Six Flags reports loss despite higher attendance
Posted
From the press release:
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (NYSE: FUN) (the “Company”, “Six Flags”, or the “Combined Company”), the largest regional amusement park operator in North America, today announced results for its 2025 third quarter ended Sept. 28, 2025. The Company is also providing a fourth quarter performance update through Nov. 2, 2025, and updating its previously provided full year Adjusted EBITDA(1) guidance.Third Quarter 2025 Results
- Total operating days were 2,573 compared with 2,585 days in the third quarter of 2024.
- Net revenues totaled $1.32 billion, down $31 million or 2% compared with the third quarter of 2024.
- Net loss attributable to Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, which reflects a $1.5 billion non-cash impairment charge on goodwill and other intangibles, totaled $1.2 billion, compared with net income attributable to Six Flags Entertainment Corporation of $111 million in the prior year period.
- Adjusted EBITDA(1) totaled $555 million, down $3 million compared with the third quarter of 2024.
- Attendance totaled 21.1 million guests, up 1% or approximately 138,000 visits compared with the third quarter of 2024.
- In-park per capita spending(2) was $59.08, down 4% compared with the third quarter of 2024.
- Out-of-park revenues(2) totaled $108 million, up 6% compared with the third quarter of 2024.
Management Commentary
“Following strong performance in July and August, as discussed in our Labor Day update, attendance trends moderated in September,” said Six Flags President and CEO Richard Zimmerman. “Our efforts to stimulate demand did not achieve the desired returns and our decision to shift to more advertising spend earlier in the year in an effort to drive consumer awareness further impacted third quarter results, particularly at our underperforming parks. Our 2025 strategy has focused on investing ahead of attendance growth to lay the foundation for stronger guest satisfaction, which continues to improve across the portfolio. We are disciplined in our approach to capital allocation and prepared to prioritize investments in our highest return properties moving forward.
“We are very pleased that our largest and most established parks have continued to perform well during this challenging year,” continued Zimmerman. “This subset of Six Flags’ portfolio, which represents approximately 70% of park-level Modified EBITDA through the first nine months of 2025, has benefited from consistent investment in rides, attractions, and upgraded park facilities in recent years, all of which drive customer satisfaction and higher visitation. This year, several parks in this portfolio subset are on pace to deliver record or near-record results, validating our sound investments and strong consumer demand for the experiences our parks offer. Our teams remain focused on executing against our ongoing integration initiatives, sharpening our marketing messaging and strategies, and delivering an all-around better guest experience as we work to improve the value proposition of all our parks, and ensure we return to driving EBITDA growth across our portfolio.”
Commenting on recent shareholder engagement, Zimmerman added, “It was recently announced that a group led by JANA Partners, which includes NFL superstar Travis Kelce, has acquired a significant stake in Six Flags. We have been in active conversations with this group regarding our mutual goal of enhancing shareholder value. As part of these efforts, Six Flags is engaged with Kelce’s team to work together on a broader branding relationship, capitalizing on Kelce’s long history with our parks and his desire to help renew and enhance the fun and excitement he has enjoyed with us for future generations. These discussions come at an ideal time as we continue to invest across our business to modernize our brands, reinforce their longstanding cultural relevance, and build stronger connections with guests.”
Financial Results for the Third Quarter
Operating days – During the third quarter of 2025, operating days totaled 2,573 (net of 27 closed days) compared with 2,585 operating days (net of 29 closed days) in the third quarter of 2024. The minor variance reflects normal calendar differences and the removal of lower-volume operating days at certain parks.
Net revenues – For the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2025, net revenues totaled $1.32 billion, down $31 million (2%) versus the third quarter of 2024 ($1.35 billion). The decrease in revenues reflected:
- Attendance – up 1% (+138,000 visits) to 21.1 million guests, driven by the strong performance of parks representing the majority of park-level Modified EBITDA.
- In-park per capita spending – down 4% ($59.08 vs. $61.27 in Q3 2024), including admissions per capita spending (2) of $31.48 (down 8% from Q3 2024) and per capita spending on in-park products (2) of $27.60 (up 2% from Q3 2024). The decrease in admissions per capita spending reflects increased promotional activity during the quarter, including bring-a-friend offers, as well as the impact of a shift in attendance mix toward more season pass visitation and fewer higher-yielding single-day visitors. The increase in per capita spending on in-park products was driven by higher guest spending on food and beverage, and extra-charge products during the quarter. This reflects the success of continued investments to upgrade food and beverage offerings across the parks and higher demand for compelling premium experiences at higher attendance levels.
- Out-of-park revenues – up 6% (+$6 million) to $108 million, driven in large part by increased sponsorship activity in Q3 2025.
Operating costs and expenses – In the third quarter of 2025, operating costs and expenses totaled $772 million, a decrease of $122 million compared to the third quarter of 2024. The decline in operating costs and expenses was driven by:
- Operating expenses – down $26 million from prior year due to reductions in full-time and seasonal wages ($19 million) and lower insurance costs ($15 million), offset by higher utility and maintenance costs.
- SG&A expenses – down $97 million, including a $56 million decrease in merger-related costs and a $20 million decrease in equity compensation expense. Excluding these factors, SG&A expenses in the third quarter decreased as a result of a planned reduction in advertising costs ($26 million) and lower full-time wages ($6 million), offset by higher technology costs, including merger-related integration costs.
- Cost of goods sold – up $1.3 million in the quarter due primarily to higher attendance. Additionally, cost of goods sold as a percentage of food, merchandise, and games revenue declined 10 basis points year over year due to menu mix and vendor sourcing efficiencies.
Depreciation and amortization – During the third quarter of 2025, depreciation and amortization expense totaled $128 million, a decrease of $17 million compared with the third quarter of 2024. The decrease was due to the impact of a higher fair value for legacy Six Flags property and equipment during the third quarter of 2024 and the impact of a change in interim depreciation method for legacy Cedar Fair. During the third quarter of 2025, the Company also recognized a $3 million loss on retirement of fixed assets in the normal course of business. By comparison, the Company recognized a $5 million loss on the retirement of fixed assets during the third quarter of 2024.
During the third quarter of 2025, the Company also recognized impairment charges totaling $1.5 billion to lower the carrying amount of goodwill and other intangible assets at certain reporting units. These are non-cash charges that do not impact cash flow, Adjusted EBITDA, or future park operations. The non-cash charges are the result of an internal impairment assessment triggered by the recent change in performance versus expectations, as well as a sustained lower share price. By comparison, the Company recorded a $42 million non-cash charge related to goodwill impairment during the third quarter of 2024.
Operating income – Following the items above, including the $1.5 billion non-cash impairment charge, operating loss for the three months ended Sept. 28, 2025, totaled $1.1 billion, compared with operating income of $263 million for the three months ended Sept. 29, 2024.
Net interest expense – For the third quarter of 2025, net interest expense totaled $91 million, up $9 million compared to the prior year third quarter. The increase was primarily a result of interest accretion related to the Six Flags Over Georgia call option liability.
Taxes – During the three months ended Sept. 28, 2025, the Company recorded a benefit for income taxes of $38 million, compared with a $43 million provision recorded during the three months ended Sept. 29, 2024. The decrease in provision for income taxes was primarily attributable to a change in forecasted pre-tax book income.
Net income (loss) – After the items discussed above and income attributable to non-controlling interests, net loss attributable to the Company for the third quarter of 2025, totaled $1.2 billion, or a net loss of $11.77 per diluted share, compared with net income attributable to the Company of $111 million, or $1.10 per diluted share, for the third quarter of 2024.
Adjusted EBITDA – Management believes Adjusted EBITDA is a meaningful measure of park-level operating results. For the three months ended Sept. 28, 2025, Adjusted EBITDA totaled $555 million, reflecting a $3 million decline in Adjusted EBITDA compared to results for the three months ended Sept. 29, 2024. The variance in Adjusted EBITDA was entirely due to lower revenues during the quarter, driven by a decline in in-park per capita spending, offset in part by a reduction in operating expenses, particularly lower labor and advertising costs.
October Update
Operating days during the five-week periods ended Nov. 2, 2025, and Nov. 3, 2024, respectively, totaled 435 days (net of 5 closed days) and 451 days (with no closed days).
Based on preliminary operating results, attendance for the Combined Company over the five-week period ended Nov. 2, 2025, totaled 5.8 million guests, representing an 11% decrease in attendance compared to the same five-week period last year when October attendance was up approximately 20% due to exceptional weather. For an alternate comparison, our October 2025 attendance increased 7% compared to combined attendance for the two legacy companies during this same five-week period in 2023. Management believes this two-year comparison provides a more relevant indication of our growth trajectory.
Providing an update on long-lead indicators, the Company also noted that sales of 2026 season passes as of Nov. 2, 2025, were up approximately 3% compared to sales of 2025 season passes at this same time last year. The increase in sales reflects a 5% increase in the average season pass price, offset by a 3% decrease in the number of units sold to date.
Balance Sheet and Liquidity Highlights
As of Sept. 28, 2025, the Company reported the following:
Deferred revenues totaled $365 million compared with $359 million on Sept. 29, 2024. The $6 million increase in deferred revenues was primarily attributable to increased sales of 2026 season-long products, offset somewhat by the timing of sponsorship billings.
Total liquidity was $763 million, including cash and available borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facility.
Net debt(3) totaled $4.98 billion, calculated as total debt of $5.03 billion (before debt issuance costs and acquisition fair value layers) less cash and cash equivalents of $71 million.
Updated Fiscal 2025 Outlook
Based on year-to-date results, combined with October’s preliminary results and the Company’s current expectations for the last two months of the year, the Company anticipates full year 2025 Adjusted EBITDA(1) of $780 million to $805 million.
Imagine if the executives, board, and banksters representing Cedar Fair actually looked into things thoroughly on their own and did proper due diligence? They could have known this stuff too! Heck - people on internet forums probably could have given them a laundry list of issues about what a mess the SIX parks were. I do believe there's a case here (is the $1.5 BILLION impairment in the latest results basically an admission of guilt?), but how do stockholders win if the thing that they own and the company's ability to pay out is driven down in value by their lawsuit?
-Matt
The impairment is a mathematical result required by accounting rules. (Cough cough). They have not specifically identified losses (impairment) from parks they intend to sell, as realistically those assets will yield more than historical book value. (Again, a quirk of accounting rules).
However, make no mistake. They are going to sell off a significant number of parks. If there aren't buyers who want a mature theme park, then our hobby is about to be seriously decimated.
Under normal circumstances, an impairment charge after an acquisition is an acknowledgment that you’ve overpaid. In this merger of equals nonsense, I suppose it is acknowledgement that one of these companies wasn’t equal. Which again, we all knew that here, but all the other investors are now finding out. I assume the reconciliation of the 1.5b skews towards Six underperformance, but may also be related to their real estate having permanent impairments.
This would have been interesting if the merger was conceived in 2025. It certainly would not be structured in a way that Six got 49% of the controlling shares of the new company. Mostly because I assume Six would have been even closer to bankruptcy. I’m sure CF was worried about United beating them to the punch and missing out on the opportunity.
MDOmnis made a point that I meant to include in my previous post. How is it that the FUN board, who should have had access to most if not all of the SIX financials have a worse grasp of things than the people on this message board? Most of us here probably haven’t even read the public financials.
I have a suspicion that the FUN board knew how bad things were at SIX and that was a big part of why they worked so hard to ensure the FUN investors had no say in things. That still leads me to wonder, if my suspicions are correct, what was the FUN board thinking?
I'm sure they had access to everything, and knew everything. They also likely had an insane amount of hubris to believe that they could do a few simple things and turn it around, like canning a bunch of people to do more with less and by extension make the parks better. OK, so I guess they're not good at maths.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
stock down another 4.7% today, in Veterans Day trading. [2:48 pm update, down near 8%.]
It's a holiday for most banks and related financial institutions, but not the Stock exchanges (which are open), so trading swings may be exaggerated due to lower volumes, etc.
Still not a good sign.
Guessing that Kelce and team are down 20% on their investment so far.
0g:
I have a suspicion that the FUN board knew how bad things were at SIX and that was a big part of why they worked so hard to ensure the FUN investors had no say in things. That still leads me to wonder, if my suspicions are correct, what was the FUN board thinking?
It's a good question with no good answers. Honestly, all of the potential answers don't look good if viewed in terms of litigation.
SIX most likely knew they were effed. The CF boys should have known better, especially with respect to capital and equity markets. They either believed their own BS regarding synergies (always a mistake), or were blinded by something else (again, not a good look under the lens of a lawsuit).
The structure of the post merged entity (CF Unit Holders would own 51.2% of the merged company, and thus had no vote in the transaction if the number was 51.0% or higher) will undoubtedly be a key point of the shareholder lawsuit. How did that specific number come to be, who argued for it, who argued for a different result that might have required a vote, what emails are there where people are discussing that topic. What drafts of the financial models had results below 51%, and what comments were made with respect to that in emails, texts, What'sApp or Signal communications.
Mr. Witherow (as CFO) and the respective CEO's and Board Chairs are most likely sweating what might be in those emails, that could be taken out of context when viewed with laser precision hindsight.
Per the complaint the focus is on legacy Six Flags parks prior to the merger:
The Registration Statement for the Merger was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that, notwithstanding its executives’ claims that the company had pursued transformational investment initiatives in the years leading up to the Merger, Legacy Six Flags in fact suffered from chronic underinvestment and its parks required millions of dollars in additional capital and operational expenditures above the company’s historical cost trends in order to maintain (let alone grow) Legacy Six Flags’ share in the intensely competitive amusement park market. Prior to the Merger, Legacy Six Flags had for years deferred or foregone basic park maintenance, operational improvements, infrastructure repairs, and ride design and development updates. Additionally, after taking over as CEO in November 2021, Bassoul slashed employee headcount in an effort to cut costs, but in so doing had degraded the company’s operational competence and guest experience. In short, at the time of the Merger Legacy Six Flags required a massive, undisclosed capital infusion to turn the company around, and these acute capital needs undermined the entire rationale for the deal as portrayed in the Registration Statement.
The complaint references the fact that Cedar Fair unitholders did not need to vote in favor of the merger but only as a factual matter.
On March 12, 2024, Legacy Six Flags shareholders voted to approve the Merger at
a special meeting of shareholders. Because Cedar Fair unit holders would receive a majority equity
stake in the combined Company, no vote of Cedar Fair unit holders was required to approve the
Merger and no such vote was held.
Plaintiff does not appear to be contesting the lack of Cedar Fair unitholder vote, saying it was fraudulent, etc.
Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§77k and 77o. These claims are based on strict liability and
negligence, and not on knowing or reckless conduct by or on behalf of defendants. Such claims
neither allege nor sound in fraud, and plaintiff disclaims any allegations of fraud, scienter, or
recklessness in connection with such non-fraud claims.
Its not uncommon to structure deals to avoid consent/approval requirements (of shareholders, lenders, regulators, etc). Very nuanced differences in structure can have significant differences in terms of the requirement to get consent or approvals of various types. Huge differences in tax consequences in some cases as well. And there are large numbers of people (attorneys, accountants, investment bankers, consultants, etc) who specialize in structuring deals so as to make them easier to consummate avoiding those consent/approval/tax/etc issues.
Not expecting any emails, texts, etc to the effect that "we won't get our merger bonuses if we let Cedar Fair unitholders vote (because they will definitely vote no) so we need to make sure their vote is not required." But after decades of working on deals, I have been surprised at what some people put in their notes and for whatever reason keep in a file. Never is a long time.
- I hope others, whether individuals or investor groups, file lawsuits as well because WAY too much is coming out about the fraud of information and financials on the part of legacy SIX.
- The lawsuits need to include ALL board members who voted on and approved this merger. Matt Ouimet bailed for a reason, we all knew that, and I have to believe he saw the fraud in all this and why he would not vote. I also believe the CFO’s have culpability and are open to liability as well.
- If activist investors push for land sale/lease back you can kiss the parks goodbye; failing companies do this for short-term profits for activist investors and then they bail, screwing long-term investors and the business.
Back to what happens to parks for a moment:
1) A reminder that NSFW does not own Darien Lake and La Ronde, they manage them and presumably own the newer rides. They may get out of those parks in some way, but I don’t think they could just close them. (I would love for La Ronde to get out of the Six Flags empire and be run as a pay-per-ride operation, integrated with the city park it abuts. A bit of a pipe dream - but see below.)
2) The comments do suggest the small parks are viable, just not engines of growth. Could they be IPO’ed as a separate company (Two Flags?) That’s a lot of work to pull off but might be more doable, than piecemeal sales (to whom?) especially since regularly flooding wetlands near Minneapolis and farmland outside Muskegon aren’t going to bring in tons of cash.
3) I’m curious about the park in Saudi Arabia Apparently they do own that (maybe not the land?) It’s been a huge investment with zero return to date There’s people there with barrels of money. I’d be trying to sell that baby to the royal family and license the Six Flags name. (But I’m sure someone has a powerpoint about growth opportunities.)
4) My dark horse buyer (110% speculative): Zamperla’s Central Amusements. Currently they’re just running Coney Island’s Luna Park. Maybe they’re content with that as a kind of showroom, but they did try to get the contract for Rye Playland til they ran into local politics. Darien and La Ronde would be good fits.
You must be logged in to post
