Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Reading International, Inc.
How Reading International, Inc. stacks up
RDIB · against 470 other Communication Services companies
Valuation
21/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #370 of 471 · scores higher than 21% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score47 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including RDIB · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 21?
Weighted metrics compared with all Communication Services companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield, free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Communication Services peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -5.0% vs peer median 2.9%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 78% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 1.3% vs peer median 7.4%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 74% of peers. EBITDA yield: 3.6% vs peer median 8.6%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = RDIB, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | RDIB | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 461 reported | -5.2% | 3.0% | 18% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 493 reported | 2.7% | 8.7% | 26% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 227 reported | 1.5% | 7.6% | 22% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 467 reported | -9.7% | 48.9% | 3% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around RDIB| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 105.8B KRW (≈$76M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 1 | 694.0B KRW (≈$500M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 3 | 2.6B HKD (≈$329M) | 99 | 80 | |
| 3 | 3.1B HKD (≈$398M) | 99 | 74 | |
| 3 | 226M SEK (≈$23M) | 99 | 63 | |
| 370 | 9.1B CNY (≈$1.3B) | 21 | 47 | |
| 370 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score