Latest revenue
$956.0M
as of 2026-03-31
Latest net income
$1.02B
as of 2026-03-31
Net margin
106.6%
as of 2026-03-31
Community sentiment
Where do you think AFL is heading?
Keep private notes on AFL — thesis, target price, catalysts to watch.
Visible only to you. Never shared. Never used to train AI.
AFL vs S&P 500 · rebased to 100
Live market
delayed ≤15 min- Market cap
- $58.82B
- Enterprise value
- $-4.41B
- P/E (trailing)
- 16.1×
- Forward P/E
- —
- P/B
- 1.96×
- Dividend yield
- 2.1%
- 52-wk high
- $119.81
- 52-wk low
- $96.95
- Beta
- —
- Shares out
- 509.0M
What this company does
Aflac sells supplemental health and life insurance, primarily in Japan and the US, covering costs that major medical plans don't, like cancer, accident, and disability claims. Premiums on these policies generate the bulk of revenue—about $10.2 billion year-to-date—supplemented by roughly $3.1 billion in investment income from its $109 billion portfolio. Net earnings swung sharply higher this quarter to $1.64 billion as investment gains and reserve remeasurement reversed last year's loss, while management continues aggressive buybacks, repurchasing nearly $2.8 billion of stock year-to-date.
Generated from AFL's filing dated 2026-02-25
Key risks
- Japan concentration & FX exposure: $421M YTD favorable currency translation masks underlying yen sensitivity; foreign translation losses still total $4.5B in AOCI.
- Investment portfolio stress: 9-month net investment losses of $1.1B and $1.7B unrealized losses on AFS fixed maturities ($65.3B amortized cost vs $63.6B fair value).
- Premium stagnation: Net earned premiums grew just 1.1% YTD ($10.22B vs $10.11B), while reserve remeasurement gains ($658M) are flattering reported earnings.
Generated from AFL's filing dated 2026-02-25
ActaClear Score
Computed from 5 years of SEC fundamentals + latest market data, ranked within Accident & Health Insurance (6 peers). 10 = best in industry, 5 = median, 0 = worst. Refreshed Jun 10, 2026.
Fair value · DCF
Methodology + caveats (click to expand)
Method. 10-year forecast of free cash flow, discounted at the company's WACC, with a Gordon-growth terminal at year 10. FCF is proxied by last fiscal-year net income (proper FCF needs CFO − CapEx by year, which we don't store yet). Beta defaults to 1.0 when not reported.
Why DCF is fragile. Treat the output as a thinking aid, not a verdict. Honest weaknesses of any DCF:
- Growth is the dominant assumption. No one can foresee 10 years of growth — small changes in the slider can double or halve fair value. The reverse-DCF readout above tells you what the market is implicitly assuming; ask yourself whether that's realistic before trusting either number.
- Terminal value dominates. In most DCFs, 60-80% of the answer comes from the terminal-value calculation — i.e., everything AFTER year 10. A 0.5pp change in terminal growth, or in WACC, can swing fair value by 20-30%.
- WACC is itself a guess. We use a textbook CAPM cost of equity (Rf 4.3%, MRP 5.5%, β from the quote) plus a 6% pretax cost of debt — none of these are the company's actual marginal financing cost.
- No moat / disruption modelling. The model assumes the company keeps earning whatever it earns today, compounding cleanly. Competitive shifts, regulatory action, and technology disruption can invalidate the forecast overnight.
- Net income ≠ free cash flow. For capex-heavy names (semis, telcos) net income overstates distributable cash. For low-capex names (software) it understates. Both reduce the precision of the FV figure.
- Reflexivity. A high stock price often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy via better hiring, financing, and customer trust. DCF can't see this.
Take the DCF, the reverse-DCF implied growth, the historical multiples, and the community sentiment together. When they agree, conviction. When they disagree, the disagreement is the most informative thing on the page.
Historical multiples
How does AFL's current valuation compare to its own past?
P/E uses year-end weekly close ÷ (net income ÷ shares outstanding today). Held shares constant at today's count, which understates the per-share earnings improvement from buybacks over the period. PEG uses 5y revenue CAGR as a proxy for EPS growth — close, but not identical (margin expansion or dilution can drive a wedge). Best read as a comparator across companies and industries, not as a precise replica of historical multiples.