Every figure this model derived for EDHL, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
87,596
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2024-12-31
cash
3,167
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
1,845,613
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
500,247
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
4,265,480
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
ocf
-2,294,971
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
1,862,231
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
EDHL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
3.69
current ratio reported
3.69
fcf margin
-127.94
growth cv
1.77
owner earnings margin
-127.94
revenue growth
-32.57
revenue growth per share
-32.57
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EDHL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 106.6% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 71.01% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
revenue is annual, not TTM
no operating income found in XBRL
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
diluted share count moved +889% in a year (0M to 2M, a ratio of 9.87), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 2M annual burn is 0.0 years
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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
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
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left