Forestar vs Terreno Realty
FOR and TRNO side by side, both in real estate. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FOR and TRNO compare
Terreno Realty is the larger company, worth 6.3 times as much as Forestar ($7.3B against $1.2B).
On earnings, Forestar is cheaper: it trades at 6.9× trailing earnings, against 20.2× for Terreno Realty.
Terreno Realty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.2% versus 11.8% for Forestar).
Terreno Realty keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 68.1% compared with 9.9% at Forestar.
Terreno Realty pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Forestar does not pay one.
Forestar scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 12 for Terreno Realty), 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 | FOR | TRNO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.2B | $7.3B |
| Share price | $22.84 | $67.31 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.9% | 10.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 9.6% | −13.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 78 | 47 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 6.9× (better) | 20.2× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 14.1× |
| P/B | 0.6× (better) | 1.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 4.1× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.40 |
| FCF yield | 24.3% | – |
| Fair value | $37.94 | $61.73 |
| Margin of safety | 39.8% (better) | −9.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.8% | 17.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.3% | 20.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.7% | 10.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.4% | 6.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.2% | 27.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.4% | – |
| Net margin | 9.9% | 68.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 16.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 9.6% (better) | 8.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.54 | 3.75 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 62.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 6 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 12.5% |
| Buyback yield | – | −6.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% (better) | −2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 36.8% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 0.33% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$232K (better) | −$1.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- FOR stock overview
- FOR income statement
- FOR valuation and score
- TRNO stock overview
- TRNO income statement
- TRNO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.