HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite Franchise Cost & 2025 FDD Data
40/100
Middle tier
40 this brand51 Quick-Service Restaurants medianlikely 25–55: narrower with more SBA loans (low confidence)
Higher is better · an editorial assessment, not investment advice
#2,378 of 3,069 graded brands
Why a C: Helped by financial health, legal record and transparency. Held back by unit growth and scale. See all six factors
- Total investment
- $151K – $227K
- Avg gross sales
- not extracted
- SBA charge-off
- Not SBA-matched
Data from the FDD filing. Analysis by FranchiseVerdict · Methodology · Website · Report an error · Franchisor? Claim this listing
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2025 FDD
Per the 2025 FDD, a HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite franchise requires a total initial investment of $151K – $227K, including a $15K franchise fee. Once open, the ongoing royalty is 6.0%. The 2025 FDD on file does not yield a unit-revenue figure we can publish. Verdict grade: C (Middle tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice.
Sources: 2025 FDD · What one unit could make and lose →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium (issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file)
Evidence for the headline figures: thin✓ Investment (Item 7)✗ Item 19 status✗ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored3 of 4 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
Quick verdict · vs Quick-Service Restaurants median
Top edge: green = better than the Quick-Service Restaurants median by more than 10%, red = worse by more than 10%, gray = within 10% or no benchmark. Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a).
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Methodology
Bottom line
- RETURNSSCOPE - READ THIS WITH THE NUMBERS. These figures are the PARENT brand's TRADITIONAL restaurants and the filing EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES this format: "The following Restaurants are not included in the data: (1) international locations, including Canada, (2) theme parks, co-branded, nontraditional, and SATELLITE locations." This row is the SATELLITE format, so nothing here describes a satellite outlet. Published, per owner decision HOTDOG, as the parent's traditional-restaurant performance rather than withdrawn - but it must never be read as this format's own result.
- GROWTHIn the latest Item 20 year, the number of franchised outlets grew by 1 (2 opened, 1 closed).
- TERMSNo protected territory and the franchisor reserves the right to compete in your area. Clarify territorial boundaries before signing.
AT STAKEOne unit at the Item 7 midpoint: $25K a year in payments on assumed SBA 7(a)-style terms.You put in about $38K of your own cash and personally guarantee a $152K loan. Assumptions are labeled in Sales; not investment advice.See what one unit could make and lose
Things to check before you sign (2)
- The franchisor keeps the right to compete inside your territory (Item 12, territory).
- The franchisor receives rebates or payments from suppliers you buy from (Item 8, required suppliers).
Checked and clear: no auditor doubt that the franchisor can keep operating, no pending lawsuit naming the franchisor, no jury-trial waiver, no rule that the owner must run it personally and the full filing on file. Not on file here, so ask: unit trend and SBA charge-off rate against the category median.
What to do next
Step 1: Read the FDD itself.
Free: the franchisor must give it to you at least 14 days before you sign or pay. Or look it up in a state registry (Wisconsin, Minnesota, California). What to read first.
Step 2: Talk to current and former owners.
Free: Item 20 of the FDD lists every current owner and those who left last year, most with a phone number. Questions to ask.
Step 3: Talk to an SBA lender.
Free: the SBA's Lender Match. Ask what you would personally guarantee and what the monthly payment would be. If you plan to use retirement savings, ask a CPA about the rules for that first.
Step 4: Have a franchise attorney review the FDD and agreement.
Free: your state bar's lawyer referral service can name franchise lawyers, and many offer a short first consultation. Bring the checks listed above.
Research steps, not investment or legal advice.
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost (the Item 7 midpoint) is 61% below the Quick-Service Restaurants median ($487K).
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7 (fees and startup costs)
Do you qualify? The filing states no minimum net worth or liquid capital. Ask HDOS Franchising, LLC (Item 1: 9720 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212) and your lender what they require, and keep living costs for the first year outside the deal.
Full Item 7 breakdown15 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franchise Fee | $5K | $5K | |
| Kiosk structure | $75K | $105K | |
| Grand Opening Marketing | $1K | $3.33K | |
| Travel & Living Expenses While Training | $1K | $3K | |
| Architectural Fees | $4K | $6K | |
| Furniture, fixtures, equipment and decor | $8.5K | $10.8K | |
| Other Opening Inventory | $29.4K | $35.5K | |
| Prepaid rent & security deposit | $5.7K | $10.2K | |
| Utility deposits | $2.5K | $5K | |
| Professional fees | $1.2K | $1.64K | |
| Business license, permits, etc. (for first 6 months) | $1K | $6K | |
| Point of Sale Systems (POS) and related technology | $7.6K | $14K | |
| Utility work | $7K | $15K | |
| Insurance (3 months) | $1.5K | $2.1K | |
| Additional Funds (3 Months) | $1K | $5K | |
| Total initial investment | $151K | $227K |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. The total row is the total as printed in Item 7. Actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 6 · what you pay once you are open
Ongoing fees
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of net sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of net sales |
| Technology feeBrand Technology System Support Services fee of $840-$1,500 per year for mandatory services; up to $3,250/year for optional services | $840–$1,500/year |
| Transfer fee | $15,000 |
| Renewal fee | $10,000 |
| Total fee loadabove the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.0% (heavy) | 8.0% of sales |
Items 6 (other fees), 7 (startup costs) and 19 (sales and earnings) · assumptions labeled
What you could make and lose: one unit
What one HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite unit would ask of you, from the filing's Item 7 total and labeled assumptions.
How these figures are worked out
- Loan (assumption): 80% of the $189K Item 7 midpoint is a $152K loan, paid over 10 years at 10.5%: $25K a year. SBA 7(a)-style terms on a long-term rate; your lender sets yours.
What you put at risk
Your own cash in: about $38K Assumption (the part the loan does not cover of the $189K Item 7 midpoint), plus whatever anything Item 7 leaves out (its notes say what). The loan is $152K.
Personal guarantee. SBA 7(a) loans require a personal guarantee from anyone who owns 20% or more of the business. If the unit cannot pay, the lender can collect from you personally, which can include your savings and your home. The worst case is losing the cash you put in and still owing the rest of the loan.
Gross sales are not profit, and none of these figures is take-home pay until tax and every operating cost are paid. The assumptions are ours, not the filing's. Not investment advice.
Returns modelOne unit · several units · editable
No Item 19 gross sales figure for HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite is on file. The return models need one gross sales figure to start from, plus the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions; nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · one unit
What would one HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite unit leave you each year after the loan payment?
Not disclosed in Item 19. Enter your own gross sales assumption
Gross sales, not profit: the costs below decide what is left.
No Item 19 figures are on file for this brand. Enter your own costs from a lease quote, a payroll plan and calls with current owners.
Illustrative category typicals, not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Item 7 midpoint of $151K to $227K
Item 7's $1K to $5K additional funds are already in the total
Left after the loan payment · per year
The unit's EBITDA minus the assumed loan payment. Before tax, depreciation and any cost your inputs leave out (insurance, accounting and legal, licenses, technology fees): not take-home pay.
Gross sales are not profit. Neither the filing nor a stated assumption on this page supplies annual revenue, COGS, labor, rent / occupancy and other operating costs. Enter your own (a lease quote, owner calls) and the model runs on it.
Loan of $152K at 10.5% over 10 years, an assumption, not a quote. Return and payback are before tax, depreciation and the costs above. The loan usually needs your personal guarantee.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD · filed by HDOS Franchising, LLC
Financial performance
SCOPE - READ THIS WITH THE NUMBERS. These figures are the PARENT brand's TRADITIONAL restaurants and the filing EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES this format: "The following Restaurants are not included in the data: (1) international locations, including Canada, (2) theme parks, co-branded, nontraditional, and SATELLITE locations." This row is the SATELLITE format, so nothing here describes a satellite outlet. Published, per owner decision HOTDOG, as the parent's traditional-restaurant performance rather than withdrawn - but it must never be read as this format's own result.
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Who are you contracting with?
HDOS Franchising, LLC, owned by HDOS Franchise Brands, LLC.
Item 1 (the franchisor) · who you're contracting with
The franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- HDOS Franchising, LLC
- Parent company
- HDOS Franchise Brands, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- FAT Brands, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- HDOS Enterprises, LLC
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer of HDOS / Chief Development Officer of FAT
- Taylor Wiederhorn
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 9720 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212
- Auditor
- Baker Tilly US, LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $1.9M
- latest fiscal year in the 2025 FDD; $1.3M the year before
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 10
13 other brands on this site name FAT Brands, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Buffalo’s Cafe (grade B)
- Elevation Burger (grade C)
- Fatburger (grade D)
- Fazoli's (grade C)
- Great American Cookies (grade C)
- Hot Dog On A Stick (grade A)
- Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos Wings (grade B)
- Johnny Rockets (grade D)
- Marble Slab Creamery (grade C)
- Native Grill and Wings (grade B)
- Pretzelmaker (grade B)
- Round Table Pizza (grade B)
- Twin Peaks (grade A)
Portfolio: FAT Brands
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Taylor Wiederhorn
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20 (outlets opened, closed and transferred)
Item 20 (outlet counts) · unit dynamics
The growth chart
- % franchised
- 36%
- vs corporate-owned
Last fiscal year · Item 20 rates and pipeline
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
This page is the Satellite format of Hot Dog on a Stick. The filing has one Item 20 Table No. 5 covering the whole system and gives no satellite breakout, so no projected openings figure is shown here - those outlets are counted under Hot Dog on a Stick.
Item 20 · latest year
In 2024: 2 opened, 1 closed
Source: FDD Item 20. Multi-year history is not disclosed in this brand's FDD.
Government records
SBA loan data
Matched to this brand from SBA 7(a) and 504 FOIA loan records.
No SBA loan data available for this brand.
What are the risks?
Main risk in the grade: unit growth, then scale. The reasons are below.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Verdict grade + FDD Items 3 (litigation), 4 (bankruptcy), 8 (required suppliers), 16 (what you may sell), 21 (audited financials)
Risk and legal
Grade C: Middle tier, 40/100 (category median 51); the full grade is at the top of the page.
How the grade is built
Why a C, factor by factor
- Financial health HelpsAudited financials; no going-concern doubt; statements are the parent's, so this stays near neutral
- Unit economics NeutralNo Item 19 sales figure to set against the investment, so neutral
- Unit growth Weighs on it, weakest dimensionTurnover 33.3%
- Scale Weighs on itFranchising since 2014
- Legal HelpsNo litigation naming the franchisor in Item 3
- Transparency HelpsItem 19 status not confirmed (neither credit nor penalty); audited financials
- Adjustments after the six dimensions (-23 points)Score limits: a ceiling the method sets for specific risks (such as a very high SBA charge-off rate, high turnover or an auditor's going-concern doubt) took 23 points off.
From the six scored dimensions, an editorial assessment, not investment advice. How the score is built
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Baker Tilly US, LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
The revenue figures are in the Franchisor tab, under The franchisor.
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results; the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
Ask what the franchisor earns on the supplies it sells you or the rebates it takes (Item 8).
- Franchisor sells you products: No
- Franchisor takes supplier rebates: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
Litigation case detail8 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Pending (1)
Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pendingFAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen · filed 2024-06-07 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA
“… (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA) On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in FAT, filed a putative class action lawsuit against FAT, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen, asserting claims under”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (7)
Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick
settledFAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick · filed 2022-03-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:22-cv-01820
“… (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820). On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J. Matthews, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Pursuant to the settlement, FAT agreed to pay on behalf of the defendants $2,500,000 in cash and $500,000 in Class A common stock of FAT to the class plaintiffs, the plaintiffs released all claims against the defendants, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in February 2023.” (page 20)
Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Fatburger North America, Inc. (Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn dismissed) · filed 2019-07-08 · Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 19STCV23772
“… Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 19STCV23772 (July 8, 2019). On July 8, 2019, Ieman Shahi (“Shahi”) filed a complaint against FBNA as well as Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn. The Court dismissed Andrew and Taylor Wiederhorn from”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was dismissed on October 21, 2021.”
Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
settledFAT Brands, Inc. and the Original Defendants · filed 2018-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:18-cv-07469
“… United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469. On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the United States District Court for the Central District of”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 25, 2020, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which lead plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $75,000.”
Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
settledFAT Brands, Inc. and officers/directors (Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, et al.), Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. · filed 2018-06-07 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC708539
“In 2018, FAT Brands, its officers, directors and affiliates were named in various putative securities class action lawsuits relating to a decline in the price of FAT’s common stock following its initial public offering in October 2017: Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539, filed on June 7, 2018”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On January 6, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss his individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $50,000.”
P&K Food Market, Inc. vs. Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn et al.
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, and Andy Wiederhorn · filed 2018-07-13 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · 18STLC09534
“… Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 18STLC09534 (July 13, 2018). On July 13, 2018, P&K Food Market, Inc. (“P&K”) filed a complaint against Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, and Andy Wiederhorn for”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was filed in connection with the sale of an affiliate- owned “Buffalo’s Café” restaurant located in Palmdale, California. The lawsuit seeks general damages, special damages, punitive damages, restitution, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and costs related to the alleged unlawful sale of the Palmdale restaurant. The case was dismissed on February 13, 2019.” (page 21)
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-00034
“… (Case No. SEC-2022-00034, Settlement Order entered Jul. 12, 2023, Final Order entered Oct. 23, 2023). This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising that Fatburger North America, Inc., offered and sold 3 Virginia franchises”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “FBNA reached a settlement in principle in May 2023, without admitting or denying the allegations, and agreed: (a) to offer the affected franchisees an opportunity to rescind their franchises; (b) to pay $27,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (3) not to violate the Virginia franchise law in the future.”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (No. SEC-2022-0042)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. · Virginia State Corporation Commission · SEC-2022-0042
“Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (Case No. SEC-2022-0042, Settlement Order entered February 21, 2025, Final Order entered April 23, 2025). This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising (the “Division”) that Fatburger North America, Inc., when seeking an”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Without admitting or denying the allegations, FBNA made an offer of settlement in the amount of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000) in civil penalty and Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to defray the costs of investigation. The Division accepted the settlement and entered the final order.”
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 8.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before your own operating costs.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12 (territory), 15 (owner participation) and 17 (renewal, termination and disputes)
Contract and territory detail
| Allowed renewals | 2 |
|---|---|
| Protected territory | No |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Who runs it (Item 15) | Owner-operator not required |
| Non-compete (years) | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles) | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusal | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 14 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 10 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Los Angeles County, California |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | CA |
Items 5 (initial fees), 7 (startup costs), 12 (territory) and 20 (outlet counts) · development agreement
Area development (several units)
A development fee of $25,000 per unit you commit to, credited toward each unit's franchise fee while you keep to the schedule.
Every term, with its page
- Development fee
- $25,000 per unit committed.
2025 FDD p.23
“Currently the development fee is equal to $25,000, multiplied by the number of HOT DOG ON A STICK Restaurants you must open.” - Credit against the fee
- $25,000 per unit is credited toward each unit's initial franchise fee.
2025 FDD p.23
“The development fee is fully earned by us when paid and is not refundable under any circumstances; provided that, if you pay us a development fee upon signing a Multi-Unit Restaurant Agreement, we will credit a portion of the development fee against the Initial Fee listed above, typically at the rate of $25,000 per Franchise Agreement until the entire development fee has been so credited.”
Each unit still needs its own Item 7 investment on top of the development fee ($25K times the units you commit to). Have a franchise attorney read the schedule and the default terms before you sign.
Items 10 (financing), 11 (training and support)
Training and operations
- On-the-job training
- 256 hrs
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 6–9 mo
- From signing to launch (FDD p.58)
- Site selection
- Franchisee with franchisor approval; franchisee must use a franchisor-designated real estate broker
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
Items 5 (initial fees) & 11 (training and support)
Franchisor support
Franchisee contacts
We hold no owner list for this brand. Item 20 of the FDD lists the current and former owners; the free FDD is the source.
Frequently asked questions
How much does it cost to open a HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite franchise?
Per the 2025 FDD, the total investment to open a HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite franchise ranges from $151K to $227K, with an initial franchise fee of $15K. This is the Item 7 total in the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD): the startup costs the franchisor lists, such as build-out, equipment, inventory and working capital. It usually leaves out buying land or a building; Item 7's notes say what is excluded.
What do HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite franchise owners earn?
No average owner earnings figure for HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite is on file. Item 19, where a franchisor may disclose what its outlets earn, is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and we have not established what this brand's FDD says. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite?
HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite is franchised by HDOS Franchising, LLC. Its parent company is HDOS Franchise Brands, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is FAT Brands, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite's franchise failure rate?
There is no published franchise failure rate, and HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite has too few resolved SBA 7(a) loans on file (fewer than 10) to show an SBA charge-off rate that would mean anything. The SBA charge-off rate is the share of a brand's resolved SBA 7(a) loans to its franchisees that the SBA wrote off, including purchased guarantees. Resolved means paid in full or charged off; active loans are excluded because their outcome is not yet known. It is a lending outcome, not a count of closed businesses. Review the turnover and closure figures in Item 20 of the FDD and speak with current and former franchisees.
Is HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict gives HOT DOG ON A STICK Satellite a C Verdict grade (Middle tier) with a verdict score of 40 out of 100 (higher is better), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Helped by financial health (audited financials), legal record and transparency. Held back by unit growth (turnover 33.3%) and scale (franchising since 2014). The “Why a C” section on this page lists all six dimensions and any adjustment. Speak with current franchisees before making any investment decision.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Similar investment first, then by grade
This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.