Every figure this model derived for BLPG, 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 2025-03-31.
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
BLPG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
10.22
current ratio
0.61
current ratio reported
0.61
ebit cagr
-44.51
ebit yoy
-78.54
fcf margin
6.26
growth cv
6.29
interest cover
1.02
net debt ebitda
0.9
operating margin
4.35
owner earnings margin
2.22
revenue growth
-6.18
revenue growth per share
-6.18
rule of 40
-1.82
sbc pct revenue
4.04
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BLPG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2025-03-31 (1y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue period ends 2025-03-31 (517 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-05-06 (481 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
invested capital is -0M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
diluted share count moved +97% in a year (11M to 22M, a ratio of 1.97), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
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