Every figure this model derived for BRLS, 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 2026-03-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
1,116,648
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-03-31
cash
500,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
6,824,563
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
current liabilities
71,846,949
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
-22,702,880
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
6,176,665
InterestExpense
2026-03-31
ocf
-5,349,090
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
32,412,165
Revenues
2026-03-31
sbc
2,546,000
AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BRLS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-18.16
current ratio
0.09
current ratio reported
0.09
dilution pct
5.51
fcf margin
-19.95
interest cover
-1.65
operating margin
-31.41
owner earnings margin
-27.8
revenue growth
14.01
revenue growth per share
8.05
rule of 40
-17.4
sbc pct revenue
7.86
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BRLS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left