Lucky Strike Entertainment (NYSE:LUCK – Get Free Report) is one of 42 publicly-traded companies in the “Amusement & recreation services” industry, but how does it contrast to its competitors? We will compare Lucky Strike Entertainment to related companies based on the strength of its institutional ownership, valuation, dividends, profitability, risk, earnings and analyst recommendations.
Insider & Institutional Ownership
68.1% of Lucky Strike Entertainment shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 46.8% of shares of all “Amusement & recreation services” companies are owned by institutional investors. 79.9% of Lucky Strike Entertainment shares are owned by insiders. Comparatively, 33.5% of shares of all “Amusement & recreation services” companies are owned by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.
Profitability
This table compares Lucky Strike Entertainment and its competitors’ net margins, return on equity and return on assets.
| Net Margins | Return on Equity | Return on Assets | |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment | 1.11% | -35.76% | 1.68% |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment Competitors | -16.64% | -1.13% | -3.98% |
Earnings & Valuation
| Gross Revenue | Net Income | Price/Earnings Ratio | |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment | $1.15 billion | -$83.58 million | -1,061.94 |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment Competitors | $1.68 billion | $10.39 million | -76.99 |
Lucky Strike Entertainment’s competitors have higher revenue and earnings than Lucky Strike Entertainment. Lucky Strike Entertainment is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than its competitors, indicating that it is currently more affordable than other companies in its industry.
Analyst Recommendations
This is a summary of recent recommendations and price targets for Lucky Strike Entertainment and its competitors, as reported by MarketBeat.
| Sell Ratings | Hold Ratings | Buy Ratings | Strong Buy Ratings | Rating Score | |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.00 |
| Lucky Strike Entertainment Competitors | 50 | 355 | 803 | 8 | 2.63 |
Lucky Strike Entertainment presently has a consensus price target of $12.00, suggesting a potential upside of 12.89%. As a group, “Amusement & recreation services” companies have a potential upside of 6.86%. Given Lucky Strike Entertainment’s higher possible upside, research analysts clearly believe Lucky Strike Entertainment is more favorable than its competitors.
Dividends
Lucky Strike Entertainment pays an annual dividend of $0.22 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.1%. Lucky Strike Entertainment pays out -2,197.8% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. As a group, “Amusement & recreation services” companies pay a dividend yield of 0.7% and pay out -77.1% of their earnings in the form of a dividend. Lucky Strike Entertainment is clearly a better dividend stock than its competitors, given its higher yield and lower payout ratio.
Volatility and Risk
Lucky Strike Entertainment has a beta of 0.77, suggesting that its share price is 23% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Lucky Strike Entertainment’s competitors have a beta of 1.55, suggesting that their average share price is 55% more volatile than the S&P 500.
Summary
Lucky Strike Entertainment competitors beat Lucky Strike Entertainment on 8 of the 15 factors compared.
About Lucky Strike Entertainment
Lucky Strike Entertainment Corp. engages in operating bowling centers. It offers entertainment concepts with lounge seating, arcades, food and beverage offerings, and hosting and overseeing professional and non-professional bowling tournaments and related broadcasting. The company was founded by Thomas F. Shannon in 1997 and is headquartered in Mechanicsville, VA.
Receive News & Ratings for Lucky Strike Entertainment Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Lucky Strike Entertainment and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.
