Every figure this model derived for NTB, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2018-12-31
cash
2,465,479,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
equity
1,141,851,000
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
203,160,000
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
279,561,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
606,792,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
22,246,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NTB on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
fcf margin
46.07
growth cv
0.81
owner earnings margin
42.41
revenue growth
4.63
revenue growth per share
4.63
sbc pct revenue
3.67
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NTB's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 60.78% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
revenue is annual, not TTM
no operating income found in XBRL
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2018-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); 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`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
5 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, resilience, growth -- 100% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left