Every figure this model derived for FCCN, 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
40,399
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
5,267,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
136,384,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
162,037,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
57,460,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
5,771
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
-1,529,560
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
22,489,797,246
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
943,319
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FCCN on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-13.04
current ratio
0.84
current ratio reported
0.84
dilution pct
31.93
fcf margin
-0.01
interest cover
-508395.11
operating margin
-13.05
owner earnings margin
-0.01
roic
-4440.86
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FCCN'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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth 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, growth -- 45% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left