Every figure this model derived for DYNR, 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
capex
2,051,350
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
0
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
6,563,491
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
44,923,502
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
4,238,880
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
1,638,952
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
6,476,583
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
58,369,109
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
1,249,459
AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
DYNR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
20.57
current ratio
0.15
current ratio reported
0.15
dilution pct
53.47
ebit cagr
40.85
ebit yoy
98.7
fcf margin
7.58
growth cv
1.61
interest cover
5.59
net debt ebitda
0.93
operating margin
15.71
owner earnings margin
5.44
revenue growth
5.03
revenue growth per share
-31.56
roic
50.87
rule of 40
20.74
sbc pct revenue
2.14
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about DYNR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 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
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