Every figure this model derived for APSI, 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 2022-09-30.
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
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2014-01-31
cash
82,315
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2022-09-30
current assets
82,911
AssetsCurrent
2022-09-30
equity
15,716
StockholdersEquity
2022-09-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2022-09-30
ocf
-67,278
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2022-09-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2022-09-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2015-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
APSI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
dilution pct
840.15
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about APSI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2022-09-30 (3y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue period ends 2022-09-30 (1430 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2015-06-30); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2014-01-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2022-09-30 (1430 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 1.2 years
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 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue 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