FUNDING CIRCLE HOLDINGS PLC (FCH.L)

Every figure this model derived for FCH.L, 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.

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	600,000	`PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities`	2025-12-31
cash	152,400,000	`CashAndCashEquivalents`	2026-01-01
current assets	467,500,000	`CurrentAssets`	2026-01-01
current liabilities	302,400,000	`CurrentLiabilities`	2026-01-01
equity	228,400,000	`Equity`	2026-01-01
interest expense	600,000	`InterestExpense`	2023-12-31
ocf	-33,800,000	`CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities`	2025-12-31

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up FCH.L on one particular measure came for.

Ratio	Value
current ratio	1.55
current ratio reported	1.55
ev owner earnings	-17.92

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about FCH.L's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

no revenue found in XBRL
no operating income found in XBRL
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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 debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 152M of net cash against a 34M annual burn is 4.4 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 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 rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
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
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, growth -- 60% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left