Carriage Services vs Regis
CSV and RGS side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSV and RGS compare
Carriage Services is the larger company, worth 7.5 times as much as Regis ($554M against $74.1M).
On earnings, Regis is cheaper: it trades at 12.3× trailing earnings, against 12.5× for Carriage Services.
Regis grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus 2.4% for Carriage Services).
Carriage Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.7% compared with 3.1% at Regis.
Carriage Services pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Regis does not pay one.
Carriage Services scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 6 for Regis), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CSV | RGS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $554M | $74.1M |
| Share price | $34.89 | $29.67 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.0% | −1.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −28.8% | −46.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.88 |
| Employees | 2,321 | 1,611 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.5× | 12.3× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 2.0× | 0.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.8× (better) | 5.8× |
| P/FCF | 14.8× | 6.7× (better) |
| PEG | 1.70 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.8% | 15.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $47.41 | $53.04 |
| Margin of safety | 26.4% | 44.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.4% | 6.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% (better) | −11.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −14.9% (better) | −94.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −16.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 29.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | 10.9% |
| Net margin | 10.7% (better) | 3.1% |
| FCF margin | 9.0% (better) | 5.0% |
| Return on equity | 17.3% (better) | 3.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 27.6% (better) | 8.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.02 (better) | 0.60 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.03 (better) | 3.22 |
| Interest coverage | 3.3× (better) | 1.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.46 (better) | 0.62 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.18 (better) | 0.89 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 15.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.82% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% (better) | −0.82% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.0% | 31.0% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 10.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$14.0K |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- CSV stock overview
- CSV income statement
- CSV valuation and score
- RGS stock overview
- RGS income statement
- RGS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.