Flanigans Enterprises vs RCI Hospitality
BDL and RICK side by side, both in eating and drinking places. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BDL and RICK compare
RCI Hospitality is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Flanigans Enterprises ($209M against $109M).
Flanigans Enterprises grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.1% versus 0.95% for RCI Hospitality).
Flanigans Enterprises keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with −1.5% at RCI Hospitality.
Both pay dividends: Flanigans Enterprises yields 1.0% and RCI Hospitality 1.1%.
Flanigans Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 7 for RCI Hospitality), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BDL | RICK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $109M | $209M |
| Share price | $58.43 | $27.31 |
| Change, 1 year | 82.6% | 14.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 71.6% | −61.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.27 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 2,033 | 6 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 0.7× |
| P/B | 1.6× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.7× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | 23.5× | 6.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.3% | 16.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $70.21 | $48.88 |
| Margin of safety | 16.8% | 44.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.1% (better) | 0.95% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.7% | 16.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 53.6% (better) | −125% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.2% (better) | −122% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 35.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 5.3% | 9.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.1% (better) | −1.5% |
| FCF margin | 2.1% | 12.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 9.9% (better) | −1.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.2% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 (better) | 1.02 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.16 (better) | 4.93 |
| Interest coverage | 10.3× (better) | 1.6× |
| Current ratio | 2.04 (better) | 0.56 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.27 (better) | 1.48 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.0% | 1.1% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 7 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 7.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% | 8.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 10.4% | 49.5% |
| Held by insiders | 70.5% | 9.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $119K (better) | $91.8K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 9.5% |
Go deeper
- BDL stock overview
- BDL income statement
- BDL valuation and score
- RICK stock overview
- RICK income statement
- RICK valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.