Every figure this model derived for ALP, 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 2025-03-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ALP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.88
current ratio reported
0.88
ev owner earnings
-1.34
ev sales
86.91
growth cv
1.91
interest cover
-2461.0
revenue growth
-67.52
revenue growth per share
-67.52
roic
-62.37
rule of 40
-8363.02
sbc pct revenue
360.67
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ALP'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, ebitda margin -- operating margin came out at -8,296% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 89,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2025-03-31 (515 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-03-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (86.9x) instead
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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin trend
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability -- 40% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left