Dine Brands Global Inc Tangible Net Worth Ratio
Dine Brands Global Inc 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. Also explore Dine Brands Global Inc (DIN) net asset momentum to track the company's year-over-year net asset growth rate.
Tangible NW Ratio
Net Assets (Equity)
Intangible Assets
Total Assets
Tangible Net Worth Ratio of Dine Brands Global Inc (1990–2016)
Tangible net worth ratio of Dine Brands Global Inc from 1990 to 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. Check Dine Brands Global Inc PP&E and investment ratio to assess the company's strategic physical and investment asset allocation.
Dine Brands Global Inc Tangible Net Worth Ratio by Year (1990–2016)
Dine Brands Global Inc tangible net worth ratio by year from 1990 to 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 live market cap and overall valuation, see Dine Brands Global Inc market capitalisation.
| 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 | — |