Every figure this model derived for APHP, 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 2026-06-30.
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
22,338
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
128,497
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
1,646,087
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-476,740
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
120,076
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-211,932
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,220
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
379,065
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
APHP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.08
current ratio reported
0.08
deferred revenue growth
0.0
dilution pct
1.41
growth cv
1.61
interest cover
4.13
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about APHP's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, gross margin, net margin, ocf margin -- cash operating margin came out at 71,679% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,220 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
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 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 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, 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 ebit, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left