Critical Metals Corp. (CRML)

Every figure this model derived for CRML, 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 2024-12-31.

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.

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up CRML on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

158 more elements from CRML's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about CRML's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• WITHHELD: sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin -- net margin came out at -14,414% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 359,859 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• only 183 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
• no operating income found in XBRL
• revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (653 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
• the market value here was 2.0B: 314.7M shares from the filing at the quoted price. The price feed reports 146.9M shares, and that count at this same price gives 919.5M, which is the value the feed itself reports. So the two counts are of different things — a depositary receipt against the ordinary shares behind it, or a count filed in thousands — and the count the price belongs to is used
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 81M of net cash against a 14M annual burn is 5.6 years
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• 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 ebit, 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
• growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, 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