Every figure this model derived for AES, 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 2026-06-30.
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
6,752,000,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
1,853,000,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
6,403,000,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
8,578,000,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
4,942,000,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
1,434,000,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
5,032,000,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
13,054,000,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
14,000,000
AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AES on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.77
current ratio reported
0.75
dilution pct
0.14
ev owner earnings
-5.41
ev sales
0.72
fcf margin
-13.18
growth cv
1.49
owner earnings margin
-13.28
revenue growth
8.49
revenue growth per share
8.34
rpo growth
3585.71
sbc pct revenue
0.11
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AES's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result; it could be summed from the costs it tags, but the company reports no pre-tax profit for the same period to check that sum against, so it was left out rather than guessed
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 23.09% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
no operating income found in XBRL
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 1,118M of net cash against a 1,720M annual burn is 0.7 years
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`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, growth -- 50% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left