Every figure this model derived for EQR, 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 2009-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
2,028,000
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2009-12-31
cash
92,109,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2015-06-30
equity
10,500,764,000
StockholdersEquity
2015-06-30
ocf
672,462,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2009-12-31
revenue
1,943,711,000
Revenues
2009-12-31
sbc
17,843,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2009-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
EQR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
58.11
ebit cagr
3.37
ebit yoy
15.55
fcf margin
34.49
operating margin
27.24
owner earnings margin
33.57
revenue growth
-1.62
revenue growth per share
-1.62
roic
4.02
rule of 40
25.62
sbc pct revenue
0.92
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EQR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2016-12-31 (9y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2009-12-31 (6086 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2015-06-30 (4079 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
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