Every figure this model derived for FBCD, 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 2013-04-30.
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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2013-04-30
cash
2,502
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2013-04-30
current assets
2,502
AssetsCurrent
2013-04-30
current liabilities
4,432,444
LiabilitiesCurrent
2013-04-30
equity
-4,424,784
StockholdersEquity
2013-04-30
interest expense
367,110
InterestExpense
2013-04-30
ocf
-318,099
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2013-04-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2013-04-30
sbc
1,136,379
ShareBasedCompensation
2013-04-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FBCD on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.0
current ratio reported
0.0
interest cover
-5.8
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FBCD's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2013-04-30 (13y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue period ends 2013-04-30 (4870 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
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 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 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 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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, 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