CIA Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a net margin of 3.85% compared to Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net margin of 11.24%. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s return on equity of 4.99% beat Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s return on equity of 2.8%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 17.88%. On the other hand Abacus Global Management, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $13.50 which suggests that it could grow by 58.45%. Given that Abacus Global Management, Inc. has higher upside potential than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas), analysts believe Abacus Global Management, Inc. is more attractive than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas).

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a beta of 0.364, which suggesting that the stock is 63.618% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a beta of -0.062, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 106.246%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Abacus Global Management, Inc. offers a yield of 2.35% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.20 per share. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Abacus Global Management, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) quarterly revenues are $62.8M, which are smaller than Abacus Global Management, Inc. quarterly revenues of $63M. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net income of $2.4M is lower than Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net income of $7.1M. Notably, Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s price-to-earnings ratio is 23.82x while Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s PE ratio is 108.76x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is 1.04x versus 4.01x for Abacus Global Management, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has a net margin of 3.85% compared to Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net margin of 26.49%. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s return on equity of 4.99% beat Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s return on equity of 17.31%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 17.88%. On the other hand Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $65.50 which suggests that it could grow by 1.16%. Given that Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, Inc., analysts believe Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial, Inc..

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a beta of 0.364, which suggesting that the stock is 63.618% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has a beta of 0.967, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 3.337%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) quarterly revenues are $62.8M, which are smaller than Brighthouse Financial, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net income of $2.4M is lower than Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s net income of $481M. Notably, Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s price-to-earnings ratio is 23.82x while Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s PE ratio is 4.41x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is 1.04x versus 0.60x for Brighthouse Financial, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Genworth Financial, Inc. has a net margin of 3.85% compared to Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net margin of 8.47%. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s return on equity of 4.99% beat Genworth Financial, Inc.'s return on equity of 3.86%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 17.88%. On the other hand Genworth Financial, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $10.00 which suggests that it could grow by 9.05%. Given that Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has higher upside potential than Genworth Financial, Inc., analysts believe Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is more attractive than Genworth Financial, Inc..

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a beta of 0.364, which suggesting that the stock is 63.618% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Genworth Financial, Inc. has a beta of 1.018, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 1.829%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Genworth Financial, Inc. offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Genworth Financial, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) quarterly revenues are $62.8M, which are smaller than Genworth Financial, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net income of $2.4M is lower than Genworth Financial, Inc.'s net income of $155M. Notably, Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s price-to-earnings ratio is 23.82x while Genworth Financial, Inc.'s PE ratio is 17.36x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is 1.04x versus 0.55x for Genworth Financial, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Jackson Financial, Inc. has a net margin of 3.85% compared to Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net margin of 6.43%. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s return on equity of 4.99% beat Jackson Financial, Inc.'s return on equity of 5.87%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a consensus price target of $6.00, signalling upside risk potential of 17.88%. On the other hand Jackson Financial, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $112.67 which suggests that it could grow by 3.84%. Given that Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has higher upside potential than Jackson Financial, Inc., analysts believe Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is more attractive than Jackson Financial, Inc..

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a beta of 0.364, which suggesting that the stock is 63.618% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Jackson Financial, Inc. has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Jackson Financial, Inc. offers a yield of 2.95% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.80 per share. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Jackson Financial, Inc. pays out 23.84% of its earnings as a dividend. Jackson Financial, Inc.'s payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) quarterly revenues are $62.8M, which are smaller than Jackson Financial, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.4B. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net income of $2.4M is lower than Jackson Financial, Inc.'s net income of $91M. Notably, Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s price-to-earnings ratio is 23.82x while Jackson Financial, Inc.'s PE ratio is 15.01x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) is 1.04x versus 1.60x for Jackson Financial, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.