Every figure this model derived for SLG, 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 2026-03-31.
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
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2019-12-31
cash
143,867,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
equity
3,536,322,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
215,620,000
InterestExpense
2025-12-31
ocf
58,608,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
1,016,280,000
Revenues
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SLG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
91.43
dilution pct
7.24
ebit cagr
2.74
ebit yoy
8.58
fcf margin
5.77
interest cover
3.07
operating margin
65.06
owner earnings margin
5.77
revenue growth
8.32
revenue growth per share
1.0
roic
15.4
rule of 40
73.38
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SLG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2019-12-31); 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 2026-04-29 (123 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 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