Every figure this model derived for CHCT, 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
cash
2,673,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
414,242,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
28,261,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
59,495,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
124,780,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
10,553,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CHCT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
73.62
dilution pct
1.23
ebit cagr
3.39
ebit yoy
46.37
ev ebit
25.7
ev owner earnings
19.99
ev sales
7.84
fcf margin
47.68
growth cv
0.65
interest cover
1.35
net debt ebitda
6.85
operating margin
30.5
owner earnings margin
39.22
revenue growth
5.66
revenue growth per share
4.37
roic
3.1
rule of 40
36.16
sbc pct revenue
8.46
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CHCT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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`
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 rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity