As you can see in Figure 1, below, revenue, operating income, EBIT, and net income are all up from the year-ago period by double digits. Cost of revenue and operating expenses are up by double digits too, but neither one is exceeding revenue growth, so companies are keeping their financial noses above water. Can’t complain about any of that. 

We did want to call out that impressive-looking net income number, up 65.9 percent from Q2 2025. A jump like that might seem super-cool at first glance, but remember: a significant part of it comes from one-time gains that a handful of companies are reporting, rather than booming growth in core operations.

We first noted that issue several weeks ago when Google Alphabet ($GOOG) reported an astonishing $112.2 billion in quarterly net income, but $97.8 billion of that number came from Google revaluing the 6 percent of SpaceX ($SPCX) shares that it owns. That single $97.8 billion item was responsible for 40.5 percent of all net income we noted that week, among more than 280 firms.

That dynamic is still very much afoot in net income growth. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal finally caught onto the story this week, with an article that documented $121 billion in net income that actually came from one-time investment gains from exactly two companies: Google and Amazon ($AMZN). 

Net income for all 3,000+ companies in our sample this week was $658.9 billion, up 65.9 percent from one year ago. But if you strip out that $121 billion from Google and Amazon, then total year-over-year net income gains were only 35.4 percent — not shabby at all, but certainly not the 65.9 percent that has less-attentive Wall Street investors swooning. 

In contrast, when we look at operating income, that number is up 32.5 percent year-over-year, very similar to the 35.4 percent growth in net income when you strip out those one-time investment gains from the tech giants. 

This is why it pays to dive deeply into the data. Calcbench, of course, has all the data you need, indexed and structured and ready for solid analysis within minutes of companies filing that data with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Meanwhile, as always, we also have the data from Figure 1 in table format instead.

Calcbench tracks these earnings using our Earnings Tracker template, which pulls in financial disclosures as companies file their latest earnings releases with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Earnings Tracker provides an up-to-the minute snapshot of financial performance compared to the year-earlier period.

If Calcbench subscribers wish to get their hands on the template we use for this analysis, so you can conduct your own experiments at home, use this link to the file. 

Please note that it will only work with an active Calcbench subscription. If you need an active subscription (and who doesn’t, really, when swift access to real-time data is so important?), contact us at us@calcbench.com.

That’s all for this week. Come back next Friday for more!

Bets, by the way, that aren’t included on the tech giants’ balance sheets.

These bets travel under the rather boring names “uncommenced leases” or “unrecognized lease commitments.” As the name implies, these are leases (typically for AI data centers) that the company has signed and do exist, but the leases haven’t yet started and don’t appear on the company’s balance sheet. 

Altogether, among the six companies leading the charge on data center development, these uncommenced lease expenses now exceed $1 trillion.

Figure 1, below, shows how the expenses have soared in recent years — from $321.5 billion in 2024, to $700.2 billion in 2025, to $1.13 trillion as of Q2 2026. 

As you can see, different companies are racking up these uncommenced lease costs at different rates. In relative terms, the one with the steepest increases is Google Alphabet ($GOOG), which had a jump of 1,150 percent; but that’s mostly because Alphabet started from an extremely low amount in 2024 ($7.2 billion), which reached $91 billion today. But that $91 billion is still lower in absolute dollars than the uncommenced lease commitments carried by Facebook Meta ($META) or Microsoft ($MSFT), which currently stand at $279 billion and $329 billion, respectively.

Another way to think about the numbers is to look at which company was incurring the largest share of unrecognized commitments in any given year. That is, if all six companies had $100 billion in unrecognized commitments in 2025, each company accounted for how much of that total? That’s represented in Figure 2, below. 

As you can see, Facebook has been accounting for an increasingly large percentage of the whole amount every year, even as that whole amount grew larger in absolute dollar terms year over year. 

Finally, we did a quick analysis to compare these off-balance sheet commitments to each company’s total liabilities. That gives a sense of how much the company’s balance sheet could go through the blender if those off-balance sheet commitments suddenly did have to be brought back onto the balance sheet. See Figure 3, below.

If any readers are suddenly wondering, “Wait, isn’t this what happened with Lehman Bros. in 2008 just before the financial crisis?” — well, it could be. 

For example, if Facebook had to bring all those not-yet recognized lease commitments onto the balance sheet all at once, without any corresponding increase in assets because nobody was using AI like forecasters expected, that would balloon total liabilities by 148 percent and be a disaster for stockholders. But Facebook claims it does have revenue commitments to back up all these lease commitments when the time comes. If those revenue commitments turn into actual revenue, then everything will be fine.

Where to Find All These Disclosures

That’s easy enough. For starters, you can always use the Calcbench Disclosures & Footnotes Query page to pull up specific footnote disclosures and read exactly what the company is saying. The good stuff is always in the fine print!

That said, not all companies disclose their unrecognized leasing commitments in the same location. For example, Amazon ($AMZN) discloses lease information in its Commitments and Contingencies footnote, because leases are commitments to future expenses. In contrast, Microsoft reports its future costs in a dedicated Leases footnotes, because the commitments are leases.

So you need to look. You can do that by studying the exact footnote disclosures that each company makes from the list on the left-hand side of your screen and then choosing whichever footnote makes the most sense. You might need to search both the Commitments and Leases footnotes if a company reports them both, but the information will be in there somewhere.

You can also use our Multi-Company page to search disclosures across a group of companies. Start by searching for the XBRL tag:

UnrecordedUnconditionalPurchaseObligationBalanceSheetAmount

That should pull up the relevant amounts for whatever period you’re searching. You can then do a time-series pull to see how that amount has changed over time and export the whole thing in Excel.

As you can see in Figure 1, below, the numbers still look respectable — even a bit better than last week’s earnings update. 

Revenue is up 16.1 percent from the year-ago period, while cost of revenue is up 14.4 percent. The spread between those numbers (170 basis points) is a bit better than last week, when the spread was only 100 points. 

Operating income is up 31.5 percent (better than last week), and net income is up 63.7 percent (still largely thanks to a one-time accounting adjustment from Google Alphabet’s stake in SpaceX, which we discussed a few weeks ago). Cash, EBIT, total assets, cash flow from operations; they’re all moving in the right direction.

Questions we still want to explore as soon as our crack research team gets back from Montauk… 

• To what extent is that capex number (up 29.8 percent) driven by the AI hyperscalers spending zillions on data centers? If we exclude them, how much is everyone else spending on capex? 

• Which industries are enjoying the biggest growth in earnings? Which ones are seeing the least? 

• Which firms are seeing the best growth in free cash flow, since FCF is so valuable for investing in new projects, share buybacks, and more? 

Those questions are all easy enough to answer with Calcbench, and we’ll start answering them next week now that we have a critical mass of Q2 filers in the sample.

Meanwhile, as always, we also have the data from Figure 1 in table format instead.

Calcbench tracks these earnings using our Earnings Tracker template, which pulls in financial disclosures as companies file their latest earnings releases with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Earnings Tracker provides an up-to-the minute snapshot of financial performance compared to the year-earlier period.

If Calcbench subscribers wish to get their hands on the template we use for this analysis, so you can conduct your own experiments at home, use this link to the file. 

Please note that it will only work with an active Calcbench subscription. If you need an active subscription (and who doesn’t, really, when swift access to real-time data is so important?), contact us at us@calcbench.com.

That’s all for this week. Come back next Friday for more!

As we’ve noted before in these pages, pharmaceutical firms disclose the sales of their individual blockbuster drugs. So we opened our Segments, Rollforwards & Breakouts page, called up Lilly’s ($LLY) quarterly revenues for Zepbound and Mounjaro, and then compared the sales of those two drugs against all Lilly’s other products. 

The result is Figure 1, below.

As you can see, Lilly’s two GLP-1 weight loss drugs went from 26.5 percent of total sales at the start of 2024 ($2.32 billion against $8.77 billion) to two-thirds of total sales today ($14.9 billion of $23 billion). 

Figure 2, below, takes all that information and reframes it in dollar amounts.

Again, the tale is clear. Lilly’s two weight-loss drugs are growing like gangbusters and swallowing the rest of the company. Lilly does report the sales of several other individual drugs, including Trulicity, Jardiance, Taltz, and Verzenio; plus a few “other” segments too small to bother with individual brand names — but fundamentally, Lilly is now a GLP-1 business with a side-hustle selling other drugs for other illnesses. (Indeed, it’s worth noting that sales of all other Lilly products have now been falling for the last three quarters.) 

You can compile research like this yourself using our Segments database; or you can use our API to inject the latest financial disclosures directly into your Excel models as soon as those numbers are filed. For example, we created the above tables and text earlier this week before Lilly filed its Q2 numbers, then just waited for the Q2 release this morning. Two minutes later, our data was current, accurate, and complete. 

We now have roughly 800 firms in our Q2 Earnings Tracker! A vast range of non-financial companies announced second-quarter earnings this week, so we have a much better sense of where corporate performance is and how it compares to one year ago.

Overall, the numbers still look respectable. 

As you can see in Figure 1, below, revenue is up 14.8 percent from the year-ago period, a marginal improvement from the 13.6 percent from last week’s earnings update (with, admittedly, far fewer companies in our sample). Operating income is up 10.3 percent, and net income up 66.8 percent.

About that net income number, however. As we unpacked in last week’s earnings post, a huge portion of that year-over-year increase (currently at 66.8 percent) is solely due to Google Alphabet ($GOOG) and its one-time $98 billion gain from recognizing the SpaceX ($SPCX) shares that Google has owned since 2015. Strip that $98 billion out of the overall net income from this week’s sample, and net income is up only 33.2 percent from Q2 2025.

We should also note that Cost of Revenues line. It’s up 13.8 percent, uncomfortably close to the 14.8 percent gain in revenue. That could be a warning sign that inflation pressures are swirling, and is worth watching in coming weeks as more companies file Q2 reports. And then there’s that capex spending number, which is heavily driven by a few AI hyperscalers spending zillions on data centers. We’ll do another post on capex spending next week.

Meanwhile, here is all the data from Figure 1 in table format instead.

All six U.S. majors have now filed their Q2 earnings reports. (Jetblue was the last, filing earlier this week.) As we’ve noted many times before, all six disclose their total fuel costs and average price per gallon of fuel every quarter. Calcbench tracks all this, which allows us to chart the airlines’ price of fuel over time. 

Figure 1, below, shows the average price per gallon for all six airlines. Brace for impact.

What verb can one even use to describe the increase in costs for Q2, the first quarter that fully captures the higher costs driven by the U.S. war against Iran? Soar? Spike? Pop? Rocket? 

We previously wrote about jet fuel costs in early July, when Delta Air Lines ($DAL) was the first airline to report Q2 earnings. At the time, we did some trigonometry to calculate that Delta’s fuel costs were sloping upward at an angle 76.5 degrees, and we were astonished then because the steepest increase for an actual plane taking off is never more than about 15 degrees. 

Now we can see that Delta’s cost increases in Q2 were the least of the whole lot. The five other airlines saw their average fuel costs accelerate even more rapidly, more akin to a rocket than an aircraft. United Airlines, for example, saw its average fuel costs go from $2.34 per gallon one year ago to $4.19 now — an increase of 79 percent. 

The story is mostly the same if we look at total fuel expense per quarter, which airlines also report. Figure 2, below, shows how that looks for the last 10 quarters. 

The upward slopes on this chart are a bit more diverse because the increase depends on total miles flown, which can vary from one airline to the next. American, Delta, and United all fly many more routes, including long-haul routes internationally; so it’s no surprise that their increases are larger. Jetblue, Southwest, and Alaska are more domestically focused, so their total costs are appreciably lower. 

As always, Calcbench subscribers can quickly obtain all these non-GAAP disclosures by downloading our airlines template from DropBox. That template tracks all the major airlines and disclosures automatically, so the information is at your fingertips within minutes of the airline filing its latest earnings report. 

(Disclosure of our own: The template won’t work automatically unless you (a) are a Calcbench premium subscriber; and (b) have our Excel Add-In already installed. If you need help with either of those things, email us at us@calcbench.com any time.) 

As we’ve noted in previous posts, companies started to make disclosures about tariff refunds earlier this spring after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s use of certain tariff powers in February. That was Q1, when many companies weren’t certain what they wanted to say because the ruling and the subsequent process to obtain tariff refunds was still new.

Now we’re in Q2, and things have changed considerably. Many companies are disclosing specific refund amounts they’re seeking or have already received. Others have made more exotic moves, such as Children’s Place ($PLCE) selling off its expected tariff refund at 67 cents on the dollar. 

Let’s see what a few other firms have said about tariffs.

FedEx

FedEx ($FDX) filed its latest annual report on July 20, for the fiscal year that ended on May 31. In the Contingencies footnote, FedEx disclosed that it had received cash refunds of $800 million by the end of May. 

The company also said it plans to refund that $800 million back to individual customers! As such, FedEx recorded $749 million as within its current liabilities line item, representing estimated customer refund obligations for those cash refunds from Uncle Sam. So there’s one interesting example of how companies are treating these refunds, both financially and from an accounting perspective.

Nike

We previously wrote about Nike ($NKE) on July 1, when the company’s latest earnings release said gross profit margin rose 49.2 percent, “primarily due to the expected recovery” of $986 million in IEEPA tariffs. 

At the time, we struggled to answer several questions. What does “expected recovery” mean? Was that $986 million in Nike coffers already, or not? Exactly where would that $986 million appear on the income statement? 

Nike filed its annual report on July 15 for the period ending May 31, and now we know. The company said this in its Summary of Significant Accounting Policies section:

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, the company deemed recovery of those tariffs to be probable. Accordingly, the company recognized a benefit of $986 million in Cost of sales within the Consolidated Statements of Income for the recovery of IEEPA tariffs paid, for which $965 million and $21 million of the benefit was classified within North America and Converse, respectively, largely offsetting the impact of the IEEPA tariffs recognized during fiscal 2026. 

As of May 31, 2026, the Company received $302 million and recorded $684 million of outstanding IEEPA tariff receivables reflected within Accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Subsequent to May 31, 2026, the Company received substantially all of the remaining IEEPA tariff receivable.

So Nike booked the $986 million as accounts receivable (which we expected, honestly) and subsequent to period-end, those monies were in fact paid.

Nike did not say anything about what it will do with the refunds, such as repay them to customers. 

Pentair

Water treatment company Pentair ($PNR) filed its Q2 earnings statement on July 14 for the quarter that ended June 30. The company reported a substantial cut in expected EPS and adjusted EPS, mostly due to an ongoing inventory issue — but also mentioned a positive impact from IEEPA tariff refunds!

Pentair then said it expects Q2 results to include $35 million in tariff refunds, compared to $930 million in revenue for the quarter. That’s 3.7 percent, so definitely material enough to disclose.

The company also disclosed further down that for all of 2026 it expects to receive “$35 to $50 million” in tariff refunds. So presumably that’s another $15 million at most coming to Pentair as refunds for the rest of the year.

Search Yourself

You can always search for more details about tariff refunds on your own. The best place to start is our Disclosures & Footnotes Query page. Just identify the company or companies that you want to research, and then enter “IEEPA” in the text search field on the left side of your screen. IEEPA is the name of the tariff program invalided by the Supreme Court, and that search will bring up all mentions of the word. 

Tariff refund disclosures are likely to be right behind it.

Figure 1, below, tells the tale. With roughly data from roughly 280 non-financial firms, revenue is up 13.6 percent from the year-ago period, operating income up 33.1 percent, and net income up an eye-popping 85. 1 percent. 

That 85.1 percent growth in net income is deceptive. It includes a single one-time gain of $97.8 billion that tracks back to Google’s ownership stake in the newly launched SpaceX ($SPCX).

That’s right. Google ($GOOG) owned roughly 6 percent of SpaceX stock as of June 30. Because SpaceX soared after its IPO on June 12, that led to a huge increase in the value of Google’s ownership stake — and under U.S. accounting rules, that gain must be reported in the Other Income line, which then falls into the net income line just below it on the income statement.

The $97.8 billion that Google reported from its one-time SpaceX gain is 40.5 percent of all net income reported by the 270 companies in our sample this week. Moreover, investment gains of this sort really just exist on paper; they’re not the same as gains in net income from actual operations.

If we strip out that $97.8 billion from Google’s SpaceX ownership, all other net income growth was only 10.1 percent

Also note the timing here. Google’s Q2 closed on June 30. That very day, SpaceX shares closed at $170, their all-time high. Since then, the stock has tumbled by roughly 33 percent! Shares are currently in a low-earth orbit around $113, well below the IPO price of $135. 

If SpaceX’s decline continues through the rest of the quarter, then Google will need to report a correspondingly large loss in net income next quarter. 

How large? If Q3 ended for Google today, with shares at $113, the loss would be roughly $30 billion. If SpaceX shares continue to fall, the loss will be even larger. Stay tuned. 

For everyone else, Figure 2, below, shows our Earnings Tracker data in table format. 

Calcbench tracks these earnings using our Earnings Tracker template, which pulls in financial disclosures as companies file their latest earnings releases with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Earnings Tracker provides an up-to-the minute snapshot of financial performance compared to the year-earlier period.

If Calcbench subscribers wish to get their hands on the template we use for this analysis, so you can conduct your own experiments at home, use this link to the file. 

Please note that it will only work with an active Calcbench subscription. If you need an active subscription (and who doesn’t, really, when swift access to real-time data is so important?), contact us at us@calcbench.com.

That’s all for this week. Come back next Friday for more!

Our previous post recapped the report’s biggest findings for 2025 earnings — most notably, that adjusted net income was almost universally higher than traditional GAAP net income, but the “spread” for 2025 was lower than that for 2024. Average dollar value for each non-GAAP adjustment was also lower in 2025 than the prior year, too.

Now let’s look at non-GAAP from different perspective: Which firms made the largest adjustments to net income, and for what reasons? 

First, some background. Calcbench (and our invaluable partner Suffolk University) identified 2,320 adjustments to net income items among the S&P 500 for their 2025 earnings. Those adjustments totaled $271.09 billion. 

We then classified each of the 2,320 adjustments into one of 11 categories:

Every company adjusted net income in its own way, with a unique mixture of categories and dollar amounts per adjustment. Several companies, however, adjusted net income to such a large extent that they contributed materially to the entire $271 billion in non-GAAP adjustments we observed overall. 

Figure 1, below, is a “Top 10” list of companies reporting the largest upward adjustments to GAAP net income.

* The company reported a negative GAAP Net-Income

So for example, AbbVie made $13.56 billion’ worth of adjustments, which led to adjusted net income 320 percent larger than GAAP net income. The $13.56 billion was also roughly 5 percent of the $271.09 billion in adjustments we identified for the entire S&P 500. 

Digging further into the report, we can see that almost all of AbbVie’s $13.56 billion in adjustments came from two specific adjustments:

• An adjustment of $6.22 billion for amortization of intangible assets;

• An adjustment of $6.3 billion for gains or losses on investments.

Neither of those adjustments are particularly surprising when you look at non-GAAP adjustment trends overall. Amortization is routinely the largest and most common adjustment category, since so many companies list intangibles on their balance sheets; and adjustments for investment gains and losses were especially large this year compared to previous years. 

Figure 2, below, shows the five companies with the largest downward adjustments to GAAP net income. 

Of course, these downward adjustments could be offset by other upward adjustments the same company also makes. Just because a company includes one or more downward adjustments to net income, that doesn’t necessarily mean its overall adjusted net income will be negative. 

Those are just a few more morsels of information about how adjustments to net income work in practice. We’ll have more insights in future posts, and remember — download the full report!

But that supposedly impressive performance — specifically, sharp jumps in gross profit, pretax income, and net income — was entirely due to Nike booking $986 million in tariff refunds! So does it really count?

Let’s start with the headline numbers from the earnings release. Revenue actually fell 1.1 percent from the year-ago period, to $10.97 billion. Gross profit, however, jumped 20.7 percent thanks to a sharp decline in Nike’s cost of goods sold. Pretax income more than tripled, net income more than quadrupled. See Figure 1, below.

Earnings growth like that sounds too good to be true, so we opened our Disclosure and Footnotes Query page to do a detailed reading of the earnings release — and, yep, it was.

There in the earnings release, Nike included this statement about its most recent quarter (which ended on May 31, and is Nike’s fiscal Q4 2026): 

Gross margin increased 890 basis points to 49.2 percent, primarily due to the expected recovery of the IEEPA tariffs. The expected recovery of the IEEPA tariffs of $986 million increased gross margin by approximately 900 basis points.

OK, hold up. That’s not tariff refunds “primarily” contributing to an increase in gross margins; the $986 million in expected refunds entirely supports the growth in gross margin. Nine hundred basis points is more than 890. If not for Nike booking the $986 million, gross margins would have declined for its fiscal fourth quarter.

We have other questions about this disclosure, too. For starters, what does “expected recovery” actually mean? Is that $986 million in Nike coffers already, or is it not? 

Second, where does that $986 million show up on the income statement?

Gross margin is calculated as cost of goods sold divided into net sales. So does the $986 million show up as an increase in the revenue line, making the denominator of our equation larger? Or does it show up as a decrease in cost of goods sold, making the numerator smaller? 

Mathematically you arrive at the same gross margin number either way, but the specific accounting treatment would affect year-over-year performance for that individual line item. (That is, revenue growth or cost of goods sold growth.) 

Nike’s cost of goods sold for the quarter did decline by $1.05 billion from the year-ago period. But the $986 million in tariff refunds would presumably be for all of 2025 (when the tariffs were being improperly collected) rather than just fiscal Q4 2025. So it doesn’t seem like the $986 million is reflected in that year-over-year decline we see in Figure 1, above.

We’ll keep digging into Nike’s accounting treatment when the full 10-Q arrives in the next week or two, but meanwhile — this is the second time in two weeks that we’ve seen companies trying to convert expected tariffs into some immediate bright shiny thing on the income statement. 

Just last week we noted that Children’s Place ($PLCE) securitized its expected tariff refunds of $38.2 million, selling those promise refunds at 67 cents on the dollar, which led to a one-time cash injection of $25.6 million. Now we have Nike booking an “expected recovery,” whatever that means, of $986 million to goose its gross margins.

Presumably we’ll see more such financial engineering in the Q2 earnings statements that will start to arrive later this month. What a time to be alive and a Calcbench subscriber!

Consumer products giant Procter & Gamble ($PG) provided a fascinating example of what companies are disclosing in its latest quarterly report, filed on April 24.

In the Management Discussion & Analysis section, tucked away on Page 19, of the filing, Procter & Gamble disclosed that gross margin decreased 150 basis points to 49.5 percent of net sales for the quarter. Then came a long list of bullet points for why gross margins were getting squeezed (emphasis ours):

• 180 basis points of decline from unfavorable product mix,

• 100 basis points of product and packaging investments, 

• 50 basis points of higher restructuring costs,

• 50 basis points of higher costs from tariffs,

• 20 basis points of other items and rounding and

• 10 basis points of higher commodity costs.

So tariffs pushed up costs by 50 basis points, or 0.5 percent. Then Procter & Gamble provided two steps management took to protect gross margins (again, emphasis ours):

• 210 basis points of manufacturing productivity savings and

• 50 basis points of increase due to higher pricing.

One could reasonably conclude, therefore, that Procter & Gamble is raising prices to cover its higher costs from tariffs. 

Interestingly, the above numbers reflect P&G’s gross margins across the whole enterprise. But if you keep digging deeper into the MD&A narrative, management only cites tariffs as a source of margin pressure for one specific segment: beauty products. 

P&G reports net sales and earnings for six operating units, beauty included. See Figure 1, below, shamelessly lifted from Page 22 of the 10-Q.

Under that table, the MD&A then painstakingly walks through a discussion of each unit’s performance and the pressures it faced. For the beauty segment, P&G specifically said (as always, emphasis ours)… 

Net earnings margin decreased due to a decrease in gross margin and an increase in the effective tax rate, partially offset by a decrease in SG&A as a percentage of net sales. The gross margin decline of 210 basis points was driven by unfavorable product mix, higher commodity costs and higher cost of tariffs, partially offset by productivity savings.

P&G did not mention tariffs in the discussion of any other business unit! For example, this was the corresponding disclosure for the Fabric & Home Care unit, P&G’s largest operating segment:

Net earnings margin decreased due to a decrease in gross margin, partially offset by a decrease in SG&A as a percentage of net sales. The gross margin decrease of 130 basis points was driven by unfavorable product mix, partially offset by productivity savings.

Do you see any mention of tariffs there? We don’t. Nor did we see mention in any of the other five operating segments; only the Beauty division.

We will let others judge the significance of these tariff disclosures, and the questions this information allows you to ponder (or ask on an earnings call). Calcbench subscribers, however, can find details like this pretty easily. 

How to Search

To find disclosures in the MD&A (or any other part of the 10-Q, 10-K, or earnings release) simply fire up the Disclosures & Footnotes Query page and pull up the company and period you want to search. Then enter the relevant search terms, and start reading through the results.

You can also get fancy with your searches, looking for multiple words in close proximity to each other. 

For example, we searched “gross margin,” and “tariff” and included a “~20” after the word tariffs. That allowed us to search for all disclosures that mentioned gross margin and tariffs within 20 words of each other. See Figure 2, below.

So we instead decided to look at the firms’ liquidity metrics, specifically their cash conversion cycles. The “CCC” lets analysts understand how well a company manages its inventory, collections, and payments; which is an important metric to know if you follow the apparel business.

You calculate the Cash Conversion Cycle by manipulating a few other liquidity metrics. First, add together the company’s Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO) and Days Sales Outstanding (DSO); then subtract its Days Payable Outstanding (DPO) from that sum. 

Or if you’re a Calcbench subscriber, you just let us do all that for you and provide the CCC number automatically. CCC (and its component elements) are all liquidity metrics we calculate and present as a matter of course.

Figure 1, below, shows quarterly CCC figures for American Eagle Outfitters ($AEO), Carters ($CRI), the Gap ($GAP), Ralph Lauren ($RL), and Urban Outfitters ($URBN).

We assume some of you will say, “Hold up! Sales, payments, and inventories fluctuate so much from one quarter to the next in the retail world that those jagged lines don’t impart much information.” 

Fair enough. With another few keystrokes we pulled up the companies’ annual CCC numbers, and that led us to Figure 2.

Now we see a very different story: a spike in 2022 for Carters and Ralph Lauren, presumably coinciding with supply chain disruptions and inflation; but overall a quite steady CCC for all five firms. 

Calcbench subscribers can access these metrics, and many more, in several ways. For these two charts above, we used our Multi-Company search page. Simply pull up the companies you want to research and then start typing “cash” into the standardized metrics field on the left side of the page. We call it the “cash-to-cash” cycle, but it’s the same metric. We started with fiscal 2025 numbers, asked for a time-series of data, and immediately had this ready for export to Excel:

You can also use our Bulk Data Query page, which tracks financial disclosures and performance metrics for one or more companies across long time periods. Just scroll to the bottom of the page and you’ll see a series of liquidity metrics Calcbench automatically calculates and reports out to you in Excel.

Just another glimpse of how Calcbench collects, organizes, and prepares financial data that you can analyze to your heart’s content.