Every figure this model derived for CHCI, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CHCI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
23.86
current ratio
7.67
current ratio reported
7.67
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
1.39
ebit cagr
23.42
ebit yoy
45.2
fcf margin
13.45
growth cv
0.39
operating margin
21.48
owner earnings margin
11.44
revenue growth
39.2
revenue growth per share
37.3
roic
23.47
rule of 40
60.68
sbc pct revenue
2.01
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CHCI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2019-09-30); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged since 2018-12-31; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfRevenue
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`
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage