PFLT Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Gladstone Investment has a net margin of 37.18% compared to PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net margin of 99.99%. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's return on equity of 7.63% beat Gladstone Investment's return on equity of 13.51%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a consensus price target of $10.93, signalling upside risk potential of 1.76%. On the other hand Gladstone Investment has an analysts' consensus of $13.92 which suggests that it could fall by -1.44%. Given that PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has higher upside potential than Gladstone Investment, analysts believe PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is more attractive than Gladstone Investment.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a beta of 0.955, which suggesting that the stock is 4.453% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Gladstone Investment has a beta of 0.876, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 12.355%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.45%. Gladstone Investment offers a yield of 6.8% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital pays 85.82% of its earnings as a dividend. Gladstone Investment pays out 93.31% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital quarterly revenues are $3.3M, which are smaller than Gladstone Investment quarterly revenues of $16.8M. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net income of $1.2M is lower than Gladstone Investment's net income of $17.9M. Notably, PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's price-to-earnings ratio is 11.93x while Gladstone Investment's PE ratio is 7.93x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is 10.05x versus 8.42x for Gladstone Investment. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Golub Capital BDC has a net margin of 37.18% compared to PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net margin of 91.13%. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's return on equity of 7.63% beat Golub Capital BDC's return on equity of 7.87%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a consensus price target of $10.93, signalling upside risk potential of 1.76%. On the other hand Golub Capital BDC has an analysts' consensus of $15.25 which suggests that it could fall by -0.2%. Given that PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has higher upside potential than Golub Capital BDC, analysts believe PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is more attractive than Golub Capital BDC.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a beta of 0.955, which suggesting that the stock is 4.453% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Golub Capital BDC has a beta of 0.509, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 49.101%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.45%. Golub Capital BDC offers a yield of 10.8% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.39 per share. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital pays 85.82% of its earnings as a dividend. Golub Capital BDC pays out 123.53% of its earnings as a dividend. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but Golub Capital BDC's is not.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital quarterly revenues are $3.3M, which are smaller than Golub Capital BDC quarterly revenues of $86.7M. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net income of $1.2M is lower than Golub Capital BDC's net income of $79M. Notably, PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's price-to-earnings ratio is 11.93x while Golub Capital BDC's PE ratio is 13.52x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is 10.05x versus 12.65x for Golub Capital BDC. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

MidCap Financial Investment has a net margin of 37.18% compared to PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net margin of 95.41%. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's return on equity of 7.63% beat MidCap Financial Investment's return on equity of 8.33%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a consensus price target of $10.93, signalling upside risk potential of 1.76%. On the other hand MidCap Financial Investment has an analysts' consensus of $13.88 which suggests that it could grow by 5.19%. Given that MidCap Financial Investment has higher upside potential than PennantPark Floating Rate Capital, analysts believe MidCap Financial Investment is more attractive than PennantPark Floating Rate Capital.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a beta of 0.955, which suggesting that the stock is 4.453% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison MidCap Financial Investment has a beta of 0.977, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 2.263%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.45%. MidCap Financial Investment offers a yield of 11.52% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital pays 85.82% of its earnings as a dividend. MidCap Financial Investment pays out 141.29% of its earnings as a dividend. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but MidCap Financial Investment's is not.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital quarterly revenues are $3.3M, which are smaller than MidCap Financial Investment quarterly revenues of $31.8M. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net income of $1.2M is lower than MidCap Financial Investment's net income of $30.3M. Notably, PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's price-to-earnings ratio is 11.93x while MidCap Financial Investment's PE ratio is 10.81x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is 10.05x versus 9.89x for MidCap Financial Investment. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Oaktree Specialty Lending has a net margin of 37.18% compared to PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net margin of 90.2%. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's return on equity of 7.63% beat Oaktree Specialty Lending's return on equity of 0.61%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a consensus price target of $10.93, signalling upside risk potential of 1.76%. On the other hand Oaktree Specialty Lending has an analysts' consensus of $14.08 which suggests that it could fall by -2.74%. Given that PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has higher upside potential than Oaktree Specialty Lending, analysts believe PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is more attractive than Oaktree Specialty Lending.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a beta of 0.955, which suggesting that the stock is 4.453% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Oaktree Specialty Lending has a beta of 0.686, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 31.445%.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital has a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share corresponding to a yield of 11.45%. Oaktree Specialty Lending offers a yield of 13.74% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.42 per share. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital pays 85.82% of its earnings as a dividend. Oaktree Specialty Lending pays out 305.35% of its earnings as a dividend. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but Oaktree Specialty Lending's is not.

PennantPark Floating Rate Capital quarterly revenues are $3.3M, which are larger than Oaktree Specialty Lending quarterly revenues of -$40.2M. PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's net income of $1.2M is higher than Oaktree Specialty Lending's net income of -$36.2M. Notably, PennantPark Floating Rate Capital's price-to-earnings ratio is 11.93x while Oaktree Specialty Lending's PE ratio is 111.38x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PennantPark Floating Rate Capital is 10.05x versus 22.13x for Oaktree Specialty Lending. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.