95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
Identifies how quickly the company is scaling its balance sheet (via acquisitions, expansions, or debt). Strong growth, accompanied by sound fundamentals, can support long-term intrinsic value—while disproportionate debt expansion or bloated intangible assets can signal elevated risk.
-12.71%
Cash & equivalents declining -12.71% while AEM's grows 39.50%. Howard Marks would question why our liquidity is shrinking while competitor builds cash.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.71%
Below half of AEM's 39.50%. Michael Burry might suspect a liquidity shortfall if there's no alternative capital plan.
24.60%
Higher Net Receivables Growth compared to AEM's zero value, indicating worse performance.
10.87%
Inventory growth above 1.5x AEM's 5.33%. Michael Burry might suspect a looming inventory glut. Check free cash flow impact.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.46%
1.25-1.5x AEM's 6.13%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if strong current asset growth is used effectively.
-10.85%
Below half AEM's 2.57%. Michael Burry sees potential underinvestment risk unless there's a valid reason (asset-light model).
-100.00%
Higher Goodwill Growth compared to AEM's zero value, indicating worse performance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.79%
Less than half of AEM's -0.90%. David Dodd sees fewer intangible expansions vs. competitor. Possibly safer balance sheet.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.61%
Below half of AEM's 4.80%. Michael Burry might suspect stagnation or lack of resources for expansions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.90%
1.25-1.5x AEM's 5.02%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a stronger asset build. Check if it's producing returns.
4.60%
Less than half of AEM's 40.90%. David Dodd sees a more disciplined AP approach or lower volume.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.77%
Less than half of AEM's 177.97%. David Dodd sees fewer expansions in other current obligations.
4.62%
Less than half of AEM's 52.11%. David Dodd sees a more disciplined short-term liability approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.60%
Less than half of AEM's 284.20%. David Dodd sees a more conservative approach to non-current liabilities.
-4.60%
Higher Other Liabilities Growth compared to AEM's zero value, indicating worse performance.
4.62%
Less than half of AEM's 241.92%. David Dodd sees far fewer liability expansions relative to competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.83%
Below half AEM's -265.84%. Michael Burry suspects major net losses or high dividends vs. competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.98%
Below half AEM's -38.52%. Michael Burry sees potential underperformance in building shareholder capital.
5.90%
1.25-1.5x AEM's 5.02%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if expansions are well-justified by ROI.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
12.71%
Less than half of AEM's 1398.60%. David Dodd sees better deleveraging or stronger cash buildup than competitor.