Every figure this model derived for ATNM, 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
ATNM on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
28.51
current ratio
4.08
current ratio reported
4.08
deferred revenue growth
-50.0
dilution pct
3.75
fcf margin
-65.05
operating margin
27.3
owner earnings margin
-65.76
sbc pct revenue
0.71
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ATNM's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit last tagged 2012-09-30 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 36M of net cash against a 23M annual burn is 1.6 years
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 ebit, 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect