Every figure this model derived for AAT, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2026-03-31.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2016-06-30
cash
118,340,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
equity
1,136,575,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
77,249,000
InterestPaidNet
2026-03-31
ocf
168,839,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
438,189,000
Revenues
2026-03-31
sbc
7,409,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AAT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
53.93
dilution pct
0.29
ebit cagr
-4.21
ebit yoy
-41.51
ev ebit
29.72
ev owner earnings
18.37
ev sales
6.77
fcf margin
38.53
growth cv
1.16
interest cover
1.29
net debt ebitda
6.91
operating margin
22.77
owner earnings margin
36.84
revenue growth
-3.86
revenue growth per share
-4.14
roic
2.9
rule of 40
18.92
sbc pct revenue
1.69
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AAT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2016-06-30); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity