Every figure this model derived for CBLO, 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
cash
6,305
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
14,873
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
-213,310
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
1,052,026
InterestExpense
2026-03-31
ocf
-672,244
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
17,739
Revenues
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CBLO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
interest cover
-18.9
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CBLO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -123,220% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 17,739 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-06-30 (426 days old, balance sheet); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend 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