Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc. (ARCO): what the price assumes

boothcheck covers Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc. (ARCO) but does not put one priced-in number on it: here the defensible answer is the evidence rather than a point estimate. boothcheck publishes no house fair value, target price, or buy/sell rating. Narrative composed 2026-07-25.

Generated: 2026-08-31 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/ARCO

Headline

FieldValue
TickerARCO
CompanyArcos Dorados Holdings Inc.
Sector / IndustryConsumer Cyclical
Current price$8.00/sh
CompositionSales by Company-operated restaurants 95% / Revenues from franchised restaurants 5%

What The Price Assumes (Inversion)

The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.

FieldValue
Inversion basiswhole-company
Operating margin (value-band context)2.0%
Operating margin today7.8%
Margin compression (value-band)-5.8pp
Multiple paid10x operating income

The operating-margin figure is value-band context at year 12: derived from the framework's value band, a separate calculation — not part of the priced-in solve.

The price sits below what even a 5%/yr operating-profit decline would warrant; the inversion reports a bound, not a solved growth path.

Solve inputs: computed at a 7% cost of capital with 4% terminal growth over a 5-year stage (computed at the 7% minimum rate; the CAPM rate 4.8% sits below it).

How unusual the bet is: n/a

ReferenceValue
vs own history-0.32σ

Valuation X-Ray

The price is supported by asset-based and earnings-power and relative-multiple and growth-DCF value. A value/asset-supported name, not a pure growth bet.

How the valuation models price the stock relative to the market price. Price/FV above 1.0 means the market pays more than that lens defends (expensive); at or below 1.0 the lens can defend the price.

FamilyMedian price/FVModelsReads
Asset0.73x5justifies
Earnings0.71x3justifies
Relative0.21x5justifies
Growth0.94x3justifies

Families that justify the price: Asset, Earnings, Relative, Growth

The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 4.2%); the inversion above states its own rate.

Per-Model Detail (n=16)

ModelFamilyFVPrice/FVApplicableMethodology
DCF Perpetual GrowthGrowthno
DCF Exit MultipleGrowth$17.070.47xyesExit EV/EBITDA: 4.3x / 6.3x / 8.3x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull), 6yr
Relative ValuationRelative$25.020.32xyesP/E 19.98x (blended: static sector reference 28x + trailing (TTM) 8x), scenarios: 16.3x / 20.0x / 23.7x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 13.33x
Simple DDMGrowthno
Two-Stage DDMGrowth$8.510.94xyesStage 1: 20% for 5yr, Stage 2: 3.5% perpetual
Simple Excess ReturnAsset$10.890.73xyesBV/sh $3.66, ROE (TTM) 27.5%, ke 9.3%
Two-Stage Excess ReturnAsset$19.110.42xyes5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3%
Discounted Future Market CapGrowth$8.070.99xyesRev $4.7B, growth 16% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 0.3x / 0.4x / 0.4x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 12x)
Peter Lynch Fair ValueRelative$35.350.23xyesEPS $1.01, growth 35% (input: historical EPS growth), PEG=0.23 (Undervalued)
Margin TrajectoryGrowthno
Earnings Power ValueEarnings$11.220.71xyesNormalized EBIT (5y avg op income, one-time charges added back) $0.28B × (1−38%) / WACC 4.2% → EPV (no growth)
Residual IncomeAsset$16.370.49xyesBV $3.66 + 5yr PV of (ROE (TTM) 27.5% − Kₑ 9.3%) × BV; BV grows 8.8%/yr
Graham NumberAsset$9.120.88xyes√(22.5 × EPS $1.01 × BVPS $3.66) — Graham's conservative floor
EV/EBITDA RelativeRelative$39.100.20xyesEBITDA $0.56B × sector EV/EBITDA 18.0x
FCF YieldEarnings$0.01800.00xyesFCF $15.0M / Kₑ 9.3% — zero-growth perpetuity (excluded from median)
SBC-Adj FCF YieldEarningsno
Ben Graham FormulaEarnings$32.590.25xyesEPS $1.01 × (8.5 + 2×15.0%) × (4.4 / 5.3%)
ROIC-Justified P/BAsset$7.511.07xyesBV $3.66 × (ROIC 8.6% / WACC 4.2%)
P/Sales SectorRelative$99.930.08xyesRevenue $4.68B × sector P/S 4.5x
PEG Fair ValueRelative$37.880.21xyesEPS $1.01 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 25.0% (input: historical EPS growth)) → PE 37.5x
Earnings YieldEarnings$10.920.73xyesEPS $1.01 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%)
Funds From Operations MultipleRelativeno
Clinical Phase NPVGrowthno
MertonAssetno
V5 Mechanicalno

Solvency

FieldValue
Net debt$715.3m
Net debt / NOPAT (after-tax)3.15x
Net debt / operating income (pre-tax)1.96x
Interest coverage26.7x
Share count CAGR (dilution)0.0%
Burning cashno

Bullet Takeaways

Bull Case

Money here goes into the ground. Nineteen new restaurants opened in the first quarter of 2026, thirteen of them freestanding buildings rather than mall counters. Over the four years to the end of 2025 the share count grew at zero percent a year. An expansion program funded without printing stock says more about management's confidence than any slide deck does.

What that capital buys is unusual, because the asset being built sits inside somebody else's brand. The FY2025 20-F lists the arrangement under material contracts: "We hold exclusive master franchising rights" across its territories, with individual franchise terms that generally run twenty years. Arcos Dorados is therefore not competing for the McDonald's name in Latin America. It already owns the right to use it, and every drive-thru lane it builds extends a position no competitor can bid for. The obligation attached is explicit and monthly: the 20-F states the company "is required to pay to McDonald's Corporation continuing franchise fees (Royalty fees) on a monthly basis". That is the rent on the moat, and it is fixed, known, and paid out of gross sales rather than out of profit.

The margin comparison that gets made most often is the wrong one. MCD earns a 46.3% operating margin because most of its revenue is royalty income collected from operators like this one. The right comparison is another operator: YUMC runs its own stores across China and earns an 11.1% operating margin on 12.1 billion dollars of revenue. Arcos Dorados earns 7.8% on a revenue base of roughly 4.7 billion dollars. The gap to the operator comp is a few points, not the forty-point chasm the franchisor comparison implies, and it sits in markets where inflation and import costs do real damage to a food line.

Where the incremental margin is coming from is visible in the strategy the filing describes. Digital is the stated platform: the 20-F says that through the digital platform the company offers "customers personalized, fast and convenient experiences that drive engagement and repeat visits", alongside loyalty rollouts aimed at visit frequency. The first quarter of 2026 showed the operating leverage that follows when average check and traffic both cooperate, with operating income of 62.8 million dollars against 45.1 million a year earlier on revenue up 12.9%. Same store base, better economics per store, and the buildings from last year's capital budget still filling up.

Bear Case

The exposure that matters is not competitive, it is monetary. Revenue is earned in Brazilian reais, Argentine pesos, Mexican pesos and a dozen smaller currencies; the funded debt is largely dollar paper. The FY2025 20-F puts a number on what that mismatch does in a bad year: currency exchange results moved by 25.9 million dollars between 2023 and 2024, from a gain of 10.8 million to a loss of 15.1 million, which the filing attributes mainly to a 27.2% depreciation of the Brazilian real. Nothing about the restaurants changed. The unit of account did.

Governments in the territories also set prices. The filing's risk section warns that price restrictions "may place downward pressure on the prices at which our products are sold and may limit the growth of our revenue", and it separately notes that periods of higher inflation slow local economies and raise the company's own costs. A quick-service operator has two levers, menu price and traffic, and in several of these markets a regulator has a hand on the first one.

Then there is what the sales line actually contains. The 20-F describes a period in which comparable sales rose 90.8% while average check rose 96.2%, "primarily due to the inflationary context in Argentina and Venezuela". Read that carefully: the entire increase, and then some, came from charging more for the same meal in a currency losing value. Traffic went the other way. Headline sales growth in this business can be a currency statement wearing a demand costume, and a reader who marks the growth rate without deflating it will misjudge the franchise.

The obligations stack in an order that does not favor the equity. The company is liable for its sub-franchisees' royalty payments to McDonald's, which the filing states plainly: "We are liable for our sub-franchisees' monthly payment of royalties to McDonald's". Above that sit the 2032 Senior Notes, whose indenture the filing notes "provides for events of default, which, if any of them occurs, would permit or require the principal, premium, if any, and interest on all of the then-outstanding 2032 Senior Notes to be due and payable immediately". Gross borrowings run to 1,137.7 million dollars against liquid assets of 422.3 million on the funded basis the balance sheet builds up, and the lease-inclusive build used elsewhere in the capital structure is larger still. Leverage of 1.96 times operating profit is not dangerous in isolation. It becomes the transmission channel when the currency earning that operating profit falls a quarter in a year, because the debt does not fall with it.

None of this is an argument that the shares are dear. Every standard method reaches or exceeds today's quote. The bear case is that the discount is deliberate: a franchisee, in emerging markets, paying a fixed share of gross sales to a franchisor, carrying hard-currency obligations against soft-currency cash flows, is a business the market has decided to pay less for, and it has reasons rather than an oversight.

Valuation

Start with what the quote is asking of the business. The whole enterprise is priced at 9.8 times its annual operating profit, which is low enough that the shares sit below what even a shrinking profit stream would warrant. This is a boundary rather than a solved figure: the market is not paying for growth here, and it is not paying for flat results either. It is paying a price consistent with operating profit going backwards.

Against that, the methods do not disagree in the usual direction. Every family of approach lands at or above the current quote, and none of them calls the shares expensive. The asset-value and earnings-power families land roughly a third above, and the forward-growth family lands essentially at the quote. The peer-multiple family lands furthest above, and that distance deserves a caveat rather than applause, because those models apply a static sector reference multiple drawn from large developed-market restaurant companies to a Latin American operator. The reference is doing the work, not the analysis.

The more informative read is the one that assumes nothing. The earnings-power approach takes the five-year average of operating income with one-time charges added back, taxes it, and capitalizes the result with no growth at all, and it still lands above where the shares trade. A no-growth capitalization of demonstrated profit reaching past the price is the single cleanest statement of what is on offer here.

Cohort position sharpens rather than settles the question. The trailing operating margin of 7.8% sits below every peer in the cohort, but the cohort mixes two different businesses. MCD collects royalties and earns 46.3%; YUM earns 31.5% on a similarly asset-light model. YUMC, which operates its own restaurants the way Arcos Dorados does, earns 11.1%, and SBUX, also a heavy company-operated model, earns 7.6%. Ranked against operators rather than licensors, this is a mid-cohort margin, not an outlier.

The balance sheet neither rescues the case nor sinks it. Borrowings run to 1,137.7 million dollars gross against 422.3 million of liquid assets on the funded build-up, which is 1.96 times operating profit, and the share count has been flat for four years running. The company is not burning cash and is not diluting holders. What the balance sheet cannot do is hedge the fact that the obligations are largely dollar-denominated while the restaurants collect in currencies that have repriced sharply within the filing history.

Catalysts

The first quarter of 2026 was the strongest print in the recent record. Revenue reached 1.216 billion dollars, up 12.9% on the year, with systemwide comparable sales up 16.0% and operating income of 62.8 million dollars against 45.1 million a year earlier. Nineteen restaurants opened during the quarter, thirteen of them freestanding units, which is the format that carries the largest capital commitment and the longest payback.

The setup going in was unusual enough to be worth noting. On February 13, 2026 the company filed a clarification stating that market commentary expecting comparable sales growth to decelerate in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter of 2025 had it backwards. Management rarely pre-empts its own print. It did here, and the reported comparable sales figure supported the correction.

The item to carry forward is Brazilian volume. Management described a strong first six weeks of the year in Brazil followed by a meaningful slowdown in restaurant volumes after Carnaval, with margin improvement in the quarter coming mainly from lower food and paper costs rather than from traffic. Cost-driven margin expansion is real but it is not the same as demand-driven expansion, and the second-quarter print is where the distinction gets settled.

Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)

Core business (reported)

Methodology Note

Fundamentals sourced from SEC EDGAR filings. Current price from Databento. The priced-in inversion and valuation x-ray are computed by the boothcheck engine; narrative composed by AI from the structured data.

Sources

Q1 2026 earnings call, May 2026 · Q1 2026 results release, May 20, 2026 · Arcos Dorados 6-K, February 13, 2026 · Q1 2026 earnings call, May 20, 2026

View the full interactive ARCO report on boothcheck