Lamar Advertising vs Regency Centers
LAMR and REG side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LAMR and REG compare
Lamar Advertising is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Regency Centers ($16.0B against $13.7B).
Regency Centers grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.2% versus 4.4% for Lamar Advertising).
Regency Centers keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 34.4% compared with 23.9% at Lamar Advertising.
Both pay dividends: Lamar Advertising yields 4.2% and Regency Centers 4.0%.
Regency Centers scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 11 for Lamar Advertising), 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 | LAMR | REG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $16.0B | $13.7B |
| Share price | $157.53 | $74.59 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.3% | 7.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 29.7% | −1.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 3,500 | 507 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.7× | – |
| P/S | 6.9× (better) | 8.4× |
| P/B | – | 2.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.1× | 8.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 22.3× | – |
| PEG | 2.81 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.5% | – |
| Fair value | $112.74 | $73.72 |
| Margin of safety | −39.7% | −1.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.4% | 8.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.6% | 8.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 26.6% | 37.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 27.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 67.4% | – |
| Operating margin | 31.8% | 72.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 23.9% | 34.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 30.9% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 8.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 13.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.20 | – |
| Interest coverage | 4.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.63 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 2.00 (better) | 1.79 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.2% (better) | 4.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 95.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 12 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 20.9% (better) | 3.8% |
| Buyback yield | −0.10% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.1% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.4% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 13.7% | 0.52% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.7M (better) | −$40.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | – |
Go deeper
- LAMR stock overview
- LAMR income statement
- LAMR valuation and score
- REG stock overview
- REG income statement
- REG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.