Every figure this model derived for AKR, 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 2025-12-31.
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
32,960,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
2,336,697,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
90,655,000
InterestAndDebtExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
165,892,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
410,757,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
15,683,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AKR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
93.55
dilution pct
18.86
ebit cagr
62.65
ebit yoy
329.52
ev ebit
20.83
ev owner earnings
29.75
ev sales
10.88
fcf margin
40.39
growth cv
0.46
interest cover
2.37
net debt ebitda
4.35
operating margin
52.23
owner earnings margin
36.57
revenue growth
14.2
revenue growth per share
-3.92
roic
4.3
rule of 40
66.43
sbc pct revenue
3.82
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AKR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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`
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity