BROADSTONE NET LEASE, INC. (BNL): what the price requires
At today's price, BROADSTONE NET LEASE, INC. (BNL) is priced for -2.1% FFO growth. boothcheck doesn't publish a fair value or a price target; it shows what the price assumes, so you can judge whether that bar is too high.
Generated: 2026-07-14 · Exported: 2026-07-17 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/BNL
Headline
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ticker | BNL |
| Company | BROADSTONE NET LEASE, INC. |
| Current price | $21.92/sh |
What The Price Requires (Inversion)
The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Inversion basis | reit |
| Implied FFO growth | -2.1% |
| Price-to-FFO | 14.1x |
| FFO yield | 7.1% |
Solve inputs: computed at a 9.1% cost of equity with 4% terminal growth over a 5-year stage; each 1pp of cost of equity moves the implied growth ~4.2pp.
How unusual the bet is: within-range
| Reference | Value |
|---|---|
| vs own history | -0.06σ |
| cohort percentile (of 88 peers) | 50 |
| implied end-window share | 0% |
Valuation X-Ray
Asset, earnings-power and peer-multiple models all land far below the price; ONLY the growth-DCF reaches it. The bet is durable compounding the static frames structurally cannot price (a moat/durability premium).
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.
| Family | Median price/FV | Models | Reads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset | 4.06x | 4 | expensive |
| Earnings | 5.30x | 4 | expensive |
| Relative | 1.39x | 6 | expensive |
| Growth | 1.01x | 4 | expensive |
Families that justify the price: Growth Families that call it expensive: Asset, Earnings
The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 6.0%); the inversion above states its own rate.
Per-Model Detail (n=18)
| Model | Family | FV | Price/FV | Applicable | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCF Perpetual Growth | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| DCF Exit Multiple | Growth | $28.62 | 0.77x | yes | Exit EV/EBITDA: 40.2x / 42.2x / 44.2x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull), 6yr |
| Relative Valuation | Relative | $25.30 | 0.87x | yes | P/E 26.84x (blended: static sector reference 35x + trailing (TTM) 15x), scenarios: 22.4x / 26.8x / 31.3x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 26.66x |
| Simple DDM | Growth | $23.80 | 0.92x | yes | DPS $1.12, g=4.4% (sustainable: ROE (TTM) × retention; not the terminal-growth assumption), ke=9.3% |
| Two-Stage DDM | Growth | $19.93 | 1.10x | yes | Stage 1: 3% for 5yr, Stage 2: 3.5% perpetual |
| Simple Excess Return | Asset | $6.83 | 3.21x | yes | BV/sh $14.48, ROE (TTM) 4.4%, ke 9.3% |
| Two-Stage Excess Return | Asset | $4.47 | 4.90x | yes | 5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3% |
| Discounted Future Market Cap | Growth | $15.28 | 1.43x | yes | Rev $0.5B, growth 7% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 6.7x / 8.0x / 9.3x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 8x) |
| Peter Lynch Fair Value | Relative | $18.00 | 1.22x | yes | FFO/share $1.50, growth 3% (input: historical FFO/share growth, 10y median), PEG=10.42 (Overvalued) |
| Margin Trajectory | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Earnings Power Value | Earnings | — | — | no | — |
| Residual Income | Asset | $3.85 | 5.69x | yes | BV $14.48 + 5yr PV of (ROE (TTM) 4.4% − Kₑ 9.3%) × BV; BV grows 2.8%/yr |
| Graham Number | Asset | $22.11 | 0.99x | yes | √(22.5 × FFO/share $1.50 × BVPS $14.48) — Graham's conservative floor |
| EV/EBITDA Relative | Relative | $3.45 | 6.35x | yes | EBITDA $0.17B × sector EV/EBITDA 20.0x |
| FCF Yield | Earnings | $2.37 | 9.25x | yes | FCF $287.4M / Kₑ 9.3% — zero-growth perpetuity |
| SBC-Adj FCF Yield | Earnings | $1.83 | 11.98x | yes | SBC-adj FCF $0.28B (FCF $0.29B − SBC $0.01B) capitalized at Kₑ |
| Ben Graham Formula | Earnings | $19.07 | 1.15x | yes | FFO/share $1.50 × (8.5 + 2×3.3%) × (4.4 / 5.3%) |
| ROIC-Justified P/B | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| P/Sales Sector | Relative | $14.02 | 1.56x | yes | Revenue $0.47B × sector P/S 6.0x |
| PEG Fair Value | Relative | $7.50 | 2.92x | yes | FFO/share $1.50 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 3.3% (input: historical FFO/share growth, 10y median)) → PE 5.0x |
| Earnings Yield | Earnings | $16.22 | 1.35x | yes | FFO/share $1.50 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%) |
| Funds From Operations Multiple | Relative | $21.23 | 1.03x | yes | FFO/share $1.50 × 14.2x P/FFO (route cohort median, n=85); FFO $0.30B (FFO incl. D&A + impairments, FY2025, companyfacts), shares 200M |
| Clinical Phase NPV | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Merton | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| V5 Mechanical | — | — | — | no | — |
Solvency
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Funds from operations (trailing) | $299.1m |
| Share count CAGR (dilution) | 3.5% |
| Burning cash | no |
REIT basis: leverage is read against funds from operations (FFO), not depreciation-gutted operating income. The header's implied growth runs on ADJUSTED FFO — FFO minus recurring maintenance capex — so the header's multiple and this leverage ratio use bases that differ by that capex; neither substitutes for the other. Net debt could not be resolved from the corporate debt tags in the filings (REIT notes and mortgage debt are often tagged outside the corporate ladder), so the leverage ratio is withheld rather than rendered from incomplete tags. Interest expense is not separately reported in the cached statements, so fixed-charge coverage cannot be computed.
Bullet Takeaways
The one number that decides this case is adjusted funds from operations. At about $21 the price implies BNL lets its AFFO decline about 3.3% a year. In the first quarter of 2026 AFFO grew 5.6% to $0.38 per share, and full-year guidance of $1.53 to $1.57 was maintained. The price is betting on decline; the trust is delivering growth.
The portfolio backs the growth. BNL owned 773 properties at 99.8% occupancy, collected 100% of base rents, and recaptured 119% of expiring lease rents, with a build-to-suit pipeline of roughly $382 million for forward visibility.
The risk is tenant credit and sector exposure, not solvency. Guidance already assumes 75 basis points of lost rent, and the trust carries some exposure to softer consumer sectors. The price-to-AFFO sits in the lower half of the REIT group, which is where the discount and the opportunity both live.
Bull Case
Anchor the whole case on one metric, because for a net-lease REIT it is the only one that matters: adjusted funds from operations. AFFO is the cash the trust actually has after paying to keep its buildings leasable, and it is what funds the dividend and growth. In the first quarter of 2026, BNL grew AFFO 5.6% year over year to $0.38 per share, and management maintained full-year 2026 guidance of $1.53 to $1.57 per diluted share. Set that against what the price assumes. At about 15 times AFFO, the inversion reads the price as implying AFFO declines about 3.3% a year. Growing 5.6% while priced for a 3.3% decline is the entire bull thesis in one line.
The portfolio quality supports the growth being real, not a one-off. BNL owned 773 properties across 41.9 million square feet at 99.8% occupancy, and it collected 100% of base rents in the quarter. The most telling number is the 119% recapture rate on lease maturities, meaning the rents the trust signed on expiring leases exceeded the rents that rolled off. A landlord re-leasing space above the prior rent has pricing power, the opposite of a portfolio in decline. The diversified, single-tenant net-lease model, where tenants pay taxes, insurance, and maintenance, gives BNL long contractual cash flows with built-in escalators.
The growth engine is funded and visible. The trust deployed $171.9 million in the quarter into acquisitions and build-to-suit developments, and it carries a build-to-suit pipeline of roughly $382 million. Build-to-suit is attractive because it locks in new, long-dated leases at known yields. With AFFO growing, occupancy near full, rents re-leasing above expiry, and a visible pipeline, the price-to-AFFO sitting in the lower half of the REIT peer group looks like a discount the fundamentals do not justify.
Bear Case
The threat to a net-lease REIT is not a competitor REIT, it is what happens to its tenants' businesses, and that is where the disruption thesis bites. BNL leases single-tenant properties to operating companies across retail, industrial, and consumer-facing sectors, and the structural shift toward e-commerce and changing consumer behavior pressures exactly those tenants. The trust itself flags the issue: its guidance assumes 75 basis points of lost rent for the year despite no bad debt in the first quarter, an acknowledgment that tenant defaults are a question of when, not if, across a 773-property book. Management also called out exposure to the home-furnishing sector, where flat sales and soft foot traffic make those tenants more fragile. A landlord is only as safe as its weakest tenants, and a recession or a sector dislocation can turn 99.8% occupancy into a string of vacancies fast.
The interest-rate environment is the second disruption. Net-lease REITs are spread businesses: they borrow to buy properties and earn the gap between their cost of capital and the lease yield. When rates are high, that spread compresses, and BNL competes for acquisitions against every other yield-hungry buyer. The build-to-suit pipeline is attractive, but it requires capital deployed today at yields that must clear a higher cost of debt than the trust enjoyed in the past. If rates stay elevated, external growth slows and the trust must lean harder on internal rent escalators.
The valuation also hides a wrinkle worth naming. The asset and earnings-power models look alarming: Simple Excess Return at $7, Residual Income at $4, FCF Yield at $2, all far below the price. Those are distorted by REIT accounting, where depreciation crushes reported earnings and book value, so they are not the right lens for a property trust. But they are a reminder that BNL's value rests entirely on the durability of its rent stream. Strip out the AFFO growth and the tenant quality, and the underlying GAAP returns are thin. The bull case requires the rent to keep flowing and re-leasing above expiry. The bear case is simply that tenant health, consumer disruption, and the rate cycle are doing the work, and any one of them turning sour widens the lost-rent assumption beyond 75 basis points.
Valuation
Broadstone is valued the way a property trust should be, on its adjusted funds from operations rather than an operating multiple. AFFO is cash earnings plus property depreciation, less the recurring maintenance capital that keeps buildings leasable. At about $21 the price is roughly 15 times AFFO, which inverts to an assumption that AFFO declines about 3.3% per year at a 9.1% cost of equity. That is a modest decline embedded in the price, and it sits in the lower half of the REIT peer group's price-to-AFFO.
The model spread requires discarding the frames that REIT accounting distorts. The asset and earnings-power models, Simple Excess Return at $7, Residual Income at $4, Earnings Power Value near zero, FCF Yield at $2, all collapse because depreciation depresses reported earnings and book value for a real-estate company; they are not meaningful here. The frames that fit a REIT are the FFO and dividend ones.
The priced-in label is within range, meaning broadly consistent with plausible AFFO, and the characterization is that relative-multiple and growth-DCF justify the price while the distorted asset and earnings frames say expensive. For a REIT, weight the AFFO-based view: against its own record, the assumed pace is within what BNL has delivered, and the trust is in fact growing AFFO, not shrinking it. The deciding variable is the dividend's coverage and the durability of the rent. With 2026 AFFO guidance of $1.53 to $1.57 against a roughly $1.17 annualized dividend, the payout is well covered, and the price sits below where the FFO-based methods land. The valuation is reasonable to modestly cheap, and the risk is tenant credit rather than the multiple.
Catalysts
First-quarter 2026 results, reported in late April, were the recent driver. Lease revenue of $121.4 million beat the $118.45 million forecast, net income was $46.4 million, and AFFO grew 5.6% year over year to $76.9 million, or $0.38 per share. The portfolio held 773 properties across 41.9 million square feet at 99.8% occupancy with 100% of base rents collected, and the trust achieved a 119% recapture rate on lease maturities. Management maintained full-year 2026 AFFO guidance of $1.53 to $1.57 per diluted share and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.2925 per share.
The growth pipeline is the forward catalyst. BNL deployed $171.9 million during the quarter into acquisitions and build-to-suit developments and carries a build-to-suit pipeline of roughly $382 million, which provides visibility into future lease income. The pace of accretive deployment against its cost of capital is the swing factor for external AFFO growth.
The watch items are tenant credit and the 75-basis-point lost-rent assumption baked into guidance, exposure to softer consumer sectors such as home furnishing, the path of interest rates and its effect on acquisition spreads, occupancy and recapture rates on lease rollovers, and AFFO progress against the maintained guide. Sources: Broadstone Net Lease Q1 2026 press release and 8-K (sec.gov, stocktitan.net), earnings call coverage (gurufocus.com, investing.com, aol.com).
Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)
Broadstone Net Lease (net lease REIT) (reported)
- O (REALTY INCOME CORP)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- NNN (NNN REIT, INC.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- WPC (W. P. Carey Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- ADC (Agree Realty Corporation)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- EPRT (Essential Properties Realty Trust, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- FCPT (Four Corners Property Trust, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- GTY (GETTY REALTY CORP.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- NTST (NETSTREIT Corp.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
Methodology Note
- Priced-in inversion: the valuation is inverted on the current price to recover the operating-income growth, duration, and steady-state margin the price embeds (ROE for financials, FFO growth for REITs).
- Valuation x-ray: the valuation models, grouped into four families (asset, earnings, relative, growth). Each model is expressed as a price/FV ratio (distance from price), not a point fair-value estimate. The spread across families is the disagreement.
- Solvency: net cash/debt, net-debt-to-NOPAT, interest coverage, and share-count CAGR from EDGAR financials (net debt / FFO and fixed-charge coverage for REITs; regulatory-capital framing for financials).
- Peer cohorts: per-segment comparables with deep-linkable SEC filing citations.
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.