If You Invested $10K In Rexford Industrial Realty Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now?
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.
Rexford Industrial Realty Inc. (NYSE:REXR) is a real estate investment trust focused on infill Southern California industrial properties.
It is set to report its Q2 2025 earnings on July 16. Wall Street analysts expect the company to post EPS of $0.58, down from $0.60 in the prior-year period. According to Benzinga Pro, quarterly revenue is expected to reach $251.72 million, up from $232.97 million a year earlier.
Don't Miss:
GoSun's breakthrough rooftop EV charger already has 2,000+ units reserved — become an investor in this $41.3M clean energy brand today.
Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential.
The company's stock traded at approximately $14.89 per share 10 years ago. If you had invested $10,000, you could have bought roughly 672 shares. Currently, shares trade at $36.95, meaning your investment's value could have grown to $24,815 from stock price appreciation alone. However, Rexford Industrial Realty also paid dividends during these 10 years.
Rexford Industrial Realty's dividend yield is currently 4.65%. Over the last 10 years, it has paid about $10.06 in dividends per share, which means you could have made $6,756 from dividends alone.
Summing up $24,815 and $6,756, we end up with the final value of your investment, which is $31,571. This is how much you could have made if you had invested $10,000 in Rexford Industrial Realty stock 10 years ago. This means a total return of 215.71%. However, this figure is less than the S&P 500 total return for the same period, which was 241.45%.
Trending: This Jeff Bezos-backed startup will allow you to become a landlord in just 10 minutes, with minimum investments as low as $100.
Rexford Industrial Realty has a consensus rating of "Neutral" and a price target of $45.50 based on the ratings of 14 analysts. The price target implies a more than 23% potential upside from the current stock price.
The company on April 16 announced its Q1 2025 earnings, posting FFO of $0.62, compared to the consensus estimate of $0.58, and revenues of $248.82 million, compared to the consensus of $244.74 million, as reported by Benzinga.
'Rexford Industrial delivered solid first quarter performance, underscoring the strength of our platform and the discipline of our execution,' said co-CEOs Howard Schwimmer and Michael Frankel. 'Our differentiated business model and investment-grade balance sheet will continue to afford us the ability to unlock substantial embedded growth and drive long-term shareholder value, while navigating current macroeconomic uncertainty.'
For its full-year 2025, the company expects core FFO per diluted share in the range of $2.37 to $2.41.
Given the expected upside potential, growth-focused investors may find Rexford Industrial Realty stock attractive. Furthermore, they can benefit from the company's solid dividend yield of 4.65% and consistent hikes. Rexford Industrial Realty has raised its dividend consecutively for the last 10 years.
Check out this article by Benzinga for three more stocks offering high dividend yields.
See Next:
$100k in assets? Maximize your retirement and cut down on taxes: Book your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation.
Warren Buffett once said, "If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die." Here's how you can earn passive income with just $100.
This article If You Invested $10K In Rexford Industrial Realty Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now? originally appeared on Benzinga.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
10 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Why the best leaders embrace both ‘agile' and ‘waterfall' thinking
Have you ever admired a leader so dialed into their long-term mission that it seems nothing can shake their focus? Every move appears premeditated, every milestone perfectly timed. Now think about a leader who seems to always be in step with the moment. Their company launches timely features, aligns instantly with market shifts, and always feels fresh. For every leader who succeeds through single-minded focus, there are others whose obstinacy has led them and their organizations to arrive at a destination that is no longer desirable. And while adaptability can be a gift, it also leads many organizations to shift strategies with each change in the winds without ever hitting on a true contribution. This tension between structure and adaptability isn't just theoretical; it's a foundational dynamic that has shaped industries for decades. Approaches to enterprise software development provide a useful way to gauge whether you're leaning too far in either direction. Balancing Your Leadership Approaches Early on in the history of the software industry, a 'waterfall' strategy reigned supreme. Road maps guided development, with possible major platform releases happening every one to two years, version releases quarterly, feature sets monthly, and bug fixes weekly. Teams operated with near-military precision towards long-term goals, broken down into shorter term deliverables. But as the pace of change accelerated, that model began to break down. Agile software development emerged, favoring speed, iteration, and real-time user feedback. Short sprints (often 60 to 90 days) determined what was going to be released. Each sprint on a project added features, fixed bugs, and adapted to feedback from the previous release. Unlike with waterfall, employees from across agile teams were empowered to fix things and make many changes without going through their chain of command to get approval. In our coaching work, we've seen that the same push and pull between waterfall and agile playing out in leadership styles and company cultures. Some leaders operate like agile systems: adaptive, fast-moving, iterative, and with a distributed decision structure. They respond quickly to new data and aren't afraid to pivot when the market shifts. Others take a waterfall-inspired approach: structured, methodical, deeply focused on long-term outcomes, and more rigidly hierarchical. They chart a course and stick to it, often prioritizing consistency over speed. Neither mindset is wrong, but over-indexing on either one can create serious blind spots. Agile thinkers risk spinning in circles when they follow the tides. Waterfall thinkers risk charging toward goals that become outdated or foundering on unsolvable problems. For executives, the ability to integrate both approaches is no longer optional—it's essential. Here's how to strike that balance—and why your team's future may depend on it. 1. Assess your own leadership style In our coaching conversations with leaders, we often start by asking them to reflect on whether they naturally lean toward structure or spontaneity. We can expand on their natural preference by administering a personality profile survey as well. Are they more likely to build a road map and stick to it, or pivot at the first sign of change? Developing this self-awareness isn't about labeling or even changing your style—it's about recognizing where you need balance. If you default to agile thinking, ask yourself: Are we making measurable progress? Or changing directions without setting a course? Are we building anything lasting? If you favor waterfall thinking, ask: Is our goal still relevant? What feedback are we ignoring? Which market changes do we need to take into account? During a recent coaching conversation a senior marketing leader at large hospitality company expressed frustrations about her proposed product launch, a new menu item, being challenged by her colleague who runs operations. He thought a different item would be faster, easier, and aligned to what customers recently told him they wanted. Her team had spent the last six months toward brand alignment, market research, product iterations, testing, launch planning, and marketing planning and were now finally ready to do something. Her waterfall approach and his agile approach were in conflict. Both made great points. In the end, they struck a balance between both proposals and management styles. 2. Understand when culture amplifies leadership style As a leader, you have to ask whether your company culture reflects your style or balances it. A culture determines how people behave naturally, on average, even when a leader is 'not in the room.' Do people tend to work in a structured manner, with long-term goals in mind, always talking about progress against objectives? Or, does it feel like people question the current state, proposing new ideas and take initiative without seeking executive approval. Crucially, if the culture leans in a particular direction, how easy and safe is it for people who lean the other way to challenge the others. A lot of can depend on whether the company typically hires and promotes a 'type' that matches the leader's biases or whether it embraces individuals who bring unique perspectives and skills to the workplace. When you build a corporate ethos in your image, you magnify your own tendencies in ways that create a harmonious work environment. People are not likely to argue with your decisions, because they reflect their own opinions as well. Day-to-day, that can be pleasant. In the long-run, though, it creates problems. If the leadership and organization are all Agile, then chaos may manifest. A slow-moving Waterfall culture may stall innovation. Take Boeing as an example; it continued reliance on a hierarchical, Waterfall-style of leadership and development culture has been widely criticized for contributing to recent crises. The rigid, top-down approach delayed necessary changes in engineering and quality control, despite repeated warnings from employees and whistleblowers. The 2024 mid-air panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX reignited scrutiny, and internal documents revealed slow, structured processes that resisted fast adaptation or real-time feedback. The Waterfall mindset—prioritizing schedules, approvals, and internal reporting lines—led to safety risks, brand damage, and regulatory backlash. In contrast, consider Netflix. In the late 1990s, they recognized an inefficiency in the movie rental business. Leaders in this space had significant overhead costs from the physical stores from which people rented and returned movies. By allowing customers to select movies online and have then delivered, they created an economy of scale. Building this business required attention to detail and customer service. Yet, the company remained sensitive to technology trends. They realized that they were essentially sending computer files through a low-bandwidth connection (the U.S. Mail) and disrupted their own business model by pivoting to streaming. Further realizing that many companies could develop streaming models, they pivoted again to content creation. Becoming a content creator requires a lot of expertise, and so they had to implement this model using a more traditional Waterfall approach. This balance between Agile and Waterfall approaches has enabled Netflix to remain a significant force in the market. The takeaway? While a particular cultural and leadership disposition around Waterfall or Agile may be the natural to the organization and may have served it well for many years, great leaders are aware of those tendencies, and build a culture that can challenge the status quote and balance, when needed, Agile and Waterfall approaches to yield healthy (if sometimes uncomfortable) debate. 3. Combine long-term vision with real-time feedback A 2024 meta-analysis in the Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation found that agile leadership has a significant impact on organizational outcomes, team effectiveness, collaboration, and innovation. But the key isn't to replace long-term thinking entirely—it's to layer agility on top of it. That's why the most successful leaders use both mindsets. They know when to zoom out—building toward five-year goals—and when to zoom in, listening to customer feedback or shifting based on real-time performance indicators. New Balance has done this exceptionally well, maintaining its long-term manufacturing commitments in the U.S. while evolving its brand to meet changing consumer tastes—a move that helped drive a record $6.5 billion in sales in 2023. A CMO we coached recently calls her approach 'glocal marketing'—the balance between local and global marketing, which includes honoring the long term brand promise (Waterfall) while still connecting, through customization, at the local level to what is relevant and popular at that moment in a particular area (Agile). At the team level, this looks like maintaining a steady mission while adapting tactics. At the leadership level, it means pairing clarity of purpose with the humility to course correct. 4. Build balanced teams that challenge your defaults There's a method in psychology to measure individual tendencies known as need for cognitive closure, and it provides a useful way to think about your own leadership approach. People high in need for closure prefer action to thinking, so they tend to react to situations and engage with available information, which is characteristic of an agile approach. People low in need for closure prefer thinking to action and typically mull over information, which often leads to the focus on long-term goals characteristic of a waterfall style. Understanding your own tendencies as a leader as well as those of your trusted associates is valuable, because it gives you the opportunity to balance your team to include those with a range of levels of need for closure to ensure your team isn't heavily biased toward either the agile or waterfall style. You can measure these tendencies with the Need for Closure scale. It will help you to see whether the people you work with tend toward High (i.e., Agile) or Low (i.e., Waterfall) Need for Closure. If you find that your team tends to be biased more toward reaction or more toward deep thought, you can use timelines to help overcome those tendencies. For example, if your team tends to react quickly, set a deadline for finalizing a decision that's far enough out to allow your team the time and space to slow down and proceed carefully and thoughtfully. In contrast, if your team often deliberates too long and gets stuck in long-term patterns, an earlier deadline can push them to make decisions more quickly. Don't surround yourself with people who think exactly like you. Instead, build teams that stretch your instincts, pressure-test your assumptions, and help you operate at both 30,000 feet and ground level. Often, people's preferences reflect hidden assumptions that they themselves may not be aware of. Being forced to justify your strategic decisions explicitly in conversations brings those assumptions to the forefront. In addition, these strategic choices may sometimes reflect reasoning gaps that these conversations will also bring to light. Navigate with intention The best leaders don't choose between agile and waterfall—they learn to navigate the tension and switch gears with intention. Agility without direction leads to burnout. Direction without agility leads to obsolescence. So, ask yourself: Are you leaning too far in one direction? What conversations, feedback loops, or partners could help you rebalance? Because real leadership isn't about having a single style—it's about learning when to move fast, when to slow down, and how to bring your team with you, every step of the way.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Alphabet Stock Crept Higher in Price on Wednesday
The company rolled out a highly popular service in a new city. This extends its lead over a recent arrival to the business. 10 stocks we like better than Alphabet › Like a robotaxi slowly advancing down a street to approach its destination, Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG)(NASDAQ: GOOGL) stock advanced on Hump Day. Its two share classes both rose in excess of 2% in price during the trading session, on the back of good news for one of its businesses. That bump higher was good enough to beat the flat S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) on the day. That Alphabet business posting the positive development was its accelerating robotaxi service, Waymo. On Tuesday, in partnership with ride-sharing incumbent Uber Technologies, the company rolled out Waymo in Atlanta. The Georgia metropolis now becomes the fifth metropolitan area serviced by Waymo (the others are San Francisco and the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin). Alphabet doesn't plan on slamming the brakes on the project anytime soon, as it aims to Waymo Washington, D.C., and Miami next year. The combination of a widening footprint and positive word-of-mouth has boosted Waymo's popularity -- and its ridership. According to recent reporting from Barron's, these days the service is providing over 250,000 rides per week. That's more than double the 100,000 from last year at around this time. With the Atlanta launch, Alphabet extends its lead over ever-ambitious electric vehicle (EV) giant Tesla. That company launched its Robotaxi brand in Austin this past weekend; however, it was limited only to a select group of hand-picked users. Both Alphabet's development and rollout of Waymo feels as if they have been well planned and smoothly executed. In Los Angeles, for example, now it's common to see Waymos ferrying customers around the car-clogged city. While robotaxis aren't yet a massive business for Alphabet, they're looking like they'll become an important revenue generator sooner than many might expect Before you buy stock in Alphabet, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Alphabet wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $689,813!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $906,556!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 809% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 175% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Tesla, and Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Alphabet Stock Crept Higher in Price on Wednesday was originally published by The Motley Fool
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump may name a ‘shadow' Fed chair, an unprecedented development in American history
President Donald Trump said last week that he will announce his pick to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell 'very soon.' The problem is that Powell still has 11 months left until the end of his term. Trump remains frustrated as ever with the Fed because it has not yet lowered interest rates. He has relentlessly attacked Powell for months. But announcing a Fed chair nominee this far in advance — if he makes good on that plan — would be an unprecedented development in the central bank's 111-year history. This person would effectively be acting as America's 'shadow' Fed chair — a proposal Scott Bessent first floated last year before he became Trump's Treasury secretary. Such an extraordinary move could undermine the current Fed chief and intensify the uncertainty that has bedeviled the US economy since Trump took office, former Fed officials and academics tell CNN. 'It's an absolutely horrible idea,' Alan Blinder, who served as the No. 2 official at the Fed during the mid-1990s, told CNN in a phone interview. Blinder said a shadow Fed chair would mean markets would have to make sense of two influential voices speaking about monetary policy at the same time, but offering potentially very different visions. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' said Blinder, a former Clinton economic adviser who is now a professor at Princeton University. Greg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, expressed a similar sentiment in a note to investors on Thursday: 'This is a terrible idea, sure to annoy and confuse financial markets if there are two Fed Chairs.' 'It all depends on just how loyal this person is expected to be to Trump,' said Kathryn Judge, a professor at Columbia Law School who researches financial markets and central banking. 'But we don't we know what the ramifications would be or what they'd be willing to do, because this is unprecedented.' US presidents have historically waited until the final months of the incumbent Fed chair's term before naming a successor. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas cautioned that naming an early Fed chair could backfire, causing a jump in the very interest rates Trump is seeking to drive lower. 'Undermining Powell is in no one's best interest as it will almost certainly translate to a weaker dollar and rising rates,' Brusuelas said. On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump, frustrated by Powell's reluctance to slash interest rates, could announce his nominee as early as this summer. The US dollar index, which measures the dollar's strength against six major foreign currencies, subsequently illustrated investors' discomfort with the idea of a shadow Fed chair. After the Journal's report, the US dollar was down 0.3% Thursday morning and hovered around its lowest level since February 2022. The stock market, in contrast, appeared largely unfazed by the idea of Trump naming a shadow Fed chair. US stocks moved solidly higher on Thursday, flirting with record highs. Valliere worries the plan for naming an early Fed chair 'would politicize the Fed for a few months before stability is restored next May.' 'The damage to the Fed's independence would be considerable if Trump becomes a monetary back-seat driver, second-guessing Fed policies this fall,' Valliere said. There are at least three contenders for the top job at the Fed, CNN has previously reported: Bessent; Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor; and Christopher Waller, a current Fed governor. The Journal reported that Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House's National Economic Council, is also being considered; as well as David Malpass, who Trump in his first term nominated to helm the World Bank. Narayana Kocherlakota, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis who is now a professor at the University of Rochester, told CNN that a shadow Fed chair is 'not great policy' because the person could step on Powell's current messaging. 'However, it might be better than having the president tweet about monetary policy,' Kocherlakota said, alluding to Trump's intensifying attacks on Powell via social media. Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, told CNBC on Thursday that the naming of a new Fed chair this far in advance would have 'no effect' on Fed policymakers. One former Fed official who sat on the rate-setting committee alongside Powell also stressed that naming a shadow Fed chair would not sway policymakers. 'I can tell you with absolute certainty it will have no impact on Jay Powell and the existing FOMC,' this former official told CNN on the condition of anonymity, referencing the Fed's 12-member voting committee. The former Fed official said some candidates Trump is considering may have second thoughts about getting announced this early in the process. 'I wouldn't want to be named at this juncture because you'd be saying I am Trump's lackey. That would hurt my credibility on the Street and in Corporate America,' the former official said. As Goolsbee alluded to, a shadow Fed chair won't have any real power before assuming the role. Trump's pick would also need to be confirmed by the Senate, though that likely won't be much of an obstacle with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress through 2026. Even then, it won't be easy for this person to bend the Fed to their will. All monetary policy decisions are voted on by the FOMC, also known as the Federal Open Market Committee. The chair cannot unilaterally veto what the members vote for and, in theory, could even be outvoted. Blinder, the former Fed vice chair, said the risk is that a shadow Fed chair provokes their future colleagues by speaking out before taking power. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' Blinder said. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.
