Every figure this model derived for VNO, 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
445,750,000
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
675,353,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
5,787,587,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
348,911,000
InterestAndDebtExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
390,889,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,828,756,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
25,397,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
VNO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
41.26
dilution pct
2.25
ebit cagr
-9.31
ebit yoy
-28.88
fcf margin
-3.0
growth cv
1.44
interest cover
0.54
net debt ebitda
2.64
operating margin
10.33
owner earnings margin
-4.39
revenue growth
1.37
revenue growth per share
-0.86
roic
1.93
rule of 40
11.69
sbc pct revenue
1.39
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about VNO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2018-12-31, 2738 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
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