Every figure this model derived for BVC, 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 2025-06-30.
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
2,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-06-30
cash
9,741,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-06-30
current assets
9,884,000
AssetsCurrent
2025-06-30
current liabilities
158,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-06-30
equity
9,731,000
StockholdersEquity
2025-06-30
ocf
-6,482,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-06-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2025-06-30
sbc
236,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BVC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
62.56
current ratio reported
62.56
dilution pct
57.43
revenue growth
-100.0
revenue growth per share
-100.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BVC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-06-30 (426 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.
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 10M of net cash against a 6M annual burn is 1.5 years
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 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, 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 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 (contracted coverage, gross margin stability 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 (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left