Silvercrest Asset Management vs Westwood
SAMG and WHG side by side, both in services allied with the exchange of securities. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SAMG and WHG compare
Westwood is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Silvercrest Asset Management ($179M against $133M).
On earnings, Westwood is cheaper: it trades at 23.7× trailing earnings, against 93.5× for Silvercrest Asset Management.
Westwood grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.2% versus 1.2% for Silvercrest Asset Management).
Westwood keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.2% compared with 0.74% at Silvercrest Asset Management.
Both pay dividends: Silvercrest Asset Management yields 7.5% and Westwood 3.2%.
Westwood scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 4 for Silvercrest Asset Management), 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 | SAMG | WHG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $133M | $179M |
| Share price | $11.22 | $18.76 |
| Change, 1 year | −20.7% | 15.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −31.0% | 13.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.89 | 0.60 |
| Employees | 171 | 148 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 93.5× | 23.7× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 2.9× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.5× (better) | 26.4× |
| P/FCF | 23.8× | 9.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 10.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.64 | $16.68 |
| Margin of safety | −16.4% | −12.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.2% | 3.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −85.9% | 220% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −83.1% | 204% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 2.5% | 5.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.74% | 7.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.4% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 1.8% | 5.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.0% (better) | 4.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 4.9× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 2.45 | 4.09 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.5% (better) | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | 696% | 75.8% |
| Buyback yield | 6.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 14.2% (better) | 3.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 39.2% | 57.1% |
| Held by insiders | 15.9% | 30.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $719K (better) | −$2.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- SAMG stock overview
- SAMG income statement
- SAMG valuation and score
- WHG stock overview
- WHG income statement
- WHG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.