Every figure this model derived for BFNH, 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 2019-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
cash
307
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
2,153,550
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
84,767
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
2,303,308
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
revenue
17,774
Revenues
2019-12-31
sbc
158,000,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2020-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BFNH on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
25.41
current ratio reported
25.41
operating margin
-261.83
revenue growth
8.98
revenue growth per share
8.98
roic
-1.6
rule of 40
-252.86
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BFNH's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue -- sbc pct revenue came out at 888,939% against a scale that tops out near 1,250%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 17,774 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating cash flow last tagged 2026-06-30, -2373 days before the revenue period (2019-12-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2019-12-31 (2434 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (sbc discipline, owner earnings, 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 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left