Every figure this model derived for ASPI, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
15,773,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
254,896,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
272,165,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
70,280,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
264,693,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
3,909,046
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-67,803,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
30,852,050
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
18,659,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ASPI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-242.83
current ratio
3.92
current ratio reported
3.87
fcf margin
-270.89
interest cover
-25.34
operating margin
-321.11
owner earnings margin
-331.37
revenue growth
573.43
revenue growth per share
573.43
roic
-62.79
rule of 40
252.31
sbc pct revenue
60.48
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ASPI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
diluted share count moved +49% in a year (56M to 83M, a ratio of 1.49), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
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: worst year
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend 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, growth -- 45% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left