Every figure this model derived for CAST, 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
26,882
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-06-30
cash
119,302
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
622,847
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
current liabilities
7,908,784
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
-6,996,234
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
ocf
-12,332,291
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-06-30
revenue
628,149
Revenues
2025-06-30
sbc
484,947
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CAST on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-2108.67
current ratio
0.08
current ratio reported
0.08
dilution pct
39.69
fcf margin
-1967.55
operating margin
-2189.84
revenue growth
23.67
revenue growth per share
-11.47
rule of 40
-2166.17
sbc pct revenue
77.2
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CAST's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: owner earnings margin, net margin -- net margin came out at -2,129% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 628,149 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-03-31 (152 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 3 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic, owner earnings
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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% 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