Grindr Inc [GRND]
Two outputs are produced, as valuation.md requires. Neither replaces the other.
| Output | Horizon | Instrument | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied-path test | 5 years | reverse DCF | PASS, margin +5.8 to +12.1pp |
| 12-month target | 12 months | own multiple history × near-term revenue | $23.72, +42.7% to spot — anchor IDENTIFIED |
| Input | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Spot | $16.62 | Alpaca daily close, 2026-07-28 |
| Shares outstanding | 177,725,977 | 10-Q cover page, as of 2026-05-06 |
| Market cap | $2,953.8m | |
| Cash and equivalents | $23,810k | Balance sheet, 2026-03-31 |
| Restricted cash (non-current) | $605k | Balance sheet |
| Current maturities of long-term debt | $20,000k | Balance sheet + Note 4 |
| Long-term debt, net | $371,090k | Balance sheet + Note 4 |
| Total debt | $391,090k | Note 4: $395,000k face less $3,910k unamortised costs |
| Net cash | −$367,280k | verified |
| EV | $3,321.1m | |
| TTM revenue | $475,901k | Q2'25 104,220 + Q3'25 115,766 + Q4'25 125,974 + Q1'26 129,941 |
| TTM operating income | $143,623k | Q2'25 24,346 + Q3'25 45,241 + Q4'25 31,309 + Q1'26 42,727 |
| EV/Sales | 6.98x | |
| EV/EBIT (TTM) | 23.1x |
| Screen field | Screen value | Verified value | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
shares |
177,725,977 | 177,725,977 | ✅ correct |
revenue_ttm |
475,901,000 | 475,901,000 | ✅ correct to the dollar |
spot |
16.62 | 16.62 | ✅ |
vol_252d_pct |
50.7 | 50.3 | ✅ within tolerance |
net_cash |
−347,280,000 | −367,280,000 | ❌ WRONG by exactly $20.0m — current maturities of long-term debt omitted |
ev |
3,301,085,738 | 3,321,085,738 | ❌ understated 0.6% |
ev_sales |
6.94 | 6.98 | ❌ understated |
op_margin_pct |
28.7 | 28.7 (FY2025) / 30.2 (TTM) | ⚠️ FY basis, not TTM |
ev_ebit |
24.2 | 23.1 | ⚠️ built as (FY margin × TTM revenue); hybrid basis |
gross_margin_pct |
null | null | ✅ correctly INDETERMINATE — no GrossProfit tag exists (D1) |
revenue_cagr_demonstrated |
31.1 | 31.1 (FY22→FY25) | ✅ arithmetic correct, but stale — see §4 |
required_cagr_pct |
15.8 | 9.5 on independently derived terminal margin | ⚠️ 6.3pp discrepancy — see §3 |
valuation_margin_pp |
+15.3 | +5.8 to +12.1 | ⚠️ overstated — see §4 |
The net-cash error is deterministic, not random. The screen reads LongTermDebtNoncurrent and ignores
LongTermDebtCurrent. Any name with an amortising term loan will be understated by exactly one year of
scheduled amortisation. This is the tenth of ten names to fail the net-cash check tonight, and the first
where the cause is precisely identifiable from the tag names.
assets/reverse_dcf.py, solving for the revenue CAGR today's price requires.
Parameters held fixed, named explicitly: - Horizon: 5 years - WACC: 10.0% - Starting revenue: $475.901m (verified TTM) - Starting EV: $3,321.1m (verified, including the $20m the screen omitted) - Exit multiple: 23.65x EBIT, basis GROWTH_MATCHED, n = 200 comparators whose growth brackets the subject's (±50% band around 38.3%) drawn from the 4,018-name scan universe - Terminal operating margin: 30.18%, basis max(own TTM operating margin, growth-matched peer median). Own TTM is 30.18%; peer median is 13.7%. The rule takes the higher, so the terminal margin is Grindr's own current margin, assumed flat for five years — no expansion credited.
Required 5-year revenue CAGR: 9.51%
At the screen's parameters the same solver returns 15.8%. As on OMDA, the difference is one unobservable — here the terminal margin (30.18% vs the screen's capped 22.7%). The honest statement is a range: today's price requires a 5-year revenue CAGR of 9.5%–15.8%.
Note on the screen's terminal margin: the screen recorded terminal_margin: 0.227 with basis
"max(own, industry median) - CAPPED at industry p75" and terminal_margin_capped_from: 0.287. It capped
Grindr's own demonstrated margin down to an industry p75. Grindr has actually earned a 30.2% TTM operating
margin and a 45.0% adjusted-EBITDA margin. Capping a demonstrated margin to an industry percentile is
the mirror image of the NTRA defect — applying conservatism silently on top of a parameter that was already
conservative. Both figures are carried here.
demonstrated − required| Demonstrated basis | Value | Margin vs 9.5% | Margin vs 15.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1'26 YoY | 38.3% | +28.8pp | +22.5pp |
| FY2022 → FY2025 (screen) | 31.1% | +21.6pp | +15.3pp |
| FY2024 → FY2025 | 27.6% | +18.1pp | +11.8pp |
| FY2026 company guidance floor ($535m) | 21.6% | +12.1pp | +5.8pp |
The forward-relevant margin is +5.8pp to +12.1pp. Note that unlike OMDA, Grindr's most recent quarter (+38.3%) is above the trailing CAGR — growth is accelerating, not decelerating — so the guidance floor is the binding conservative case rather than a genuine forecast of deceleration. Grindr guides in "at least" language and raised the number on 2026-05-07.
This is the cleanest anchoring result in either memo. The growth-matched exit multiple lands within 2.4% of where the name currently trades, drawn from 200 comparators, and the terminal margin is the company's own demonstrated margin held flat. There is no distant-year haircut stacked on a mean-reverted multiple, and the base multiple does not sit below every anchor — the NTRA defect is absent.
| Exit multiple | Required CAGR | vs guided 21.6% |
|---|---|---|
| 14.2x (0.6×) | 21.29% | +0.3pp |
| 18.9x (0.8×) | 14.50% | +7.1pp |
| 23.65x (base) | 9.51% | +12.1pp |
| 28.4x (1.2×) | 5.58% | +16.0pp |
| 35.5x (1.5×) | 0.98% | +20.6pp |
Flip point: the name fails against its own guidance floor only below ~14.0x exit EBIT — a 41% compression from both the growth-matched anchor and the multiple it trades at today. Against the Q1'26 run-rate of +38.3% it does not fail at any multiple in this grid.
| Terminal margin | Required CAGR |
|---|---|
| 18.11% | 21.29% |
| 24.14% (≈ the screen's capped 22.7%) | 14.50% |
| 30.18% (base — own TTM, held flat) | 9.51% |
| 36.22% | 5.58% |
| 45.27% | 0.98% |
The base case assumes no margin expansion at all over five years, which is conservative for a business running 45% adjusted-EBITDA margins with de minimis capex. The bear column (18.1%) is the case where advertising mix and content/moderation costs compress the model by a third.
Terminal value = 100% of EV by construction of this instrument. Above the 60% threshold, so the reverse DCF is the primary long-horizon output and no forward DCF is presented as a competing answer.
Valuation Criteria (implied path): PASS. Today's price requires 9.5%–15.8% revenue CAGR. The company guides at least 21.6% for the next twelve months, printed 38.3% last quarter, and has compounded 31.1% organically over three years. The required path sits well below what the business has already demonstrated.
A material qualification the implied-path test does not capture: the test values a going concern. Grindr's Quality Criteria carries a named defect (
GRND_Research.md§9) — there is no evidenced reinvestment mechanism, and capital is being returned via debt-funded buyback rather than redeployed. A compounder that cannot reinvest should be valued as a bond. This does not change the PASS, but it argues the terminal growth assumption embedded in a 23.65x exit multiple is the parameter most likely to be wrong in the long run.
The screen ranks on demonstrated_CAGR − required_CAGR, where demonstrated is a trailing 3-year
realised rate. On GRND the gap between trailing (31.1%) and the company's own guidance floor (21.6%) is
9.5 percentage points.
GRND is the useful control case for this defect. Unlike OMDA — where the trailing CAGR overstated because growth is genuinely decelerating — Grindr's most recent quarter is faster than its trailing CAGR. Here the trailing number overstates only because the company guides conservatively in "at least" language.
That distinction matters for the proposed fix. Ranking on min(trailing, guided) would penalise Grindr for
sandbagging while correctly penalising OMDA for decelerating. The right fix is to carry both fields and
also carry the most recent quarter's YoY, letting the strategy see whether trailing-vs-guided divergence
is deceleration or conservatism. On OMDA the latest quarter (+42.0%) sits below the trailing CAGR
(+45.6%); on GRND it sits above (+38.3% vs +31.1%). That single comparison separates the two cases.
Proposed calibration item: add revenue_growth_latest_q_yoy and revenue_growth_guided_fy to the
screen record. Both are available from filings the screen already touches, at zero incremental token cost.
valuation.md requires the multiple anchored on the name's own trading range with the percentile
stated. Unlike OMDA, Grindr's history qualifies:
| Test | Finding |
|---|---|
| Length | 868 trading days with a computable multiple (2023-02-09 → 2026-07-28), ~3.4 years |
| Regime | The pre-de-SPAC SPAC-trust period is excluded. The series begins after the 2022-11-18 merger and after four post-merger quarters were public. Prices before that reflect a $10 trust value, not a valuation of Grindr, and including them would be exactly the regime-change error the rule forbids. |
| Dispersion | EV/Sales 4.77x – 13.68x; median 7.60x; p25 6.56x; p75 8.79x |
| Central tendency | Present and stable — an interquartile range of ±15% around the median, versus OMDA's ±28% |
Current EV/Sales 6.98x = 37th percentile of GRND's own post-de-SPAC history. Grindr trades below its own median (7.60x).
FY2026 at the guidance floor of $535m (Q1'26 actual $129.941m + Q2–Q4 $405.059m, distributed on FY2025 seasonality → Q2'26 $122.0m, Q3'26 $135.5m, Q4'26 $147.5m). FY2027 is not guided and is shown as a range. Trailing revenue at 2027-06-30 = Q3'26 + Q4'26 + Q1'27 + Q2'27.
Share count held at 172,000,000 — below the current 177.7m to reflect the ASR and FRT settling by Q3 2026, and no further buyback assumed. Net debt held at −$367.3m.
| FY27 growth | Trailing rev @ 2027-06-30 | @ p25 6.56x | @ median 7.60x | @ current 6.98x | @ p75 8.79x |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +15% | $572.8m | $19.72 (+18.7%) | $23.17 (+39.4%) | $21.10 (+27.0%) | $27.15 (+63.4%) |
| +20% | $585.4m | $20.20 (+21.5%) | $23.72 (+42.7%) | $21.62 (+30.1%) | $27.80 (+67.3%) |
| +25% | $598.0m | $20.68 (+24.4%) | $24.28 (+46.1%) | $22.13 (+33.2%) | $28.44 (+71.1%) |
12-month target: $23.72, +42.7% above spot.
Basis: FY2027 revenue +20% (mid of the range shown), multiple at 7.60x = the 50th percentile of Grindr's own 868-day post-de-SPAC EV/Sales history, current percentile 37th. The target is above spot, which
valuation.mdnotes should be common and normal.
What has to happen for it to work: nothing more than the multiple reverting from the 37th percentile to the median of its own three-and-a-half-year range, while revenue does roughly what the company already guided. It does not require a re-rating above anything the name has traded at.
Named product-cycle events inside the 12 months (per valuation.md step 2, each in the catalyst
calendar): the global rollout of Edge — though management explicitly places its revenue impact in
2027, not 2026 — and the Right Now Discrete Profile feature. The 2026 revenue acceleration is being
driven by advertising (+68.1%), not by either.
Sanity band vs an external professional target: none available in this run. No external target is fabricated.
The 5-year implied path says the price requires 9.5–15.8% growth against 21.6% guided and 38.3% delivered — a comfortable PASS on ownership, with a named caveat about whether a non-reinvesting compounder deserves a compounder's terminal multiple.
The 12-month instrument says the name sits at the 37th percentile of its own multiple history with revenue accelerating, giving +42.7% to a median-multiple reversion.
They agree, which is worth stating because they need not. The 5-year test says the business can clear the bar; the 12-month test says the market is currently pricing it below its own historical central tendency while it is doing so. The gap between them is the capital-structure question: whether a levered, near-zero-book-equity, controlled company with a standstill expiring in August 2027 deserves its own historical median multiple, or something below it.