Every figure this model derived for CINF, 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
17,000,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
1,892,000,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
16,671,000,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
53,000,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
3,417,000,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
13,954,000,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2022-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CINF on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
30.03
dilution pct
-0.06
ebit yoy
85.0
fcf margin
24.37
growth cv
1.88
interest cover
78.4
operating margin
29.78
owner earnings margin
24.37
revenue growth
19.55
revenue growth per share
19.63
roic
21.08
rule of 40
49.33
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CINF'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 2022-09-30); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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`
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev sales, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left