Fundamental analysis: Dine Brands Global, Inc. (DIN)

Awarener score: 6.8

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Good), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

Note: All scores range from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Conclusions are updated daily with closing stock prices and new reported quarterly financial statements.

Revenue score: 4.5

Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been similar to peer companies.
Dine Brands Global, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.2

DIN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's great when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be good in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.4

Dine Brands Global, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a normal step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier when measured against peer enterprises.
In the previous years, the firm couldn't always make a profit -before income taxes and interests on loans taken-. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar stocks.
In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was bottom tier against rivals.
In the previous years, the firm had at least a total net loss, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
The company lost money at least once in the past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.0

DIN had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse than peers.
The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.0

Dine Brands Global, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
In the past, got very good returns -on the tangible resources it controls-. This metric is usually related to the industry in which operates and combines profitability versus reinvestment needs. It's encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.6

DIN usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came top-notch against competitors.
In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
The company usually uses some portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects take a nosedive. Sustainability looks slightly better than comparable companies.
The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent in relation to peer enterprises.
Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands in good shape compared to rivals.
The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks similar to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.5

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare against rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are somewhat low in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks rather normal in relation to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.3

Dine Brands Global, Inc. looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to competitors.
Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value is a fairly complex metric. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It remains a disappointment compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
The company usually generates reasonably more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, the current valuation might be fair. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks great when measured against peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation to rival firms.
There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7

Company at a glance: Dine Brands Global, Inc. (DIN)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Restaurants

Market Cap: 1.03 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.91 billions

Dine Brands Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, franchises, operates, and rents full-service restaurants in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: Applebee's Franchise Operations, International House of Pancakes (IHOP) Franchise Operations, Rental Operations, Financing Operations, and Company-Operated Restaurant Operations. The company owns and franchises two restaurant concepts, including Applebee's Neighborhood Grill + Bar in the bar and grill segment of the casual dining category; and IHOP in the family dining category of the restaurant industry. Its Applebee's restaurants offer American fare with drinks and drafts; and IHOP restaurants provide full table services, and food and beverage offerings. As of December 31, 2021, the company had 1,611 Applebee's franchised restaurants, and 1,751 IHOP franchised and area licensed restaurants. It is also involved in the lease or sublease of 598 IHOP franchised restaurants and two Applebee's franchised restaurants; and the financing of franchise fees and equipment leases. the company was formerly known as DineEquity, Inc. and changed its name to Dine Brands Global, Inc. in February 2018. Dine Brands Global, Inc. was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in Glendale, California.