Every figure this model derived for ARLP, 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
ARLP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
29.74
current ratio
1.75
current ratio reported
1.75
ebit cagr
-18.98
ebit yoy
6.79
fcf margin
16.42
growth cv
1.79
interest cover
6.9
net debt ebitda
0.73
operating margin
14.7
owner earnings margin
16.01
revenue growth
-5.11
revenue growth per share
-5.11
rpo growth
0.6
rule of 40
9.59
sbc pct revenue
0.41
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ARLP's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
invested capital is 0M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
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
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`
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability