Every figure this model derived for AIV, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AIV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
1624.59
dilution pct
1.85
ebit yoy
-57.73
ev ebit
10.26
ev owner earnings
278.25
ev sales
80.4
fcf margin
106.49
growth cv
37.13
interest cover
1.01
net debt ebitda
2.05
operating margin
783.89
owner earnings margin
28.89
revenue growth
13.43
revenue growth per share
11.37
roic
7.47
rule of 40
797.33
sbc pct revenue
77.59
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AIV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at 7,802% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 7,600,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2019-06-30); 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 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