Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Chubb Ltd.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
Strong business, analysts more pessimistic than the record
Get notified when we ship meaningful updates. No spam, no daily noise.
Data: SEC EDGAR filings · prices Marketstack · estimates Finnhub · updated 11 Jul 2026, 02:30 UTC
3 of 5 met · composite in line with peers
Business quality, valuation against the sector, and position in the 52-week range — whether they line up or not.
Stable quality
2 signals unavailable
Profitability
4/4
Debt & liquidity
2/3
Efficiency
0/2
Valuation is the clearest signal here: the P/E of 12.3× sits -26% below the sector median 16.7×, EV/EBITDA of 11.8× runs -31% below the median 17.2×, and P/B of 1.8× trails the median 2.6× by -30% — all three multiples place CB in the top quartile for cheapness within Financials. Growth is the offset: revenue grew 6.5% year over year, -18% below the sector median, and EPS growth of 13.1% lags the median by -30%. The F-Score of 6/9 reflects solid profitability — all four profitability sub-signals pass — while efficiency flags drag the score down. Against that mixed picture, the forward read tilts more constructive: the beat rate over eight quarters is strong, and the realized three-year EPS CAGR per SEC filings outpaces what consensus currently models, meaning analysts may be pricing in less than the track record warrants.
| Ticker | Name | F-Score | ROE | Revenue YoY | Op. margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AXP | American Express | 4/9 | 34% |
Quarter-by-quarter classification · a retrospective read by the current logic · not a price forecast
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. The method did not see these quarters in real time; this is the current logic applied to past reports.
The market prices in earnings growth; analyst sentiment is steady; has mostly beaten consensus.
Price against next year's expected earnings. The forward P/E already carries analyst optimism — read it alongside the “Versus consensus” line.
A forward P/E below the current one means the market expects earnings to grow; above it, to fall. The historical growth is realized figures from SEC filings, not a forecast.
The three-month change in the share of positive analyst ratings. This is sentiment, not an earnings-estimate revision, and not a call to act.
When Chubb reports on July 21, track net premiums written year over year against the current 7.94% revenue growth rate and check whether EPS growth closes the 30% gap to the sector median of 18.8%. A sustained improvement in both lines would test whether the efficiency signals — currently 0/2 — are beginning to turn.
Pull Chubb's most recent 10-K on SEC EDGAR and focus on management's discussion of underwriting margins and reserve adequacy, which directly bear on the F-Score's leverage and liquidity sub-score of 2/3. The risk factors section will also clarify how catastrophe exposure and reinsurance costs could pressure the 16.7× P/E if loss ratios widen.
From the alphabetical same-sector table in section 06, select two or three companies yourself and line up one metric — P/B, EV/EBITDA, or revenue growth — against CB's figures of 2.63×, 17.2×, and 7.94% respectively. No company in the table is ranked; the exercise is to place CB's valuation discount in context rather than to identify a preferred name.
Steps you can check yourself, based on the figures in this brief.
Piotroski F-Score: nine binary tests of financial strength from the annual report. A ✓ marks a test passed, a dot (·) a test failed.
Over 4 years: 1.281.030.891.23
Over 4 years: +5%+15%+12%+7%
The context on the right shows how each figure compares with the sector median. The trend below tracks the change over recent fiscal years.
Beat consensus in 8 of 8 recent quarters — the company clears estimates regularly (consensus is often set conservatively).
Last quarter's EPS against consensus, plus the estimated date of the next report.
| +6% |
| — |
| BAC | Bank of America | 5/9 | 10% | +7% | — |
| BLK | BlackRock | 3/9 | 11% | +19% | 29% |
| C | Citigroup | 3/9 | 7% | +6% | — |
| CB | Chubb Ltd. | 6/9 | 15% | +7% | — |
| GS | Goldman Sachs | 5/9 | 14% | +9% | — |
| JPM | JPMorgan Chase | 3/9 | 16% | +3% | — |
| MA | Mastercard | 7/9 | 210% | +16% | 58% |
| MS | Morgan Stanley | 3/9 | 16% | +14% | — |
| PGR | Progressive | 6/9 | 40% | +16% | — |
| SCHW | Charles Schwab | 6/9 | 18% | +22% | — |
| SPGI | S&P Global | 7/9 | 14% | +8% | 42% |
| USB | U.S. Bancorp | 7/9 | 12% | +4% | — |
| V | Visa | 5/9 | 64% | +11% | 60% |
| WFC | Wells Fargo | 3/9 | 12% | +2% | — |
A sample of 15 companies in the sector including the target, alphabetical, unranked. Data from the latest SEC annual reports.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
A simplified retrospective read: no analyst forecast (not available historically); the source is the annual report as of the date, so neighbouring quarters can rest on the same data. Quarters with the same classification in a row are merged into one row — each row is one change in the read, not a separate quarter. One ticker is an illustration of the classification logic, not statistics. How we calculate →
The last few quarters are recent context, not a fixed rate. Consensus for near quarters is set low, so companies clear it routinely; over long horizons the forecasts run the other way, too high.
A description of what the market and analysts expect. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. Analyst forecasts run systematically optimistic over long horizons — read them with that discount.