Every figure this model derived for AGO, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AGO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
37.02
dilution pct
-10.32
ebit cagr
19.44
ebit yoy
-33.46
ev ebit
11.12
ev owner earnings
11.95
ev sales
4.12
fcf margin
34.47
growth cv
5.48
interest cover
3.95
net debt ebitda
1.68
operating margin
37.02
owner earnings margin
34.47
revenue growth
-10.56
revenue growth per share
-0.27
roic
4.48
rule of 40
26.46
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AGO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus BenefitsLossesAndExpenses
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2014-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged; 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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity