Every figure this model derived for ACRL, 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 2017-09-30.
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
cash
10,421
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2017-09-30
current assets
10,448
AssetsCurrent
2017-09-30
current liabilities
10,369,937
LiabilitiesCurrent
2017-09-30
equity
-10,357,406
StockholdersEquity
2017-09-30
interest expense
28,550
InterestExpense
2017-09-30
ocf
-1,400,781
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2017-09-30
revenue
36
Revenues
2017-09-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2016-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ACRL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.0
current ratio reported
0.0
interest cover
-59.65
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ACRL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin -- net margin came out at -6,556,822% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 36 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
newest fact in the filing is 2017-12-31 (8y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue period ends 2017-09-30 (3256 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left