Royalty Management Holding Corp (RMCO) Stock Analysis
Royalty Management Holding Corp
▾ What's in the 58/100 risk score? (higher = riskier)
Contributions (weight × component score) sum to the total. This near-term score now includes fundamental health (leverage, FCF trend, DCF applicability). It excludes the Altman Z score, whose retained-earnings input this filer does not report separately. See the Financial Health section for the full balance-sheet read.
How to read RMCO (speculative micro-cap)
No model can pin a precise fair value on a company this small — but that does not mean there is nothing to learn. The useful questions are what the price is betting on, and whether the company can survive long enough to deliver it.
-
1
Reverse-DCF — what growth the price assumes ↓
The single most useful number here: it backs out the growth the market is paying for. If that figure is "historically unprecedented," the price is running on hype, not fundamentals.
-
2
Cash runway ↓
A pre-profit micro-cap lives or dies on whether it can fund itself to profitability before running out of money and diluting you.
-
3
The raw financial statements + the 10-K ↓
At this scale, the actual numbers, insider ownership, and share-count trend tell you more than any ratio.
⚠ At today's price, the market values RMCO at about 7.7× its annual sales — a typical established company trades around 1–3×. Standard industry multiples (the bars below) collapse toward $0 at this scale, so they aren't the useful read. For a micro-cap with sales, lean on the Momentum trend, and cash runway — see 📍 What to focus on.
Football field: where does the price sit?
Different valuation methods produce different fair-value ranges depending on assumptions. Plotting them together lets you see at a glance whether the current price is reasonable across approaches, or only one specific lens.
Industry multiples sourced from: broad market average (sector unknown). See the Peer Basket section below for the peer comparison and its limited-comparables caveat.
How to read a company this small
RMCO is too small and/or too volatile for the valuation lenses we use on larger, more stable companies. The numbers shown below should be taken as rough orientation only.
- Market cap $38.3M — nano-cap territory (below $50M)
- Latest annual revenue $4.9M — too small for meaningful growth percentages
Growth percentages on tiny revenue bases (1000% going from $200K to $2M is not predictive). P/E and ROE swing wildly with small earnings changes. Peer comparisons fail because there often aren't comparable companies at this scale.
Start with the Reverse-DCF above — it backs out the growth the price is betting on; if that figure is "historically unprecedented," the price is running on hype, not fundamentals. Then the cash runway (can it fund itself to profitability before diluting you?). Then the raw Financials table and the 10-K on SEC EDGAR — at this scale, insider ownership and the share-count trend often matter more than any ratio.
Classified as Speculative Nano / Micro-cap (confidence 85%). Disagree? An admin can override via the post edit screen.
⚠ Genuine comparables are scarce at this size, so peer multiples are unreliable here. Treat as rough context only — see 📍 What to focus on above.
How does RMCO stack up against its closest peers?
We take the 8 same-industry companies most similar to RMCO (similar size) and check what investors are paying for each dollar of their revenue (or profits). If RMCO is much more expensive on the same yardstick, that's a red flag — unless you have a specific reason it deserves a premium. For a leveraged business, EV/EBIT and FCF yield (both in the table) are usually more reliable than EV/Sales, because revenue multiples ignore differences in margins and debt.
▾ What's "EV / Sales" in plain English?
EV (Enterprise Value) = market cap + total debt − cash. It's "what you'd pay to buy the entire company outright" — you pay the market cap to shareholders and take over their debt, but you keep their cash. EV is fairer than market cap alone because it includes the debt the new owner inherits.
EV / Sales = EV ÷ annual revenue. So "2.5×" means investors pay $2.50 of enterprise value per $1 of yearly sales. Higher = market is paying more per dollar of sales (usually because they expect future growth or fat margins).
p25 / median / p75 are the 25th, 50th (middle), and 75th percentile of the peers' multiples. Half the peers fall between p25 and p75. The median (p50) is the typical peer — that's the benchmark we compare to.
| EV / SalesEV / Sales — For every $1 of yearly revenue, this is how many dollars investors pay to own the whole business (including debt). Why it matters: Works for pre-profit growth companies where P/E and FCF don't apply. The most apples-to-apples cross-company multiple because it ignores accounting choices. Reference: 1–3x for mature companies · 4–10x for software/SaaS · 10–20x for hypergrowth · >20x is rare and demanding Full explanation → |
3.4x / 13.9x / 23.9x |
| EV / EBITEV / EBITDA — Enterprise value divided by earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization. Why it matters: A classic "what would a private buyer pay" multiple — used in M&A. Strips out tax and capital-structure noise. Reference: 8–12x for mature businesses · 15–25x for growth · Below 5x often signals distress Full explanation → |
0.9x / 1.9x / 19.9x |
Bold middle number = median peer. Half the peers trade above it, half below. Computed over 8 same-industry peers; implausible multiples excluded.
⚠️ Important caveat: peer multiples only work if the peers are genuinely comparable. Always check the peer list below — if the auto-picker grabbed micro-caps or unrelated businesses, the comparison is noise. A medical-device giant priced against tiny biotech startups won't produce a useful signal.
▾ View peer list (8)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/Sales | EV/GP | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WHLRD | Wheeler Real Estate Investment Tru | REITs | $40M | 23.1x | — | 0.9x | 158.3% |
| REFR | RESEARCH FRONTIERS INC | REITs | $27M | 23.9x | — | — | 3.0% |
| SACH | Sachem Capital Corp. | REITs | $58M | — | — | — | 16.9% |
| SELF | Global Self Storage, Inc. | REITs | $59M | 4.6x | — | 19.9x | 5.7% |
| VHC | VirnetX Holding Corp | REITs | $73M | 450.9x | — | — | 3.0% |
| WHLRL | Wheeler Real Estate Investment Tru | REITs | $83M | 47.6x | — | 1.9x | 76.7% |
| SRL | Scully Royalty Ltd. | REITs | $91M | — | — | — | 3.0% |
| STHO | Star Holdings | REITs | $107M | 3.4x | — | — | 3.0% |
Quality & solvency checks
Cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason. These screens warn when a low valuation comes paired with structural fragility.
Why it matters: Cheap-looking stocks (low P/E or P/B) often have low Z-scores because the market knows the company is dying. Z-score warns you before you fall into a value trap.
Reference: > 3.0 = safe zone · 1.81–3.0 = grey zone · < 1.81 = distress zone
Full explanation →
We can't produce a trustworthy Altman Z here: retained earnings weren't separately reported in our data, so a core input would have to be fabricated. Rather than show a categorical "distress" verdict from an invented number, we mark it unavailable. Judge financial health from the leverage, cash position, and the measurable Piotroski checks instead.
Why it matters: High score = fundamentals improving. Low score = deteriorating. Especially powerful for filtering cheap stocks: cheap + high F-score historically outperforms; cheap + low F-score is often a value trap.
Reference: 7–9 = strong · 4–6 = mediocre · 0–3 = weak
Full explanation →
▾ The checks — what passed, what didn't (and what we couldn't measure)
-
✗ Positive net incomeNet income -$0.7M in FY2025.Why this matters: Does the company actually earn a profit? Sustained losses eventually force it to raise money — diluting you — or take on debt.
-
✗ Positive operating cash flowOperating cash flow -$0.0M (was $0.6M the prior year).Why this matters: Profit can be an accounting figure; cash from running the business is harder to fake. Negative operating cash flow means the core business consumes cash and must be funded externally.
-
✓ Cash flow backs up reported profitOperating cash flow -$0.0M vs net income -$0.7M.
-
✗ Return on assets improvingReturn on assets -4.4% vs -0.8% a year ago.Why this matters: Is the company squeezing more profit out of each dollar of assets than last year? Rising = getting more efficient; falling = the opposite.
-
✓ Debt load (vs assets)Total debt is 0.0% of assets vs 1.7% a year ago ($0.0M of $16.7M assets).
-
✓ Short-term liquidity (current ratio)Current ratio 1.13x vs 0.76x a year ago.
-
✓ Share count (dilution)Share count held roughly flat (15.0M → 15.0M year-over-year).
-
✗ Pricing power (gross margin)Gross margin 16.3% vs 97.2% a year ago.Why this matters: Rising gross margin means stronger pricing power or lower input costs — a sign of competitive strength. Falling margin signals pressure.
-
✓ Sales per asset (asset turnover)Asset turnover 0.30x vs 0.05x a year ago.
Missing data is never counted as a pass or a fail — it's shown as n/a and excluded from the denominator. Each check compares the company against its own prior year.
Plain English: the company holds about $0M in cash and is burning roughly $0M/year in operations. At that pace, the cash lasts 14.9 yrs before it must raise capital (diluting shareholders), take on debt, or cut spending.
Assumes constant burn and ignores financing/asset sales. For pre-profit biotech and growth companies, this matters more than a DCF — a great drug pipeline is worthless if they run out of money before approval.
What if you assume different inputs?
Here's where we land — and what happens if you change the assumptions. Drag the sliders to set your own Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation → (the annual return you demand for single-stock risk) and terminal growth; the value updates live so you can see whether the stock looks cheaper or richer. The discount rate starts at 11.9%, the figure our model used for RMCO. Open Advanced to also change beta, growth and the rate path.
Note: the calculator opens at our published value of $0.56 — it is initialised to the same scenario-weighted result, so the two match exactly on load. The moment you move a slider, the value below becomes a single-path what-if at your assumptions (not the three-scenario weighting), which is why it can differ from the headline once you've touched it.
11.9% — beta-based (CAPM), from this stock's BetaBeta — How much the stock moves when the overall market moves. 1.0 = moves with the market; 1.5 = moves 50% more than the market.
Why it matters: Higher beta = more volatile = should demand higher discount rate. Low beta stocks (utilities, consumer staples) move less.
Reference: Most stocks 0.5–1.5 · Defensives ~0.3 · High-vol tech ~1.5–2.0
Full explanation → of 1.35. The safe Treasury rate plus a premium scaled by how much more (or less) volatile the stock is than the market.
13.0% — sector/quality tier. A simpler hurdle set by industry and business durability: lower for stable, wide-moat companies; higher for speculative or micro-caps.
The headline value and this calculator start at 11.9% — the beta-based rate. Drag the slider to the other rate to see the full range.
A full intrinsic value isn't shown for RMCO because it's valued with a dividend-discount model this quick calculator doesn't replicate — see our published value above and the sector lens for the right metrics.
—
⚙ Advanced — tinker with every input (beta, growth, rate path, margin → full intrinsic value)
RMCO is deeply overvalued by the model, trading at a premium of +314.4% to its intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation → of $0.555. The market may be paying up for potential future royalty streams or strategic acquisitions not yet reflected in the financials, despite the company's negative net income and operating cash flow in the latest period. The primary quantifiable risk is the company's consistent unprofitability, with net income negative in the latest period and only profitable in 1 of the last 5 years.
As of 3 months ago
Anatomy of a share
What you're buying per share. Bars are at the same scale so you can see the relative size of revenue, costs, cash flow, and debt — not just read them in a table.
What's free cash flow / what do these mean?
Revenue per share — how much the business earns from customers, divided by the number of shares outstanding. Top of the income statement.
Earnings per share — profit left after operating costs, interest, and taxes, per share. Two versions appear on this page and are not interchangeable: GAAP diluted EPS uses the company's weighted-average diluted share count during the reporting period (this is the "earnings" in "price-to-earnings"); net income per current share divides annual net income by today's share count. They differ whenever the share count has changed.
Owner-earnings free cash flow per share — the cash the business produces for shareholders. Savng's owner-earnings FCF subtracts capital expenditures and stock-based compensation from operating cash flow (SBC is a real dilution cost even though it's non-cash). This is deliberately more conservative than "standard" FCF, which subtracts only capital expenditures — so our figure is lower than the headline FCF you'll see elsewhere. FCF funds dividends, buybacks, debt repayment, and acquisitions; a company can report positive earnings yet negative FCF.
Debt per share — total interest-bearing borrowings divided by shares. High debt-per-share next to thin FCF-per-share is a fragility signal.
What you actually need to decide
Every stock price is a disagreement. Here's the single thing that must go right for the bulls, the single thing that breaks the thesis, and the concrete signposts to watch so you can update your view as real results arrive.
- Return to positive net income in upcoming filings
- Sustained positive operating cash flow
- Announcements of significant new royalty acquisitions
The trend, in plain numbers (FY2024 → FY2025, latest reported)
Straight from the financial statements — no model, no opinion. For a small or unprofitable company, the direction of these numbers usually tells you more than any single valuation.
- Revenue grew +513% to $4.9M.
- Free cash flow is negative at -$9K — the cash burn widened vs last year.
- Gross margin shrank to 16% (-81 pts).
- Still unprofitable at -$727K — loss widening.
Management & Leadership
Limited executive data available for Royalty Management Holding Corp. The company operates in the financial services sector, specifically REITsREIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) — A company that owns income-producing real estate and is required to pay out about 90% of its profit to shareholders as dividends.
Why it matters: Because they pay out almost everything, REITs are judged on the cash they distribute (price-to-AFFO and dividend yield), not on ordinary earnings — a normal P/E or DCF misleads here.
Reference: Dividend yields often 3–6%; valued on price-to-AFFO, not P/E.
Full explanation →, suggesting a focus on managing royalty assets.
What They Make
Royalty Management Holding Corp. is a financial services company operating as a REITREIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) — A company that owns income-producing real estate and is required to pay out about 90% of its profit to shareholders as dividends.
Why it matters: Because they pay out almost everything, REITs are judged on the cash they distribute (price-to-AFFO and dividend yield), not on ordinary earnings — a normal P/E or DCF misleads here.
Reference: Dividend yields often 3–6%; valued on price-to-AFFO, not P/E.
Full explanation →, likely focused on acquiring and managing royalty interests across various industries to generate income for shareholders.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
The market prices RMCO at a premium of +314.4% to the model, suggesting investors anticipate future growth or quality not captured by historical financials. This optimism persists despite the company's negative net income and operating cash flow in the latest period, and a low franchise/durability score of 1/5, indicating the market may be assigning value to future royalty acquisitions or strategic shifts which are not in the model.
Three Scenarios, Weighted
| Scenario | IV | Upside from today's price | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $0.48 | -81.3% | 40% |
| Base | $0.56 | -78.0% | 35% |
| Optimistic | $0.66 | -74.2% | 25% |
| Weighted | $0.56 | -78.3% | 100% |
Reading the last column: it is the move from today's price to each value (IV ÷ price − 1). The headline "premium/discount to model IV" measures the same gap from the value's side (price ÷ IV − 1), so the two percentages differ in size and sign by construction — e.g. a price 8% above value is a value 7.4% below price.
Business Model & Valuation
How They Make Money
No dividend data is available, with the model assuming a 3% yield. The company likely funds operations through equity raises or retained earnings, given its negative operating cash flow.
Dividend Discount Medium
REIT (REITs): dividend discount model - GAAP earnings distort REIT valuations.
Show advanced inputs
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings FCF model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project net interest income and fee-income lines independently; their combined effect is embedded in the historical revenue and cash-flow trend the model extrapolates. The calculator above can only approximate a segment's impact through the single consolidated growth rate — it cannot model any one line separately. For a true segment-level view, build a separate model from the company's segment disclosures.
Maturity & Competitive Position
Moat Signals
Net income has been negative in the latest period and only profitable in 1 of the last 5 years, while operating cash flow was negative in the latest period and positive in 2 of the last 5 years.
Geography & Markets
Not available from current data sources. The company's operations are likely concentrated in regions where its royalty assets are located.
Geographic Risks
Market Signals
These are timing signals, not value signals — they describe the stock's recent price behavior, not what the business is worth. Use them for the "the thesis looks good, but is now the moment?" question. Each tile below explains what it's saying.
Why it matters: Short-term contrarian indicator. Extreme readings often precede mean reversion, though not always.
Reference: 30–70 normal · >70 overbought · <30 oversold
Full explanation → (14)40.2NeutralMomentum is balanced — neither overbought nor oversold.
Why it matters: When the fast line crosses above the slow line, short-term momentum is turning up; below, turning down. A timing cue, not a value signal.
Reference: Line above signal = bullish momentum · below = bearish
Full explanation →BearishLine below signalThe fast trend is below the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently downward.
Technicals describe price, not the business. A great company can have a "bearish" tape (a buying chance) and a weak one a "bullish" tape (a trap). Pair these with the valuation and health sections above.
QUALITY
Data Quality & Risk Flags (3 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (3)
- No dividend data. Assuming 3% yield.
- Illiquidity discount 25% applied (small/micro-cap — harder to exit, demand a margin).
- Dividend data sparse; DDM using estimated yield. Confidence reduced.
FINANCIALS
Financial Statements (5-year tables — click to expand)
From Royalty Management Holding Corp's SEC filings (EDGAR).
Income (5yr)
| Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 4.9M | -726,890 | $-0.05 |
| 2024 | 807,089 | -114,261 | $-0.01 |
| 2023 | 488,520 | -1.1M | $-0.08 |
| 2022 | 178,800 | -2.7M | $-0.18 |
| 2021 | — | 2.3M | $0.21 |
Cash Flow (5yr)
Capital expenditure isn't tagged in this filer's machine-readable data (the CapEx column shows "—"). The free-cash-flow column is therefore operating cash flow less stock-based compensation only — an upper bound on true owner earnings, not the real figure. Companies that report capex under a custom label (some large IFRS filers do) look better here than they are.
| Year | Operating CF | CapEx | − SBC & adj. | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | -8,952 | — | — | -8,952 |
| 2024 | 646,290 | — | — | 646,290 |
| 2023 | -236,877 | — | — | -236,877 |
| 2022 | 439,675 | — | — | 439,675 |
| 2021 | -1.4M | — | — | -1.4M |
How we define FCF: operating cash flow − capital expenditure − stock-based compensation (owner-earnings basis — SBC is a real cost to shareholders even though it's non-cash). This is the same owner-earnings FCF definition the valuation model uses, though the DCF's starting value is a TTM dividend, not this single year.
Balance Sheet
| Total Assets | 16.7M |
| Total Liabilities | 3.0M |
| Equity | 13.7M |
Similar companies worth a look
Same sector and industry, similar fundamentals shape. Verify everything yourself — this list is computed mechanically and does not reflect our judgment about whether any of these are a good investment.
