Every figure this model derived for ARE, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ARE on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-23.62
dilution pct
-1.03
ev owner earnings
17.27
ev sales
7.54
fcf margin
45.05
growth cv
0.8
interest cover
-7.95
operating margin
-69.81
owner earnings margin
43.65
revenue growth
-8.4
revenue growth per share
-7.45
roic
-5.61
rule of 40
-78.21
sbc pct revenue
1.4
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ARE's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (7.5x) 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`
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