Winmark Corporation Tangible Net Worth Ratio
Winmark Corporation tangible net worth ratio. Winmark Corporation (WINA) has a Tangible Net Worth Ratio of 100.0% as of December 2019. This metric is calculated by deducting intangible assets ($0.00) from net assets ($12.45 Million) and expressing it as a percentage of total net assets. A higher ratio means that more of the company's equity is backed by tangible, balance-sheet-verifiable assets rather than goodwill, patents, or brand value. Check Winmark Corporation strategic asset allocation index to assess the company's strategic physical and investment asset allocation.
Tangible NW Ratio
Net Assets (Equity)
Intangible Assets
Total Assets
Tangible Net Worth Ratio of Winmark Corporation (1993–2019)
Tangible net worth ratio of Winmark Corporation from 1993 to 2019. This chart shows how Winmark Corporation's Tangible Net Worth Ratio has changed across 23 annual periods from 1993 to 2019. As of December 2019, the ratio stands at 100.0%, reflecting net assets of $12.45 Million with intangible assets of $0.00 USD. See Winmark Corporation working capital to net assets to evaluate short-term liquidity relative to the company's equity base.
Winmark Corporation Tangible Net Worth Ratio by Year (1993–2019)
Winmark Corporation tangible net worth ratio by year from 1993 to 2019. The table below presents the year-by-year Tangible Net Worth Ratio for Winmark Corporation from 1993 to 2019, covering 23 annual filings. Each row shows net assets, intangible assets, total assets, the tangible net worth ratio, and the change in percentage points versus the prior year. For live market cap and overall valuation, see Winmark Corporation market cap and net worth.
| Year | Tangible NW Ratio | Net Assets (USD) | Intangible Assets | Total Assets | Change (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 100.0% | $12.45 Million | $0.00 | $61.84 Million | ▼ -20422.5 pp |
| 2014 | 20522.5% | $21.61 Million | $-4.41 Billion | $54.73 Million | ▲ +9388.7 pp |
| 2013 | 11133.8% | $38.14 Million | $-4.21 Billion | $53.04 Million | ▼ -8770.5 pp |
| 2012 | 19904.3% | $17.93 Million | $-3.55 Billion | $43.54 Million | ▲ +19804.3 pp |
| 2011 | 100.0% | $35.11 Million | $0.00 | $47.75 Million | ▲ +0.0 pp |
| 2010 | 100.0% | $23.01 Million | $0.00 | $42.12 Million | ▲ +0.0 pp |
| 2009 | 100.0% | $15.33 Million | $0.00 | $56.80 Million | ▲ +0.0 pp |
| 2008 | 100.0% | $13.89 Million | $0.00 | $58.11 Million | ▲ +0.0 pp |
| 2007 | 100.0% | $12.67 Million | $0.00 | $56.95 Million | ▲ +3.9 pp |
| 2006 | 96.1% | $15.76 Million | $608.00K | $37.61 Million | ▼ -1.1 pp |
| 2005 | 97.3% | $22.29 Million | $607.50K | $26.55 Million | ▲ +0.3 pp |
| 2004 | 97.0% | $21.56 Million | $654.60K | $24.77 Million | ▲ +0.9 pp |
| 2003 | 96.1% | $15.41 Million | $600.60K | $19.16 Million | ▲ +0.6 pp |
| 2002 | 95.5% | $11.90 Million | $538.70K | $16.18 Million | ▲ +2.8 pp |
| 2001 | 92.7% | $6.62 Million | $486.20K | $12.29 Million | ▲ +7.8 pp |
| 2000 | 84.9% | $3.47 Million | $524.30K | $14.72 Million | ▲ +46.9 pp |
| 1999 | 37.9% | $2.90 Million | $1.80 Million | $29.60 Million | ▼ -15.0 pp |
| 1998 | 52.9% | $10.20 Million | $4.80 Million | $43.10 Million | ▼ -8.2 pp |
| 1997 | 61.1% | $17.50 Million | $6.80 Million | $37.80 Million | ▼ -32.6 pp |
| 1996 | 93.8% | $17.70 Million | $1.10 Million | $29.20 Million | ▼ -1.0 pp |
| 1995 | 94.8% | $21.20 Million | $1.10 Million | $34.00 Million | ▼ -0.6 pp |
| 1994 | 95.4% | $21.70 Million | $1.00 Million | $39.60 Million | ▲ +6.5 pp |
| 1993 | 88.9% | $19.80 Million | $2.20 Million | $31.80 Million | — |