Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -1.0x · EV/EBITDA 16.3x · ROE -54.4%. (2016–2025 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $606M | $1.0B | $867M | $744M | $1.1B | $1.9B | $1.6B | $966M | — | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $6.2B | $6.6B | $5.6B | $5.6B | $5.4B | $5.7B | $2.6B | $1.5B | — | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -0.98 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 17.49 | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.20 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 1.43 | 4.22 | 1.84 | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 0.30 | 0.39 | 28.06 | 1.17 | 1.40 | 1.17 | 4.82 | 4.57 | — | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | 372.83 | 14.66 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | 7.61 | 3.94 | 4.16 | 22.83 | 80.66 | 10.26 | — | — | — |
P/E links to full P/E history page with 30-year chart
Enterprise-value multiples — capital-structure-neutral measures of total business value
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 2.50 | 2.30 | 2.31 | 2.41 | 4.28 | 7.01 | 2.83 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 16.35 | 19.29 | 46.49 | 12.43 | 11.57 | 19.47 | 134.30 | 10.09 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | 216.96 | 230.75 | 134.58 | — | — | — | — | 11.81 | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | 619.32 | 22.53 | — | — | — |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 43.0% | 43.0% | 54.2% | 54.9% | 55.3% | 59.5% | 62.8% | 64.6% | 69.1% | 71.6% | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | 1.1% | 1.1% | -10.5% | 4.2% | 7.5% | 11.0% | -4.9% | 21.9% | 27.6% | 29.4% | 27.1% |
| Net Profit Margin | -26.4% | -26.4% | -23.2% | -7.7% | -18.9% | -8.7% | -1.5% | 10.5% | 16.3% | 14.8% | 10.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -54.4% | -54.4% | -170.3% | -26.0% | -35.1% | -11.8% | -2.0% | 21.6% | 30.0% | 42.6% | 38.8% |
| ROA | -8.2% | -8.2% | -8.9% | -2.8% | -6.6% | -2.7% | -0.4% | 6.1% | 9.5% | 9.2% | 7.0% |
| ROIC | 0.3% | 0.3% | -3.7% | 1.5% | 2.4% | 3.2% | -1.3% | 12.8% | 16.5% | 19.4% | 17.7% |
| ROCE | 0.4% | 0.4% | -4.6% | 1.8% | 2.9% | 3.8% | -1.4% | 14.0% | 18.4% | 21.0% | 19.5% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 2.53 | 2.53 | 159.83 | 7.97 | 5.61 | 2.46 | 3.56 | 3.32 | 1.32 | 2.21 | 3.59 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 18.69 | 18.69 | 40.75 | 11.15 | 9.62 | 13.68 | 59.80 | 4.77 | 2.76 | 2.68 | 3.02 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 2.21 | 154.29 | 7.71 | 5.35 | 2.33 | 3.18 | 2.45 | 1.06 | 1.73 | 3.11 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 16.37 | 16.37 | 39.33 | 10.79 | 9.17 | 12.97 | 53.45 | 3.53 | 2.21 | 2.09 | 2.62 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | 246.49 | 7.87 | — | 5.09 | 5.93 |
| Interest Coverage | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.13 | -0.14 | -1.18 | -0.01 | -0.19 | 3.15 | 5.82 | 5.42 | 4.42 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.99 | 2.02 | 2.73 | 1.62 | 1.15 | 1.61 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.97 | 1.95 | 2.64 | 1.54 | 1.09 | 1.51 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.89 | 2.03 | 1.03 | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.24 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.65 |
| Inventory Turnover | 27.14 | 27.14 | 58.14 | 75.55 | 71.12 | 46.57 | 14.92 | 23.44 | 21.07 | 16.48 | 18.17 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 38.96 | 17.60 | 24.62 | 26.96 | 58.15 | 8.52 | 16.17 | 19.16 | 20.55 | 15.37 |
Earnings, FCF, buyback, and dividend yields — total returns to shareholders
Full dividend history and growth charts are on the Dividend History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.2% | 0.8% | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 13.7% | 0.9% | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.7% | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.3% | 6.8% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 68.7% | 41.5% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 13.6% | 4.6% | 2.1% | 23.1% | — | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 68.7% | 41.5% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 13.6% | 4.6% | 2.3% | 23.9% | — | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $61M | $48M | $53M | $58M | $50M | $31M | $38M | $39M | $38M | $39M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 10 years · Updated daily
Live VCP patterns, Cup & Handle overlays, support/resistance, and AI trade plans.
High-probability breakout stocks crossing their pivot across 5 pattern engines.
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying BALY stock.
Bally's Corporation's current P/E ratio is -1.0x. The historical average is 17.5x.
Bally's Corporation's current EV/EBITDA is 16.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 19.9x.
Bally's Corporation's return on equity (ROE) is -54.4%. The historical average is -16.7%.
Based on historical data, Bally's Corporation is trading at a P/E of -1.0x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Bally's Corporation has 43.0% gross margin and 1.1% operating margin.
Bally's Corporation's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 18.7x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Persistent negative FCF and high leverage
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Margins Masked by Mix and One-Offs
Gross margin swung from 56.0% in 2025Q3 to 39.9% in 2026Q1, per reported financials, while operating margin remained thin at 1.1% TTM, indicating structural cost pressures.
The gross margin volatility reflects a mix shift toward lower-margin land-based operations and possibly promotional activity in interactive segments. Operating margin of 1.1% TTM suggests that depreciation, pre-opening costs, and SG&A are absorbing revenue gains. Net margin of -26.4% TTM is heavily impacted by non-recurring items like impairments and pre-opening expenses, which investors should adjust to assess underlying earning power.
Returns Decaying Amid Expansion
ROIC has been negative or near zero for ten consecutive quarters, with 2026Q2 at -0.6%, as reported, indicating that capital deployed in Chicago and acquisitions is not yet generating returns.
ROE of -54.4% TTM and ROIC of -0.6% in 2026Q2 reflect persistent losses and a growing asset base. The negative returns are driven by thin operating margins and high capital intensity, particularly the Chicago build. Investors should monitor whether the Queen merger and Chicago development eventually improve asset turnover and margins, but current trends suggest value destruction.
Working Capital Efficiency Improving
Cash conversion cycle turned positive to 14 days in 2026Q1 from -9 days in 2025Q3, per reported figures, as DSO rose to 37 days, indicating slower receivables collection.
The positive CCC is driven by a sharp increase in DSO to 37 days in 2026Q1, which may reflect a shift in revenue mix toward interactive segments with longer payment terms. DPO also rose to 34 days, partially offsetting the DSO increase. Asset turnover remains low at 0.07-0.09, consistent with a capital-intensive casino business, but the efficiency of working capital management appears to be stabilizing.
Leverage Spikes on Refinancing
Debt-to-equity swung from 159.83 in 2024Q4 to 1.04 in 2026Q2, per financial statements, but D/EBITDA remains elevated at 39.28, indicating high leverage relative to cash flow.
The apparent deleveraging in D/E reflects equity infusions and asset sales, but D/EBITDA of 39.28 in 2026Q2 is extremely high, suggesting that EBITDA is insufficient to service debt. Interest coverage is negative at -0.29, meaning operating income does not cover interest expenses. Sale-leaseback obligations with GLPI may understate true leverage, and refinancing risk remains a concern given the capital-intensive Chicago project.
Liquidity Buffer Thin and Deteriorating
Current ratio fell to 0.91 in 2026Q2 from 1.11 in 2026Q1, per reported figures, while cash dropped to $390.2M, indicating a tightening liquidity position.
The current ratio below 1.0 suggests that current liabilities exceed current assets, which could strain short-term obligations. Quick ratio of 0.85 indicates that inventory is not a major factor, but the negative FCF margin of -19.7% in 2026Q2 implies ongoing cash burn. The company may need to rely on external financing or asset sales to fund operations and the Chicago build, increasing liquidity risk.
Misapplied EV/EBITDA in Capital-Intensive Growth
EV/EBITDA of 18.36 TTM, as reported, is misleading for Bally's because EBITDA excludes significant lease expenses and pre-opening costs, understating true cash obligations.
The market often uses EV/EBITDA to compare gaming companies, but Bally's heavy use of sale-leaseback transactions and its capital-intensive expansion make EBITDA a poor proxy for cash flow. Adjusted metrics like EV/EBITDAR or EV/EBIT would better capture lease and depreciation burdens. Additionally, the negative net margin and high leverage suggest that a price-to-book or EV/sales approach may be more appropriate for assessing value.