Every figure this model derived for ATLCL, 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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2021-06-30
cash
555,215,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
701,879,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
446,881,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
936,975,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
2,652,982,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
6,674,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ATLCL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
dilution pct
1.99
fcf margin
35.32
growth cv
0.52
owner earnings margin
35.07
revenue growth
83.72
revenue growth per share
80.13
sbc pct revenue
0.25
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ATLCL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 63.58% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
no operating income found in XBRL
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2021-06-30); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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
resilience DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, resilience, growth -- 90% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left