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 net assets of Dine Brands Global Inc for net asset value and shareholders' equity analysis.
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. Also explore Dine Brands Global Inc (DIN) equity growth momentum to track the company's year-over-year net asset growth rate.
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 how much is Dine Brands Global Inc worth.
| 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 | — |