Every figure this model derived for BIPJ, 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 2025-12-31.
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 figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BIPJ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
42.52
current ratio
0.78
current ratio reported
0.78
ebit cagr
19.08
ebit yoy
16.94
fcf margin
-0.23
growth cv
0.33
interest cover
1.5
operating margin
25.1
owner earnings margin
-0.23
revenue growth
9.8
revenue growth per share
9.8
roic
14.24
rule of 40
34.9
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BIPJ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenue - CostOfSales
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: contracted coverage