Every figure this model derived for BUSE, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
19,179,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
665,373,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
2,383,170,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
321,321,000
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
227,697,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
789,531,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
14,993,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BUSE on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
fcf margin
26.41
growth cv
1.32
owner earnings margin
24.51
revenue growth
41.42
revenue growth per share
41.42
sbc pct revenue
1.9
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BUSE's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income found in XBRL
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
diluted share count moved +48% in a year (58M to 85M, a ratio of 1.48), 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`
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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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 (contracted coverage, gross margin 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
5 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, resilience, growth -- 100% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left