Every figure this model derived for AIZ, 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
215,100,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
2,033,900,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
6,097,900,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
112,900,000
InterestExpenseDebt
2026-06-30
ocf
1,870,700,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
13,456,200,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
91,600,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AIZ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
12.54
dilution pct
-1.86
ebit cagr
46.42
ebit yoy
51.82
ev ebit
9.11
ev owner earnings
7.73
ev sales
0.9
fcf margin
12.3
growth cv
0.53
interest cover
11.76
operating margin
9.86
owner earnings margin
11.62
revenue growth
9.36
revenue growth per share
11.43
roic
25.8
rule of 40
19.22
sbc pct revenue
0.68
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AIZ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus BenefitsLossesAndExpenses
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