Every figure this model derived for EWBC, 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 2020-09-30.
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
EWBC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
growth cv
1.58
revenue growth
15.33
revenue growth per share
15.33
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EWBC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating cash flow last tagged 2026-06-30, -2099 days before the revenue period (2020-09-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income found in XBRL
revenue period ends 2020-09-30 (2160 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2026-06-30); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2021-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity 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
5 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, resilience, growth -- 100% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 35M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect