Bioforce Nanosciences Holdings, Inc. (BFNH)

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.

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up BFNH on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

70 more elements from BFNH's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

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 (2480 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 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
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (13156.1x) instead
• analyst estimate not used: no trailing EPS to measure the growth from
• 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 rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev owner earnings
• 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 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
• 3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, resilience -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left