Every figure this model derived for ASII, 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 2024-09-30.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ASII on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-85.93
current ratio
0.07
current ratio reported
0.07
fcf margin
-52.92
growth cv
84.03
interest cover
-1.19
operating margin
-87.86
owner earnings margin
-52.92
revenue growth
-15.28
revenue growth per share
-15.28
rule of 40
-103.14
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ASII's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2024-09-30 (1y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue period ends 2024-09-30 (699 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2022-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2021-12-31); 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 2024-03-31 (882 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 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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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: contracted coverage