Bonk, Inc. (BNKK)

Every figure this model derived for BNKK, 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 ratios

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

Everything else this filing tags

368 more elements from BNKK'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 BNKK's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -2,330% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 3,609,528 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• presents no operating result; it could be summed from the costs it tags, but the company reports no pre-tax profit for the same period to check that sum against, so it was left out rather than guessed
• no operating income found in XBRL
• no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2024-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 3M of net cash against a 25M annual burn is 0.1 years
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 ebit
• durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
• growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, growth -- 50% 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