Mercer International vs Sylvamo
MERC and SLVM side by side, both in paper and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MERC and SLVM compare
Sylvamo is the larger company, worth 88 times as much as Mercer International ($1.5B against $17.5M).
Sylvamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.4% versus −3.5% for Mercer International).
Sylvamo keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −4.9% compared with −27.0% at Mercer International.
Sylvamo pays a dividend yielding 4.7%; Mercer International does not pay one.
Sylvamo scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 2 for Mercer International), 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 | MERC | SLVM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.5M | $1.5B |
| Share price | $0.261 | $38.57 |
| Change, 1 year | −84.2% | −17.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −97.6% | 21.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.70 | 0.63 |
| Employees | 3,545 | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 2 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.0× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | – | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 8.0× |
| FCF yield | −729% | −3.4% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $59.76 |
| Margin of safety | – | 35.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.5% | 12.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% | 7.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −200% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −204% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 4.1% | 17.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −22.2% | 2.8% (better) |
| Net margin | −27.0% | −4.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | −6.9% | −1.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −493% | −21.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −19.9% | 4.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.77 |
| Interest coverage | −3.4× | 1.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.23 | 1.29 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.01 | 2.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 4.7% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −14.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 63.8% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 41.5% | 17.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.3M (better) | −$658K |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.1% | 7.9% |
Go deeper
- MERC stock overview
- MERC income statement
- MERC valuation and score
- SLVM stock overview
- SLVM income statement
- SLVM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.