Every figure this model derived for ASA.OL, 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 2024-12-31.
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
ASA.OL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-714.47
current ratio
7.6
current ratio reported
7.6
fcf margin
-422.8
growth cv
1.34
interest cover
-19.62
operating margin
-715.11
owner earnings margin
-423.44
revenue growth
63.05
revenue growth per share
63.05
roic
-74.53
rule of 40
-652.06
sbc pct revenue
0.64
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ASA.OL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2025-01-01 (1y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (605 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
reports in USD and quotes in NOK, so the share price is converted at 1 NOK = 0.1074 USD as at 2026-08-28. Only the price is converted: every figure from the filing is as reported, and only the multiples built on market capitalisation carry the rate — but no share count is available, so there is still no market capitalisation
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 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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left