank that primarily serves individuals and small to mid-sized businesses in Southern New Jersey and the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The bank's business model is straightforward and traditional: it gathers deposits from the local community and uses these funds to originate loans. Its core operation revolves around lending, with a heavy emphasis on real estate. The main products are commercial real estate loans, construction and land development loans, and, to a lesser extent, residential mortgages and commercial business loans. This focus on relationship-based real estate lending in a concentrated geographic area defines its strategy and represents the bulk of its revenue-generating activity, which comes almost exclusively from the net interest income earned on these loans.
The bank's most significant product line is its combined commercial real estate (CRE) and construction lending portfolio. Together, these loans consistently represent over 80% of the bank's total loan book, making it the overwhelming driver of revenue and risk. The market for these loans is localized and highly competitive, with numerous other community, regional, and national banks vying for business. Parke Bancorp attempts to differentiate itself through deep local market knowledge, quick decision-making, and long-standing relationships with local developers and investors. The target customers are real estate professionals and small business owners undertaking development projects or acquiring commercial properties within the bank's service area. The stickiness of these relationships can be high, as borrowers value a reliable banking partner who understands the local market dynamics. However, the bank's moat here is narrow; it's based on expertise, not structural advantages like scale or network effects. The primary vulnerability is extreme concentration—any downturn in the local real estate market could have a disproportionately severe impact on the bank's financial health.
On the other side of the balance sheet is the bank's deposit-gathering operation, which provides the funding for its lending activities. It offers standard products like checking accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit (CDs). These deposits are sourced from the same local individuals and businesses it lends to. However, the composition of these deposits reveals a potential weakness in its business model. As of the end of 2023, high-cost time deposits (CDs) made up approximately 50% of total deposits, while low-cost noninterest-bearing deposits were only about 16%. This funding mix is more expensive and less 'sticky' than that of peers with stronger core deposit franchises, making the bank's profitability more sensitive to changes in interest rates. Furthermore, with nearly half of its deposits being uninsured, the bank is more susceptible to deposit outflows from larger customers during times of market stress.
In conclusion, Parke Bancorp's business model and competitive moat are a double-edged sword. The bank has carved out a profitable niche by becoming an expert lender in a specific asset class and geographic region. This focus allows it to generate attractive yields on its loan portfolio. However, this specialization comes at the cost of diversification. The company's resilience is questionable due to its heavy reliance on a single industry (real estate), a single revenue stream (net interest income), and a funding base that is relatively expensive and potentially volatile. The lack of meaningful fee income and a high concentration of uninsured deposits are significant structural weaknesses that limit the durability of its competitive edge over a full economic cycle. The business model appears brittle and highly exposed to macroeconomic headwinds, particularly those affecting real estate and interest rates.
A review of Parke Bancorp's recent financial performance reveals a company with a robust earnings engine, offset by a stretched liquidity profile. On the income statement, the bank demonstrates impressive strength. Net interest income, its primary revenue source, grew by a remarkable 36.96% year-over-year in the most recent quarter, fueling a 41.58% rise in net income. This profitability is world-class for a bank of its size, highlighted by a Return on Assets (ROA) of 1.96%, which is significantly above the industry benchmark where 1.0% is considered good. This performance is underpinned by an extremely low efficiency ratio of 34.08%, showcasing excellent cost control.
The balance sheet, however, presents a more nuanced picture. On one hand, the bank is very well-capitalized. Its tangible common equity represents 14.5% of total assets, a thick cushion that can absorb potential losses and provides a strong foundation of resilience. This high level of capital suggests a conservative stance on solvency. This strength is vital for protecting the bank against unexpected economic downturns and maintaining regulatory approval for its operations.
On the other hand, the bank's liquidity position warrants caution. The loan-to-deposit ratio stands at 111.8%, meaning the bank has loaned out more money than it holds in customer deposits. While this can boost profitability, it also increases risk by making the bank more reliant on potentially less stable and more expensive wholesale funding sources, like borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank. While total debt has decreased recently, this high ratio is a key risk factor for investors to watch, as it could become a challenge in a tight credit market.
In summary, Parke Bancorp's financial foundation appears stable from a profitability and capital standpoint but risky from a liquidity perspective. The bank is currently firing on all cylinders when it comes to generating profit from its operations. However, its aggressive lending strategy relative to its deposit base introduces a significant risk that could be exposed if funding markets become stressed. Investors should weigh the exceptional current returns against this elevated liquidity risk.
Over the last five fiscal years (FY2020–FY2024), Parke Bancorp has experienced a full cycle of performance, moving from strength to significant pressure. The bank's track record is characterized by high but volatile profitability. While it has historically outperformed peers like Northfield Bancorp and WesBanco on key metrics like return on equity (ROE), its recent struggles highlight the risks of its business model in a changing interest rate environment.
Looking at growth, the bank's results have been choppy. Revenue and earnings per share (EPS) surged impressively between 2020 and 2022, with EPS climbing from $2.40 to $3.51. However, this trend sharply reversed, with revenue falling over 20% from its peak and EPS declining to $2.30 by FY2024. This indicates that the bank's growth was not scalable in a rising-rate environment. This volatility suggests a lack of durability in its earnings power, a crucial factor for long-term investors.
Profitability metrics tell a similar story of a high peak followed by a steep decline. The bank's ROE was an impressive 18.84% in 2021 and 16.78% in 2022 but was nearly halved to 9.42% by 2024. This was primarily driven by a collapse in its net interest income, which fell from $73.33 million in 2022 to $58.71 million in 2024, signaling significant pressure on its net interest margin. In terms of shareholder returns, the bank has been reliable. It has consistently increased its dividend per share, from $0.64 in 2020 to $0.72 in 2024, and maintained a conservative payout ratio, which provides a cushion. Share buybacks have also kept the share count stable, avoiding dilution for existing shareholders.
In conclusion, Parke Bancorp's historical record does not fully support confidence in its execution and resilience across different economic cycles. The bank demonstrated an ability to generate sector-leading profits when conditions were favorable but proved vulnerable when interest rates rose. While its shareholder-friendly dividend policy is a clear positive, the recent sharp deterioration in its core operational performance is a significant concern.
The regional and community banking industry is navigating a period of significant change over the next 3-5 years, defined by the end of the zero-interest-rate era. The primary shift will be a persistent pressure on profitability, driven by intense competition for deposits and higher funding costs. This is because depositors have become more rate-sensitive, moving cash from low-yield checking accounts to higher-yield options like CDs and money market funds, forcing banks to pay more to retain funds. Another key change is heightened regulatory scrutiny, particularly concerning capital levels, liquidity, and concentration risks—especially in commercial real estate (CRE), an area of focus following recent bank failures. Technology will continue to be a dividing line; banks that effectively invest in digital platforms can lower operating costs and attract younger customers, while laggards will struggle. Catalysts for demand in lending could include a potential easing of monetary policy by central banks, which would lower borrowing costs and stimulate activity in real estate and business investment. However, competitive intensity is expected to increase. Large national banks with scale advantages and diverse revenue streams will continue to pressure smaller players, while non-bank fintech lenders chip away at specific product niches. The overall market for regional bank assets is projected to grow modestly, likely tracking nominal GDP at a 2-4% CAGR, but profitability growth will be much harder to achieve.
For Parke Bancorp, this industry backdrop presents substantial challenges. The bank's future is inextricably linked to its core products, which are overwhelmingly concentrated in real estate lending. The future performance of these segments will dictate the bank's growth trajectory, profitability, and ultimately, its viability. With a business model that derives over 95% of its revenue from net interest income, its ability to grow earnings is almost entirely dependent on its capacity to expand its loan book profitably while managing rising deposit costs. Given the macroeconomic headwinds facing the real estate sector and the structural weaknesses in the bank's own funding profile, the path to growth appears severely constrained. The following analysis will deconstruct the future prospects for the bank's key business lines: Commercial Real Estate (CRE) Lending, Construction & Development Lending, and its critical funding source, Deposit Gathering, to assess the likelihood of future value creation for shareholders.
Commercial Real Estate (CRE) lending is Parke Bancorp's primary engine, but it is sputtering. Currently, consumption is constrained by high interest rates, which have slowed transaction volumes and made it harder for new and existing borrowers to service their debt. Budgets for new acquisitions are tight, and many investors are in a wait-and-see mode. Over the next 3-5 years, consumption will likely shift from new originations to refinancing activity. As a wave of CRE loans made in a lower-rate environment comes due, there will be demand for refinancing, but often at less favorable terms for the bank. Growth in new loans will likely be muted, especially from smaller developers who are most sensitive to financing costs. A potential catalyst could be a significant drop in interest rates, but the base case assumes a 'higher for longer' scenario. The U.S. CRE market is vast at over $20 trillion, but growth is expected to be flat to low-single digits. For PKBK's niche, a key metric is CRE loan delinquency rates, which have been rising nationally, particularly for office and retail properties. PKBK competes with other community banks and larger regional players. Customers choose based on relationship, speed of execution, and loan terms. PKBK can outperform on the first two, but will likely lose to larger banks on pricing. Given the market headwinds, larger, better-capitalized banks are more likely to win share. The number of specialized CRE lenders may decrease as consolidation is driven by credit quality issues and the need for scale. The primary risk for PKBK is a downturn in its local Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey real estate market, which would directly hit consumption by increasing defaults and reducing loan demand. The probability of this risk materializing is high, given the bank's CRE concentration is over 500% of its risk-based capital, far exceeding the 300% regulatory guideline.
Construction and land development lending, the bank's second-largest and riskiest segment, faces an even tougher outlook. Current consumption is severely limited by high financing and material costs, making new projects economically unviable for many developers. Supply chain issues, though easing, have also created uncertainty. For the next 3-5 years, any increase in consumption is highly dependent on a sustained decline in interest rates and a stabilization of construction costs. The most likely scenario is a decrease in activity as the pipeline of projects funded in the prior cycle is completed and not fully replaced. A potential shift could be towards smaller-scale renovation projects rather than large new developments. The U.S. construction market is valued at roughly $2.1 trillion annually, but growth is cyclical. Relevant consumption metrics like regional housing starts and construction spending have been weak. Competition comes from specialized lenders and other banks with dedicated construction finance teams. Customers prioritize lenders with deep expertise in managing construction draws and timelines, an area where PKBK has experience. However, in a risk-off environment, many lenders pull back, and PKBK may be forced to do the same to protect its capital. The number of firms in this space may shrink as weaker players exit due to loan losses. A key risk for PKBK is project failure, where a developer is unable to complete a project on budget, leading to a total loss for the bank on that loan. Given the economic uncertainty, this risk is medium-to-high. A second risk is a sharp drop in property values, which would erase the collateral backing these loans, hitting consumption by making new loans impossible to underwrite. This risk is medium.
On the funding side, Deposit Gathering represents the bank's most significant structural weakness for future growth. Current 'consumption' is characterized by a mix shift away from the bank's perspective. Customers are actively moving funds from low-cost noninterest-bearing accounts (only 16% of PKBK's deposits) to high-cost certificates of deposit (CDs), which comprise 50% of its deposits. This is constrained by the rates PKBK can offer relative to competitors, including money market funds. Over the next 3-5 years, this trend will likely persist. The 'consumption' of high-yield deposit products will increase, while low-cost deposits will stagnate or shrink. This will directly compress the bank's net interest margin (NIM), which is its primary source of profit. The main reason for this shift is a more informed depositor base seeking higher returns in a new rate environment. Catalysts that could reverse this are unlikely, short of a return to zero interest rates. The total U.S. deposit market is over $17 trillion. A key metric is the 'deposit beta,' which measures how much a bank's deposit costs rise relative to federal funds rate increases; PKBK's beta is likely high due to its funding mix. PKBK competes with every financial institution. It loses to larger banks with better digital offerings and more diversified products that create stickier relationships. The risk of continued deposit cost pressure is high, directly impacting the bank's ability to fund loan growth profitably. A 50 basis point increase in its cost of funds could reduce its net interest income by over 10%. A second risk is deposit outflow, particularly from its large base of uninsured deposits (48.7%). If a few large customers withdraw funds, it could create a liquidity crisis. The probability is medium, elevated by the bank's concentrated customer base.
Given the constraints on its core lending and funding businesses, Parke Bancorp has few other avenues for growth. The bank generates negligible fee income, meaning it has no wealth management, treasury services, or robust mortgage banking operations to fall back on when lending spreads are tight. This lack of diversification is a critical flaw in its growth strategy. While its operational efficiency, demonstrated by high deposits per branch, is commendable, it is not a growth driver in itself. It merely allows the bank to be more profitable at its current scale. To grow, the bank must either take on more of the same concentrated real estate risk in a perilous market or fundamentally change its business model. The latter would require significant investment and a move away from its core competency, which seems unlikely. Therefore, the bank's future growth appears to be trapped by its own specialized model, which was successful in a low-rate environment but is poorly suited for the current and foreseeable economic landscape. The most plausible path for shareholder value creation might ironically be through an acquisition by a larger, more diversified institution, rather than through organic growth.
Based on the market price of $21.67 as of October 27, 2025, a detailed valuation analysis suggests that Parke Bancorp is an undervalued stock. By triangulating several valuation methods, a consistent picture emerges of a company whose market price has not kept pace with its intrinsic worth, driven by strong profitability and a solid balance sheet. A simple price check reveals a potentially attractive entry point, with a fair value estimate range of $24.07–$28.30 suggesting an upside of over 20% and a clear margin of safety.
The asset-based approach, a cornerstone for bank valuation, provides the strongest argument for undervaluation. Parke Bancorp's tangible book value per share (TBVPS) is $26.74. With the stock trading at $21.67, its Price-to-Tangible-Book (P/TBV) ratio is a low 0.81x. For a bank with a Return on Equity (ROE) of 13.56%, which is well above the industry average, a multiple of at least 1.0x TBV is typically warranted. Applying a conservative P/TBV multiple range of 0.9x to 1.1x to its TBVPS yields a fair value estimate of $24.07 – $29.41.
The multiples approach further supports this view. PKBK’s trailing P/E ratio is 7.78x, substantially lower than the regional banking industry average of around 11.7x to 12.7x. Applying a conservative peer-average P/E multiple of 10x to its TTM EPS of $2.83 suggests a value of $28.30. Even a more modest 8.5x multiple implies a value of $24.06. Triangulating these results, and weighting the P/TBV method most heavily, suggests a consolidated fair value estimate of $24.07 – $28.30, making it an appealing opportunity for value-oriented investors.
Bill Ackman would likely acknowledge Parke Bancorp's impressive operational metrics, such as its return on equity consistently above 14% and a best-in-class efficiency ratio near 45%, but would ultimately pass on the investment. His philosophy favors simple, predictable, and dominant businesses with significant scale and pricing power, criteria that a small community bank with high geographic and commercial real estate concentration fails to meet. The lack of a powerful brand and durable moat beyond niche operational expertise makes its future too unpredictable for his concentrated investment style. For retail investors, Ackman's perspective is clear: while PKBK is a high-performing operator, its business model lacks the scale and fortress-like qualities he requires, making it an unsuitable investment.
Warren Buffett would view Parke Bancorp as a highly profitable, exceptionally well-run community bank, a type of business he understands well. He would be immediately impressed by its industry-leading return on equity of ~14.5% and its remarkable efficiency ratio of ~45%, which indicates disciplined management and a strong operational moat. These figures show that the bank is a superior operator, effectively converting assets into profits for shareholders. However, Buffett's primary concern would be the bank's concentration in Commercial Real Estate (CRE) loans within a limited geographic area (New Jersey/Pennsylvania), which introduces risk tied to a single market's health. Management primarily uses its cash to fund further growth, as evidenced by a conservative dividend payout ratio of only ~25%, which allows them to retain the majority of earnings to compound value internally—a practice Buffett strongly favors. Despite the concentration risk, the bank's stellar profitability combined with a fair valuation at ~1.1x tangible book value would likely provide a sufficient margin of safety for him to invest. If forced to choose the best banks from this group, Buffett might favor Hanmi Financial (HAFC) for its deep value trading at ~0.7x book with a unique cultural moat, Southside Bancshares (SBSI) for its durable positioning in the high-growth Texas market, and Parke Bancorp (PKBK) itself as the best-in-class operator for pure execution. Buffett's decision could change if there were clear signs of deteriorating credit quality in Parke's loan book or if the stock's valuation rose significantly without a corresponding increase in intrinsic value.
Charlie Munger would view Parke Bancorp as a masterclass in operational efficiency, a rare gem in the banking world. He would be deeply impressed by its industry-leading return on equity of ~14.5% and a remarkably low efficiency ratio near 45%, seeing it as a simple, rational business that avoids the bureaucracy and 'stupid' costs plaguing larger competitors. However, Munger's enthusiasm would be tempered by the bank's significant concentration risk, being heavily focused on the New Jersey/Pennsylvania commercial real estate market, which he would see as a single point of potential failure. While the bank's management wisely reinvests the majority of its high returns back into the business, the lack of geographic or product diversification would be a critical flaw in Munger's eyes. Ultimately, Munger would likely admire the business immensely but choose to avoid investing, preferring a high-quality bank with a more durable, structural moat. If forced to choose the three best banks from the analysis, Munger would likely select Parke Bancorp (PKBK) for its best-in-class operational execution, Hanmi Financial (HAFC) for its unique cultural moat combined with a deep value price (~0.7x P/TBV), and Southside Bancshares (SBSI) for its position in the structurally superior Texas growth market. Munger's decision on PKBK could change if the bank demonstrated resilience through a significant real estate downturn, proving its underwriting discipline is a truly durable advantage.
Parke Bancorp, Inc. (PKBK) operates as a niche community bank, and its competitive standing is a story of exceptional performance balanced by concentrated risk. Unlike larger regional banks that compete on scale and a wide array of services, PKBK's strategy is centered on deep local market knowledge and relationship-based lending, primarily within the commercial real estate sector. This focus allows it to achieve higher yields on its loans and maintain a lean operational structure, which is a significant advantage. The bank consistently posts an efficiency ratio well below the industry average, meaning it spends less to generate each dollar of revenue, a testament to its disciplined management.
However, this focused strategy is also its main vulnerability. The bank's fortunes are intrinsically tied to the economic health of Southern New Jersey and the greater Philadelphia area. A localized economic downturn could impact its loan portfolio more severely than a geographically diversified competitor. Furthermore, its heavy reliance on commercial real estate (CRE) lending, while profitable, exposes it to the cyclical nature of that market. Regulators often scrutinize banks with high CRE concentrations, adding another layer of risk for investors to consider. This contrasts with peers who may have more balanced loan books spread across commercial and industrial, consumer, and mortgage lending.
When compared to the broader universe of community banks, PKBK is often considered a top-tier performer from a purely financial standpoint. Its return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) are frequently in the top quartile of its peer group, indicating highly effective use of its assets and shareholder capital. This financial strength gives it the ability to invest in technology, manage credit risk, and provide consistent returns to shareholders. The key question for investors is whether this superior profitability is sufficient compensation for the heightened concentration risk compared to more diversified peers.
Northfield Bancorp and Parke Bancorp are both community banks serving the New Jersey and New York metropolitan areas, making them direct geographic competitors. However, their operational performance and strategic focus show significant differences. Northfield is a larger institution by asset size, which typically provides advantages in scale and market presence, but Parke Bancorp operates with demonstrably higher profitability and efficiency. This comparison highlights a classic trade-off between the perceived safety of scale versus the superior returns of a more focused, high-performing operator.
Business & Moat: Both banks operate with the inherent moats of the banking industry, including high customer switching costs and significant regulatory barriers. Northfield's larger scale, with assets around $5.6 billion compared to Parke's $2.2 billion, and a much larger branch network (38 branches vs. Parke's 7 branches), provides a wider physical reach and brand recognition. However, Parke Bancorp's operational moat is its efficiency; its efficiency ratio consistently sits near 45%, while Northfield's is often above 60%. An efficiency ratio measures a bank's overhead as a percentage of its revenue; a lower number is better. This indicates Parke's superior ability to convert revenue into profit. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., as its exceptional efficiency is a more powerful and durable advantage than Northfield's larger but less productive physical scale.
Financial Statement Analysis: Parke Bancorp demonstrates significantly stronger financial health. Its return on average assets (ROA) is consistently around 1.4%, far exceeding Northfield's 0.7% and the industry benchmark of 1.0%. Similarly, its return on average equity (ROE) of 14-15% dwarfs Northfield's 7%. This superior profitability is driven by a higher net interest margin (NIM), which for Parke is around 3.5% versus Northfield's 3.0%. While Northfield maintains a slightly more conservative balance sheet with a lower loan-to-deposit ratio (better liquidity), Parke’s dividend payout ratio of ~25% is healthier than Northfield's ~50%, suggesting more retained earnings for growth. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. due to its commanding lead in every key profitability metric.
Past Performance: Over the past five years, Parke Bancorp has delivered stronger fundamental growth. Its earnings per share (EPS) growth has been more robust, driven by its consistent profitability. In terms of shareholder returns, PKBK's 5-year total shareholder return (TSR) has significantly outpaced NFBK's, reflecting the market's recognition of its superior execution. While both stocks are subject to market volatility inherent in the banking sector, Parke's ability to maintain high margins and efficiency through economic cycles has provided a more stable earnings base. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for delivering superior growth and shareholder returns.
Future Growth: Both banks' growth prospects are tied to the economic vitality of the competitive NJ/NY market. Northfield's larger asset base could theoretically allow it to pursue larger lending opportunities. However, Parke Bancorp's proven ability to generate high returns on its assets gives it a stronger capacity for organic capital generation, which can be reinvested to fund future loan growth without diluting shareholders. Parke's nimbleness and focused lending strategy may allow it to adapt more quickly to changing market conditions. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., as its superior profitability provides a better foundation for sustainable future growth.
Fair Value: Parke Bancorp typically trades at a premium valuation, which is justified by its superior financial metrics. It often has a price-to-tangible-book-value (P/TBV) ratio around 1.1x, while Northfield trades at a discount, often below 0.8x. Parke's dividend yield is lower at around 3.8% compared to Northfield's 5.5%, but its lower payout ratio makes its dividend safer and more sustainable. The quality versus price argument is clear here: Northfield is cheaper, but Parke is a much higher-quality bank. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., as its premium valuation is a fair price for its best-in-class profitability and returns.
Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. over Northfield Bancorp, Inc. Parke Bancorp is the clear winner due to its vastly superior operational execution and financial performance. Its key strengths are a best-in-class efficiency ratio of ~45% and a return on equity exceeding 14%, figures that Northfield, with its ~60% efficiency and ~7% ROE, cannot match. While Northfield offers larger scale and a higher dividend yield, its profitability is mediocre and it trades at a discount for a reason. Parke's primary risk is its concentration, but its performance demonstrates a masterful ability to manage that risk profitably. This makes Parke the higher-quality investment choice despite its premium valuation.
Brookline Bancorp, a New England-based institution, presents an interesting comparison to Parke Bancorp as both are community banks that have grown through a combination of organic lending and strategic acquisitions. Brookline is significantly larger, with over $10 billion in assets, giving it greater scale and geographic diversification across Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This contrasts with Parke's smaller, more geographically concentrated operation. The core of this comparison is whether Brookline's scale and diversification can outperform Parke's highly efficient and profitable niche strategy.
Business & Moat: Both banks benefit from regulatory barriers and sticky customer deposits. Brookline's key advantage is its scale; its larger asset base and broader multi-state footprint provide diversification against localized economic issues and allow for greater investment in technology and marketing. Parke's moat is its extreme operational efficiency, reflected in its ~45% efficiency ratio, which is significantly better than Brookline's ~55%. While Brookline's brand is stronger in its home market due to its size, Parke's lean operations are a powerful competitive advantage. Winner: Brookline Bancorp, Inc., as its substantial scale and geographic diversification offer a more durable and less risky business moat than Parke's efficiency, which could be challenged by rising costs or credit issues.
Financial Statement Analysis: Parke Bancorp is the clear leader in financial performance. Parke’s ROA of ~1.4% and ROE of ~14.5% are substantially higher than Brookline's ROA of ~0.9% and ROE of ~9%. This is driven by Parke's superior net interest margin (NIM) of ~3.5%, which comfortably exceeds Brookline's ~3.2%. Brookline has a more diversified loan portfolio, which is a positive from a risk perspective, and maintains strong liquidity. However, from a pure profitability standpoint, Parke is far more effective at turning assets into profit. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., whose top-tier profitability metrics are undeniable.
Past Performance: Over the last five years, both banks have successfully grown their businesses, but Parke has done so more profitably. Parke has generally delivered more consistent and higher EPS growth. Looking at total shareholder return, Parke Bancorp's stock has also provided better returns, indicating that investors have rewarded its superior profitability. Brookline's performance has been solid and more typical of a regional bank, whereas Parke's has been exceptional for its peer group. In terms of risk, Brookline's larger size and diversification have likely led to slightly lower stock volatility. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for its stronger track record of growth and shareholder value creation.
Future Growth: Brookline's growth strategy relies on continued success in the competitive New England market and potential M&A activity, for which its larger size is an advantage. It has more diverse revenue streams, including equipment financing, which can provide growth opportunities outside of traditional lending. Parke’s future growth is more dependent on the economic health of its specific NJ/PA footprint and its ability to continue originating high-yield CRE loans. Brookline has more levers to pull for future growth. Winner: Brookline Bancorp, Inc., as its diversification and scale offer a wider range of pathways to future growth.
Fair Value: Both banks often trade at similar valuations relative to their tangible book value, typically in the 1.0x to 1.2x P/TBV range. However, given Parke's significantly higher profitability (ROE of ~14.5% vs. Brookline's ~9%), its valuation appears more attractive on a price-to-earnings (P/E) basis. Brookline offers a slightly higher dividend yield, but Parke's lower payout ratio implies greater safety. For the same price relative to book value, an investor gets a much higher-returning business with Parke. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., as it offers superior returns for a comparable valuation multiple, making it the better value proposition.
Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. over Brookline Bancorp, Inc. While Brookline presents a safer, more diversified investment profile, Parke Bancorp is the winner due to its exceptional and sustained financial outperformance. Parke’s key strengths are its industry-leading ROE of over 14% and its highly efficient operations, which allow it to generate significantly more profit from its asset base than Brookline. Brookline’s advantages of scale and diversification are noteworthy and reduce risk, but they have not translated into comparable returns for shareholders. An investor in PKBK is betting on continued execution from a best-in-class operator, a bet that has historically paid off.
WesBanco, Inc. is a diversified regional bank with a long history and a significant presence across the Ohio Valley and Mid-Atlantic regions. With assets exceeding $17 billion, it dwarfs Parke Bancorp in size, scope, and diversification. This comparison pits WesBanco's established, larger, and more diversified model against Parke's smaller, highly concentrated but exceptionally profitable approach. It effectively asks whether the safety and stability of a large regional player are preferable to the high-octane returns of a niche community bank.
Business & Moat: WesBanco's moat is built on its significant scale and geographic diversification. Operating across six states with nearly 200 branches, it is not overly reliant on any single local economy. Its brand has been established since 1870, giving it a strong reputation and a large, stable deposit base. Parke Bancorp's moat, in contrast, is its operational excellence, reflected in its ~45% efficiency ratio, which is far superior to WesBanco's, which is typically in the 60-65% range. However, WesBanco's diversification provides a much larger margin of safety. Winner: WesBanco, Inc., as its scale and multi-state footprint create a more resilient and durable moat against economic shocks.
Financial Statement Analysis: This is where the contrast is sharpest. Parke Bancorp is a far more profitable bank. Parke's ROA (~1.4%) and ROE (~14.5%) are in a different league compared to WesBanco's ROA of ~1.0% and ROE of ~9-10%. Parke's net interest margin (NIM) of ~3.5% also comfortably exceeds WesBanco's ~3.2%. WesBanco benefits from more diverse revenue streams, including wealth management fees, which adds stability. However, on the core banking business of turning deposits into profitable loans, Parke is demonstrably more effective. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. based on its commanding lead in all key profitability and efficiency metrics.
Past Performance: Over the past five years, Parke Bancorp has generated significantly higher earnings growth due to its superior margins and efficiency. This has translated into better total shareholder returns for PKBK compared to WSBC. WesBanco has a very long history of paying dividends and offers a stable, if unspectacular, return profile typical of a mature regional bank. Parke, while also paying a dividend, has offered investors more capital appreciation on top. From a risk perspective, WesBanco's stock is likely less volatile due to its size and diversification. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for delivering superior growth and total returns to shareholders.
Future Growth: WesBanco's growth strategy involves leveraging its large footprint to gain market share and pursuing opportunistic M&A, where its size gives it an advantage. Its diversified business lines provide multiple avenues for growth. Parke’s growth is more narrowly focused on originating CRE loans in its existing markets. While it has executed this well, the growth ceiling is inherently lower and more dependent on a specific asset class and geography. WesBanco has a clearer and more diversified path to continued, albeit slower, growth. Winner: WesBanco, Inc. due to its greater number of growth levers and reduced dependence on a single market.
Fair Value: WesBanco typically trades at a lower valuation than Parke, often with a P/TBV ratio below 1.2x, while Parke can trade higher. WesBanco offers a higher dividend yield, often above 4.5%, compared to Parke's ~3.8%. From a value perspective, WesBanco offers a higher yield and a lower multiple. However, this discount reflects its lower profitability and slower growth profile. The choice is between a cheaper, higher-yielding, average-return business (WesBanco) and a more expensive, lower-yielding, high-return business (Parke). Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc., because its superior ROE suggests it is a better steward of shareholder capital, making it a better value even at a premium valuation.
Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. over WesBanco, Inc. Parke Bancorp wins this comparison because its outstanding financial performance and efficiency are too significant to ignore. While WesBanco offers the classic benefits of a large, diversified regional bank—stability, lower risk, and a strong dividend—its returns are mediocre. Parke’s key strengths are its ROE of over 14% and its low ~45% efficiency ratio, which demonstrate a clear superiority in operational management. WesBanco's notable weakness is its high cost structure and lower profitability. An investor is paying for safety with WesBanco, but sacrificing the high-quality returns that Parke consistently delivers. Parke's concentration risk is real, but its performance justifies the risk.
Valley National Bancorp is a super-regional bank with over $60 billion in assets, making it a behemoth compared to Parke Bancorp. While both have significant operations in New Jersey, Valley's reach extends to New York, Florida, and Alabama, giving it vast scale and diversification. This comparison is a quintessential David vs. Goliath scenario, testing whether Parke's nimble, high-profitability model can be considered a better investment than a large, established, and highly diversified banking institution that competes directly in its home market.
Business & Moat: Valley National's moat is its immense scale and brand recognition. With over 200 branches and a full suite of banking, lending, and wealth management services, it can serve a much wider range of customers, from individuals to large corporations. Its geographic diversification, especially its strong presence in high-growth Florida, is a major strength. Parke’s moat is its focused expertise in local CRE lending and its lean cost structure (~45% efficiency ratio vs. Valley's ~55%). However, Valley's ability to spread costs over a massive asset base and its deep market penetration are overwhelming advantages. Winner: Valley National Bancorp, as its scale and diversification create a fortress-like moat that a small community bank cannot replicate.
Financial Statement Analysis: Despite Valley's massive advantages in scale, Parke Bancorp is a significantly more profitable bank on a relative basis. Parke's ROA (~1.4%) and ROE (~14.5%) are far superior to Valley's, which typically reports an ROA below 1.0% and an ROE around 9-10%. This is driven by Parke's ability to generate a higher NIM (~3.5% vs. Valley's ~3.2%) and maintain tighter cost controls. Valley's balance sheet is more complex, but it is well-capitalized. On the fundamental measure of turning shareholder capital into profit, Parke is the undisputed leader. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. due to its vastly superior profitability and efficiency.
Past Performance: Over the last decade, Valley has grown significantly through major acquisitions, such as the purchase of Bank Leumi USA. This has driven its asset and revenue growth but has also come with integration challenges and pressure on profitability metrics. Parke has grown organically and more profitably. As a result, PKBK has delivered stronger EPS growth and better total shareholder returns over the past five years compared to VLY. Valley provides a more stable dividend, but its stock performance has been more sluggish. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for its superior track record of creating shareholder value.
Future Growth: Valley has a clear path to future growth through its presence in the fast-growing Florida market and its ability to continue making large, strategic acquisitions. Its diverse business lines, including a strong commercial banking platform, offer multiple avenues for expansion. Parke's growth is more constrained by its smaller size and geographic focus. While Parke may grow at a high percentage rate, the absolute dollar growth potential at Valley is orders of magnitude larger. Winner: Valley National Bancorp, whose scale and exposure to high-growth markets give it a more powerful and diversified growth engine.
Fair Value: Valley National typically trades at a significant discount to Parke Bancorp, often with a P/TBV multiple below 1.0x, whereas Parke trades above 1.0x. Valley also offers a higher dividend yield, often well over 5%. From a pure value perspective, Valley appears cheap. It's a classic value play: you get a large, diversified bank at a low valuation, but you also get lower returns. Parke is the quality play: a higher valuation for a much higher-returning business. Winner: Valley National Bancorp, because its valuation is so low for a bank of its scale and diversification that it offers a greater margin of safety and a more attractive risk/reward for new money.
Winner: Valley National Bancorp over Parke Bancorp, Inc. While Parke Bancorp is undeniably the better-run, more profitable bank, Valley National Bancorp wins this comparison due to its compelling combination of scale, diversification, and a discounted valuation. Valley's key strengths are its fortress-like market position, its exposure to the high-growth Florida economy, and its stock trading below tangible book value. Its main weakness is its mediocre profitability (ROE ~9%). Parke's primary risk is its extreme concentration, which becomes more pronounced when compared to a giant like Valley. For an investor seeking a balance of safety, income, and long-term growth, Valley's discounted price and diversified platform present a more prudent investment choice.
Hanmi Financial Corporation offers a unique comparison to Parke Bancorp. Hanmi is a community bank of similar asset size (around $7 billion) but with a distinct strategic focus: serving the Korean-American community, primarily in California. This sets up a contrast between two niche banks operating on opposite coasts. The analysis explores whether Hanmi's well-defined ethnic community focus provides a stronger moat and growth profile than Parke's geographically focused, high-efficiency model.
Business & Moat: Both banks have moats rooted in niche expertise. Hanmi's moat is cultural and linguistic; its deep ties within the Korean-American community create high switching costs and a loyal customer base that larger, more generic banks struggle to penetrate. This is a powerful, specialized network effect. Parke's moat is its operational efficiency (~45% efficiency ratio) and its deep knowledge of the NJ/PA real estate market. Hanmi's efficiency ratio is less impressive at ~55%. However, Hanmi's cultural moat is arguably more durable and less easily replicated than Parke's operational one. Winner: Hanmi Financial Corporation, as its specialized focus on a large and economically vibrant ethnic community represents a more unique and defensible competitive advantage.
Financial Statement Analysis: Parke Bancorp is the more profitable institution. Parke's ROA of ~1.4% and ROE of ~14.5% are comfortably ahead of Hanmi's ROA of ~1.2% and ROE of ~11-12%. While Hanmi's figures are very strong and well above the industry average, Parke still operates at an elite level. This is driven by Parke's higher net interest margin and superior cost control. Both banks are well-capitalized, but from a pure return on investment standpoint, Parke has the edge. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for its top-tier profitability metrics.
Past Performance: Both banks have navigated the economic cycles of their respective markets well. Hanmi has shown strong growth by expanding its footprint and deepening its relationships within its niche market. Parke has delivered consistent growth through disciplined lending. Over the past five years, Parke Bancorp has generally delivered slightly stronger EPS growth and better total shareholder returns, as the market has rewarded its higher profitability. Hanmi's performance has also been strong, but Parke's has been a cut above. Winner: Parke Bancorp, Inc. for its superior historical returns.
Future Growth: Hanmi's growth is tied to the prosperity of the Korean-American community and its ability to expand its services to other Asian-American groups. With a strong presence in California and other major US cities, it has a clear runway for growth within its niche. Parke's growth is more dependent on the general economic conditions of the Philadelphia and Southern NJ areas. Hanmi's targeted strategy gives it a more defined and potentially faster-growing target market. Winner: Hanmi Financial Corporation, as its demographic niche provides a unique and compelling growth trajectory.
Fair Value: Both banks often trade at attractive valuations, frequently below 1.0x P/TBV. Hanmi, in particular, often trades at a significant discount, sometimes as low as 0.7x P/TBV, despite its strong profitability. Parke tends to trade closer to its tangible book value. Hanmi typically offers a higher dividend yield, often exceeding 5%, compared to Parke's ~3.8%. Given that both are high-performing banks, Hanmi's substantially lower valuation and higher yield make it the more compelling value proposition. Winner: Hanmi Financial Corporation, as it offers similar quality returns for a much cheaper price.
Winner: Hanmi Financial Corporation over Parke Bancorp, Inc. Hanmi wins this matchup of high-performing niche banks. While Parke Bancorp is slightly more profitable, Hanmi's combination of a unique cultural moat, a clear path for future growth, and a significantly more attractive valuation makes it the better overall investment. Hanmi's key strengths are its defensible niche serving the Korean-American community and its stock trading at a deep discount to tangible book value (P/TBV of ~0.7x). Parke's weakness, in this comparison, is its higher valuation and less unique market position. Hanmi offers investors a rare opportunity to buy a high-quality, profitable bank for a bargain price.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Parke Bancorp operates as a traditional community bank with a business model hyper-focused on commercial real estate and construction lending in Southern New Jersey and the Philadelphia area. Its primary competitive advantage, or moat, is its deep expertise and relationship-based lending within this specific geographic and industry niche. However, this narrow focus is also a significant weakness, creating extreme concentration risk in its loan portfolio. The bank's funding profile is less than ideal, with a high reliance on rate-sensitive deposits and a very small contribution from fee income. The investor takeaway is therefore mixed-to-negative, as the bank's specialized, high-yield business model comes with substantial, undiversified risks.
The bank has an extremely low level of noninterest income, making it almost entirely dependent on its net interest margin and highly vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations.
A diversified revenue stream that includes significant fee income can cushion a bank against the compression of lending spreads. Parke Bancorp shows a major weakness in this area. For the full year 2023, its noninterest income was approximately $3.4 million against a net interest income of $63.9 million. This means fee income accounted for only about 5% of its total revenue. This is drastically BELOW the sub-industry average, where regional and community banks often generate 15-25% of their revenue from noninterest sources like service charges, wealth management, or mortgage banking fees. This near-total reliance on spread income makes the bank's earnings highly sensitive to interest rate cycles and competitive pressures on loan yields. The absence of a meaningful fee-generating business represents a significant structural flaw in its business model.
The bank's deposit base appears poorly diversified, with a high concentration of large, uninsured accounts and a reliance on rate-sensitive CDs rather than a broad base of core retail and business customers.
Parke Bancorp's deposit customer mix shows signs of concentration risk. While specific breakdowns of retail versus business deposits are not readily available, the funding structure provides important clues. The fact that nearly half (48.7%) of the bank's deposits are uninsured strongly suggests a concentration of accounts exceeding the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit, likely from a smaller number of high-net-worth individuals or commercial clients. This is riskier than a granular base of smaller, insured retail accounts. Furthermore, the low contribution from service charge income implies a weaker relationship with transactional small business and retail customers. The bank's heavy reliance on brokered deposits in the past and its current dependence on CDs indicate a strategy of attracting funds with high rates rather than through diversified, relationship-based services. This lack of diversification makes its funding sources less stable and more costly than those of its peers.
While the bank has deep expertise in its real estate lending niche, its overwhelming concentration in this single area creates a high-risk profile rather than a durable competitive advantage.
Parke Bancorp has a clearly defined lending niche, with a portfolio heavily concentrated in commercial real estate and construction loans, which together make up about 84% of total loans. This demonstrates specialized expertise in the local real estate market. However, this level of focus goes beyond a niche and constitutes a significant concentration risk. Regulatory guidelines often raise concerns when CRE loans exceed 300% of a bank's total risk-based capital, a threshold Parke Bancorp has historically operated near or above. While this specialization can lead to higher yields, it makes the bank's fortunes entirely dependent on the health of the local real estate market. A true niche franchise provides a competitive edge without jeopardizing the entire enterprise. PKBK's strategy, however, exposes it to a single point of failure, making it a high-risk, cyclical business rather than a resilient one.
The bank's deposit base is weak, characterized by a low level of noninterest-bearing accounts, a heavy reliance on higher-cost time deposits, and a high percentage of uninsured funds.
A bank's moat is often built on a low-cost, stable deposit base, but Parke Bancorp falls short in this area. Noninterest-bearing deposits, the cheapest source of funding, constituted only about 16% of total deposits at the end of 2023, which is WEAK compared to the 20-35% typically seen at healthier regional banks. Conversely, higher-cost time deposits (CDs) made up around 50% of the total, indicating a high dependence on rate-sensitive customers. This is further evidenced by a cost of total deposits that has risen sharply. A significant red flag is the high level of uninsured deposits, which stood at an estimated 48.7% of total deposits. This figure is substantially ABOVE the median for U.S. banks and exposes the bank to significant liquidity risk if large depositors lose confidence. This combination of factors points to a low-quality, less 'sticky' funding franchise.
The bank operates a very small and geographically concentrated branch network, but it achieves outstanding efficiency with deposits per branch far exceeding industry averages.
Parke Bancorp maintains a minimal physical footprint with just seven branches located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. While this limits its geographic reach, it appears to be a highly efficient network. As of its latest filings, the bank holds approximately $1.7 billion in deposits, which translates to over $243 million in deposits per branch. This figure is significantly ABOVE the typical average for community banks, which often falls in the $100 million to $150 million range. This high level of productivity per branch indicates strong local relationships and an ability to attract significant deposits without the high overhead costs of a large network. The model supports its relationship-based approach within its core markets, demonstrating effective operating leverage. Despite the inherent risk of geographic concentration, the network's efficiency is a clear operational strength.
Parke Bancorp's recent financial statements show a highly profitable and efficient operation, but with a notable liquidity risk. The bank boasts an exceptionally strong Return on Assets of 1.96% and a very low efficiency ratio of 34.08%, indicating it generates strong profits with minimal overhead. However, its loan-to-deposit ratio has climbed to a high 111.8%, suggesting a reliance on funding beyond its core customer deposits. The investor takeaway is mixed: while current profitability is excellent, the bank's aggressive lending relative to its deposit base requires careful monitoring.
The bank's capital levels are exceptionally strong, but its liquidity is weak due to a high loan-to-deposit ratio of over `111%`, creating a significant risk.
Parke Bancorp presents a split picture in this category, with robust capital but a strained liquidity position. Its capital buffer is a major strength. The tangible common equity to total assets ratio is 14.5% as of the latest quarter, which is substantially higher than the 8-10% typical for regional banks and indicates a very strong ability to absorb potential losses. This high level of capital provides a significant safety net for the bank and its investors.
However, the bank's liquidity profile is a serious concern. The loans-to-deposits ratio is 111.8% ($1.96 billion in loans vs. $1.75 billion in deposits), which is well above the industry benchmark of 80-95%. This indicates the bank is lending out more than its entire deposit base and must rely on other, often more expensive and less stable, funding sources like borrowings to fund its growth. While the bank is profitable, this aggressive stance on liquidity is a key risk that could become problematic if funding becomes scarce or more costly.
The bank maintains a strong reserve against potential loan losses, with an allowance covering `1.73%` of its total loan portfolio, suggesting it is well-prepared for potential credit issues.
While specific data on nonperforming loans and net charge-offs is not provided, Parke Bancorp appears well-prepared for potential credit downturns based on its loan loss reserves. As of the latest quarter, its allowance for credit losses stands at $33.9 million against a gross loan portfolio of $1.96 billion. This translates to a reserve coverage ratio of 1.73%, which is a strong and conservative level compared to industry averages that often range between 1.2% and 1.5%. A higher ratio means more funds are set aside to cover potential defaults.
Furthermore, the provision for credit losses, which is the amount expensed each quarter to build these reserves, was a modest $0.36 million in the most recent quarter, down from $0.98 million in the prior one. This decrease suggests that management does not see a significant deterioration in the quality of its loan book. This robust reserve level provides a solid cushion to protect the bank's earnings and book value if economic conditions worsen.
The bank has minimal exposure to interest rate risk from its investment portfolio, as securities make up less than 1% of its assets, reducing the threat of large paper losses impacting its equity.
Parke Bancorp's sensitivity to interest rate changes appears well-managed, primarily because its investment securities portfolio is extremely small at just $13.86 million out of $2.17 billion in total assets. This structure is a significant strength, as it insulates the bank from the risk of large unrealized losses (AOCI) on fixed-rate bonds, a problem that has negatively impacted the tangible equity of many other banks in a rising-rate environment. The bank's primary rate exposure comes from its core business of making loans and gathering deposits.
The income statement shows both interest income and interest expense are rising, but net interest income is growing faster, with a 36.96% year-over-year increase in the last quarter. This suggests the bank is successfully repricing its loans higher faster than its deposit costs are increasing, protecting its profit spread. Without specific data on asset and liability duration, the small securities portfolio is the most critical factor, indicating a low risk profile in this area.
The bank's core profitability is very strong, driven by a healthy net interest margin of around `3.71%` and powerful year-over-year growth in net interest income of `36.96%`.
Parke Bancorp's ability to earn a profit from its core lending and deposit-taking activities is robust. In the most recent quarter, its net interest income—the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits—grew by a massive 36.96% compared to the same period last year. This demonstrates the bank's ability to expand its profits in the current interest rate environment.
Based on its financial statements, the bank's annualized net interest margin (NIM) is estimated to be approximately 3.71%. This is a strong margin, positioning it favorably against the typical regional bank benchmark of 3-4%. A healthy NIM indicates the bank is earning a solid spread on its assets relative to its funding costs. This strong performance in its primary business line is the foundation of the bank's overall excellent profitability.
The bank operates with exceptional efficiency, with its latest efficiency ratio at a very low `34.08%`, indicating superior cost management that drives its high profitability.
Parke Bancorp's cost control is a core strength and a key driver of its impressive earnings. The bank's efficiency ratio for the most recent quarter was 34.08%, calculated as noninterest expense ($7.16 million) divided by total revenue ($21.01 million). This is an outstanding result, as a ratio below 60% is considered highly efficient for community banks. This means the bank spends just 34 cents to generate each dollar of revenue, leaving a wide margin for profit.
This performance is not an anomaly; the ratio was also excellent in the prior quarter (35.74%) and for the full last year (41.23%). The consistent ability to manage overhead costs like salaries and occupancy while growing revenue allows the bank to translate more of its income directly to the bottom line. This level of discipline is a significant competitive advantage and a clear positive for investors.
Parke Bancorp's past performance presents a mixed picture for investors. The bank showcased exceptional profitability from 2020 to 2022, with its return on equity peaking above 18%. However, the recent period from 2023 to 2024 has been marked by a sharp decline in earnings and revenue, as rising interest rates squeezed its profitability. A key strength is its consistent and growing dividend, while a major weakness is the recent volatility and negative trend in its core earnings, with EPS falling from $3.51 in 2022 to $2.30 in 2024. This performance history suggests a bank that excels in certain economic conditions but lacks resilience through interest rate cycles, making the takeaway for investors mixed.
Loan and deposit growth has been modest over the last three years, with a high and rising loan-to-deposit ratio that signals increasing reliance on funding sources other than core customer deposits.
From FY2022 to FY2024, Parke Bancorp's balance sheet growth has been slow. Gross loans increased from $1.75 billion to $1.87 billion, a modest 2-year growth of about 6.7%. Over the same period, total deposits grew even more slowly, from $1.58 billion to $1.63 billion, a gain of only 3.2%. This mismatch where loans are growing faster than deposits is a point of concern.
This trend has pushed the bank's loan-to-deposit ratio higher. In FY2022, the ratio was already high at 111% ($1751M / $1576M), and it increased to 114.5% by FY2024 ($1868M / $1631M). A ratio above 100% means the bank is lending more than it takes in from customer deposits, forcing it to rely on other, often more expensive and less stable, funding like Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings. This strategy can pressure profitability, especially in a rising rate environment, and indicates a weakness in the bank's core funding franchise.
While the bank has a history of excellent cost control, its net interest income has collapsed over the past two years, indicating severe pressure on its net interest margin (NIM).
Parke Bancorp's past performance highlights a major disconnect between its cost management and its revenue generation in the recent rate cycle. On one hand, the bank is known for its lean operations, and the competitor analysis notes its efficiency ratio is consistently strong (around 45%), which is a positive. A lower efficiency ratio means a bank is better at converting revenue into profit.
However, the bank's core revenue engine, its net interest income (NII), has faltered badly. NII, the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits, fell from a peak of $73.33 million in FY2022 to $58.71 million in FY2024. This 20% decline over two years, while the bank's loan book was growing, is a clear sign of severe net interest margin (NIM) compression. This means its funding costs rose much faster than the yields on its loans, erasing its profitability gains. This trend has been the primary cause of the bank's recent poor earnings performance and overrides its good efficiency.
Earnings per share showed exceptional strength in 2021 and 2022 but have since fallen sharply, revealing a volatile track record and a negative growth trend over the last three years.
Parke Bancorp's earnings per share (EPS) track record is a story of a boom followed by a bust. The bank's EPS surged impressively from $2.40 in FY2020 to a peak of $3.51 in FY2022, showcasing strong profitability in a low-interest-rate environment. However, this success was not sustained. As interest rates rose, EPS collapsed to $2.38 in FY2023 and further to $2.30 in FY2024. This represents a decline of over 34% from its peak.
The 3-year EPS compound annual growth rate (CAGR) from FY2022 to FY2024 is a deeply negative 18.9%. This performance is also reflected in its return on equity (ROE), which fell from a sector-leading 18.84% in 2021 to a more average 9.42% in 2024. This level of volatility indicates that the bank's earnings are highly cyclical and not resilient, which is a significant drawback for investors seeking consistent performance.
Based on available data, the bank's provisions for credit losses have remained low in recent years, suggesting management has not identified significant deterioration in its loan portfolio.
A full analysis of credit stability is challenging without specific data on non-performing loans (NPLs) and net charge-offs. However, we can analyze the provision for credit losses, which is money set aside to cover expected loan defaults. After setting aside a larger $7.65 million in 2020 during the pandemic uncertainty, provisions have been very low, at just $0.5 million in 2021 and $0.73 million in 2024. In 2023, the bank even had a negative provision of -$2.05 million, meaning it released reserves back into earnings, signaling strong confidence in its loan book at the time.
The bank's allowance for loan losses (the total pool of funds to cover bad loans) stood at $32.57 million in 2024, or 1.74% of gross loans. This coverage ratio has slightly decreased from 1.89% in 2020 but appears adequate. While the lack of major provisions is positive on the surface, investors should remain cautious, as community banks with high concentrations in commercial real estate can see credit quality change quickly.
The bank has a solid record of consistently growing its dividend and using buybacks to prevent share dilution, even as its payout ratio has risen due to falling earnings.
Parke Bancorp has demonstrated a shareholder-friendly approach to capital returns over the past five years. The dividend per share has grown steadily from $0.64 in FY2020 to $0.72 in FY2024, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 3.0%. This growth shows a commitment to returning cash to shareholders. The dividend payout ratio has remained conservative, starting at 26.19% in 2020, dipping below 20% during peak earnings, and rising to a still-healthy 31.27% in 2024 as earnings declined.
Furthermore, the company has managed its share count effectively. The number of shares outstanding has remained virtually flat over the five-year period, decreasing slightly from 11.85 million to 11.83 million. This was aided by share repurchases, such as the $4.26 million buyback in FY2024, which offset any shares issued for compensation. This record of a reliable, growing dividend and a stable share count is a clear positive for investors.
Parke Bancorp's future growth outlook is decidedly negative. The bank's extreme concentration in commercial real estate and construction lending within a small geographic area makes it highly vulnerable to a real estate slowdown and sustained high interest rates. While it operates an efficient branch network, this strength is overshadowed by significant headwinds, including a high-cost, unstable deposit base and a near-total lack of fee income to diversify its revenue. Compared to more diversified regional peers, PKBK's growth path is narrow and fraught with risk. The investor takeaway is negative, as the bank's business model is poorly positioned for profitable growth in the current economic environment.
The bank's future loan growth is severely challenged by its concentration in the slowing commercial real estate and construction sectors, with no clear guidance suggesting a return to strong growth.
Parke Bancorp faces a difficult environment for loan growth. The bank does not provide explicit forward-looking loan growth guidance, but the macroeconomic indicators for its core markets—commercial real estate and construction—are negative. High interest rates have suppressed demand for new loans and increased the risk within its existing portfolio. While it maintains relationships with local developers, the pipeline for new, high-quality projects is likely shrinking. Given that over 80% of its portfolio is tied to these cyclical industries, the bank has very few levers to pull to generate growth if its primary market remains stagnant or contracts. The combination of market headwinds and portfolio concentration risk points to a very weak outlook for loan growth in the next few years.
With no recent M&A activity and a capital position that must be managed cautiously due to high concentration risk, the bank has limited options for deploying capital to drive future growth.
The bank's options for strategic capital deployment appear highly constrained. There have been no announced acquisitions, suggesting M&A is not a current pillar of its growth strategy. While its CET1 ratio is adequate, its extreme concentration in CRE lending likely invites regulatory scrutiny, limiting its ability to pursue aggressive capital return policies or acquisitions. The company has not announced a significant buyback program, which could otherwise support earnings per share growth. For a bank of its size, inorganic growth through M&A is often a key path to scaling, but PKBK's specialized and risky loan book might make it an unattractive partner or a difficult acquirer. The lack of a clear plan to use its capital for growth beyond organic lending (which is already challenged) is a significant weakness.
The bank operates a highly efficient branch network but provides no clear strategy for digital adoption, creating a risk of falling behind competitors in the long run.
Parke Bancorp demonstrates exceptional efficiency within its small physical footprint of just seven branches. The bank achieves over $243 million in deposits per branch, a figure that is significantly above the industry average. This indicates strong performance in leveraging its existing locations and relationships to gather funds. However, the bank provides no clear disclosures, targets, or plans related to its digital strategy. In an industry where digital adoption is critical for attracting and retaining customers, especially younger demographics, this silence is a concern. While the current branch model is cost-effective, a failure to invest in online and mobile banking capabilities could erode its franchise over the next 3-5 years. The lack of a digital growth plan limits future potential, even if the current physical network is well-managed.
With a funding base heavily skewed towards high-cost, rate-sensitive deposits, the bank's Net Interest Margin (NIM) is under significant pressure with little prospect for expansion.
The outlook for Parke Bancorp's Net Interest Margin (NIM), the core driver of its profitability, is negative. The bank's liability structure is its Achilles' heel; roughly 50% of its deposits are in higher-cost CDs, and only 16% are in noninterest-bearing accounts. As customers continue to demand higher yields, the bank's cost of deposits is set to continue rising, putting direct pressure on its NIM. While some of its loans are variable-rate, the rapid repricing on the deposit side is a much stronger headwind. The bank has not provided specific NIM guidance, but the structural funding disadvantage makes margin compression highly likely in a 'higher for longer' interest rate environment. This directly constrains future earnings growth.
The bank has a negligible and undiversified fee income stream, with no stated plans to expand it, leaving earnings almost entirely exposed to interest rate volatility.
Parke Bancorp's reliance on net interest income is a critical vulnerability for future growth. Noninterest income represents only about 5% of total revenue, a figure drastically below peers who typically aim for 15-25%. The bank has not articulated any strategy, targets, or initiatives to grow fee-based businesses like wealth management, treasury services, or mortgage banking. This complete dependence on lending spreads makes its earnings highly volatile and susceptible to compression as its funding costs rise. Without a plan to develop these more stable, recurring revenue streams, the bank has no cushion against challenges in its core lending business, severely limiting its long-term growth prospects.
Parke Bancorp appears undervalued, trading at a significant discount to its tangible book value (0.81x P/TBV) and at a low earnings multiple (7.78x P/E) despite strong profitability (13.56% ROE). These compelling valuation metrics suggest the market has not fully recognized the bank's strong performance. While the stock has seen recent appreciation, its fundamental valuation still indicates meaningful upside potential. The investor takeaway is positive, as the current price offers an attractive entry point for a high-performing bank.
The stock trades at a significant discount to its tangible book value (0.81x), a classic indicator of undervaluation for a bank, especially one with strong profitability.
For banks, the Price-to-Tangible-Book (P/TBV) ratio is a critical valuation metric. Parke Bancorp’s stock price of $21.67 is well below its tangible book value per share of $26.74, resulting in a P/TBV ratio of 0.81x. This means an investor can buy the bank's net tangible assets for 81 cents on the dollar. This discount is especially noteworthy given the bank’s high Return on Equity of 13.56%. A healthy and profitable bank generating such strong returns should, in a normal market, trade at or above its tangible book value. The current discount offers a potential margin of safety.
There is a clear misalignment between the company's high Return on Equity and its low Price-to-Book multiple, suggesting the market has not yet recognized its superior profitability.
A bank's ability to generate profit from its equity base, measured by ROE, should be a key driver of its P/B valuation. Parke Bancorp's ROE of 13.56% is excellent, placing it in a higher tier of profitability within the regional banking sector. A bank that can sustainably generate returns well above its cost of equity (typically in the 9-12% range) deserves to trade at or above its book value. The fact that PKBK trades at a P/B ratio of only 0.82x indicates a disconnect. This suggests the market is pricing the stock as a low-return institution, contrary to the strong returns it is actually delivering.
The stock's low P/E ratio of 7.78x appears highly attractive when compared to the regional banking industry average and is supported by exceptionally strong recent earnings growth.
Parke Bancorp trades at a trailing P/E ratio of 7.78x, a significant discount to the regional bank industry average of roughly 12x. This low multiple suggests the market may be undervaluing its earnings power. While the prior full year (FY2024) saw a slight earnings decline, recent performance has been robust, with year-over-year EPS growth of 43.55% in Q3 2025. This powerful earnings momentum makes the current low P/E multiple particularly compelling. An investor is paying a below-average price for a company that is currently demonstrating well-above-average growth.
The company provides a solid income stream through a well-covered dividend and active share buybacks, resulting in an attractive total yield for shareholders.
Parke Bancorp offers a respectable dividend yield of 3.26%. This income return is supported by a very conservative TTM payout ratio of 25.4%, which indicates the dividend is not only safe but has significant room for future growth. A low payout ratio means the company retains a majority of its earnings to reinvest in the business and strengthen its financial position. In addition to dividends, the company is actively returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases, as evidenced by a -1.61% change in shares outstanding in the most recent quarter. The combination of dividends and buybacks creates a compelling total shareholder yield, offering both income and potential for capital appreciation.
On nearly every key relative metric—P/E, P/TBV, and ROE—Parke Bancorp appears favorably valued compared to its regional banking peers.
When compared to industry benchmarks, Parke Bancorp stands out as a value proposition. Its P/E ratio of 7.78x is well below the peer average of ~12x. Its P/TBV ratio of 0.81x is also below the typical industry average, which is closer to 1.1x. Furthermore, its 13.56% ROE is superior to the regional bank average of 8.3%. The company's dividend yield of 3.26% is competitive within the sector. Combined, these metrics suggest Parke Bancorp is cheaper than its peers while demonstrating higher profitability, offering a potentially superior risk/reward profile.
The primary macroeconomic risk for Parke Bancorp is its sensitivity to interest rate changes and the broader economic cycle. The current "higher-for-longer" interest rate environment presents a dual threat. On one hand, it increases the bank's cost of funds, as it must offer more attractive rates on deposits to compete and retain customers. This can compress its Net Interest Margin (NIM)—the difference between what it earns on loans and pays on deposits—which is a core driver of bank profitability. On the other hand, sustained high rates put financial strain on its borrowers, especially those with variable-rate commercial loans, elevating the risk of defaults. An economic recession would severely magnify this risk, leading to higher loan losses and reduced demand for new loans.
From an industry perspective, Parke Bancorp faces significant competitive challenges. As a community bank with a relatively small asset base, it competes directly with money-center giants like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which possess superior scale, technology platforms, and marketing budgets. Simultaneously, the rise of financial technology (fintech) firms introduces another layer of competition, as these digital-native companies often offer more convenient and lower-cost niche services, chipping away at traditional banking relationships. This intense fight for both deposits and quality loans can limit PKBK's ability to grow and maintain its margins. Furthermore, regulatory scrutiny on banks with high concentrations in commercial real estate is increasing, potentially leading to higher capital requirements and compliance costs that disproportionately impact smaller institutions.
Internally, the bank's most significant vulnerability is its concentrated loan portfolio. A substantial portion of its loans are in commercial real estate, a sector known for its cyclicality and vulnerability to economic downturns. This risk is compounded by the bank's geographic concentration in Southern New Jersey and the Philadelphia metropolitan area. A localized economic slump or a downturn in this specific real estate market could lead to a disproportionately large increase in nonperforming loans. While management has historically maintained solid credit quality, this lack of diversification means the bank's fate is closely tied to a single asset class and a specific region, leaving it with less of a cushion if market conditions were to deteriorate significantly.
Click a section to jump