Dine Brands Global Inc (DIN) — Tangible Net Worth Ratio
Dine Brands Global Inc (DIN) has a Tangible Net Worth Ratio of -202.6% as of June 2017. This metric is calculated by deducting intangible assets ($760.98 Million) from net assets ($251.48 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. See DIN working capital ratio to evaluate short-term liquidity relative to the company's equity base.
Tangible NW Ratio
Net Assets (Equity)
Intangible Assets
Total Assets
Dine Brands Global Inc Tangible Net Worth Ratio (1990–2016)
This chart shows how Dine Brands Global Inc's Tangible Net Worth Ratio has changed across 27 annual periods from 1990 to 2016. As of June 2017, the ratio stands at -202.6%, reflecting net assets of $251.48 Million with intangible assets of $760.98 Million USD. See Dine Brands Global Inc (DIN) defensive interval to measure how many days the company can operate on defensive assets alone.
Annual Tangible Net Worth Ratio for Dine Brands Global Inc (1990–2016)
The table below presents the year-by-year Tangible Net Worth Ratio for Dine Brands Global Inc from 1990 to 2016, covering 27 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 the full company profile including market capitalisation, see DIN market cap.
| Year | Tangible NW Ratio | Net Assets (USD) | Intangible Assets | Total Assets | Change (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | -202.0% | $252.77 Million | $763.40 Million | $2.28 Billion | ▼ -12.8 pp |
| 2015 | -189.2% | $267.22 Million | $772.90 Million | $2.33 Billion | ▼ -8.9 pp |
| 2014 | -180.3% | $279.07 Million | $782.30 Million | $2.39 Billion | ▼ -28.5 pp |
| 2013 | -151.9% | $315.18 Million | $793.80 Million | $2.40 Billion | ▲ +9.2 pp |
| 2012 | -161.0% | $308.81 Million | $806.10 Million | $2.42 Billion | ▲ +268.8 pp |
| 2011 | -429.8% | $155.22 Million | $822.36 Million | $2.61 Billion | ▲ +470.3 pp |
| 2010 | -900.1% | $83.58 Million | $835.88 Million | $2.86 Billion | ▲ +215.2 pp |
| 2009 | -1115.3% | $69.90 Million | $849.55 Million | $3.10 Billion | ▲ +1020.1 pp |
| 2008 | -2135.5% | $42.77 Million | $956.04 Million | $3.36 Billion | ▼ -1752.4 pp |
| 2007 | -383.1% | $209.37 Million | $1.01 Billion | $3.83 Billion | ▼ -479.4 pp |
| 2006 | 96.3% | $289.21 Million | $10.77 Million | $768.87 Million | ▼ -0.1 pp |
| 2005 | 96.3% | $293.85 Million | $10.77 Million | $771.08 Million | ▼ -0.5 pp |
| 2004 | 96.8% | $339.76 Million | $10.77 Million | $821.68 Million | ▼ -0.4 pp |
| 2003 | 97.2% | $382.36 Million | $10.77 Million | $843.00 Million | ▲ +0.1 pp |
| 2002 | 97.0% | $364.39 Million | $10.77 Million | $819.80 Million | ▲ +0.5 pp |
| 2001 | 96.6% | $312.43 Million | $10.77 Million | $641.43 Million | ▲ +0.9 pp |
| 2000 | 95.7% | $260.00 Million | $11.20 Million | $562.21 Million | ▲ +0.8 pp |
| 1999 | 94.9% | $226.50 Million | $11.60 Million | $520.40 Million | ▲ +1.3 pp |
| 1998 | 93.6% | $187.90 Million | $12.10 Million | $443.00 Million | ▲ +1.6 pp |
| 1997 | 92.0% | $156.20 Million | $12.50 Million | $382.60 Million | ▲ +2.0 pp |
| 1996 | 90.0% | $129.40 Million | $12.90 Million | $328.90 Million | ▲ +2.3 pp |
| 1995 | 87.7% | $108.30 Million | $13.30 Million | $252.10 Million | ▲ +3.3 pp |
| 1994 | 84.4% | $88.30 Million | $13.80 Million | $202.60 Million | ▲ +4.3 pp |
| 1993 | 80.1% | $71.20 Million | $14.20 Million | $180.00 Million | ▲ +5.7 pp |
| 1992 | 74.3% | $58.00 Million | $14.90 Million | $149.80 Million | ▲ +5.7 pp |
| 1991 | 68.6% | $48.70 Million | $15.30 Million | $112.80 Million | ▲ +74.0 pp |
| 1990 | -5.4% | $14.90 Million | $15.70 Million | $93.70 Million | — |