ForFarmers N.V. (FFARM.AS)

Every figure this model derived for FFARM.AS, 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	50,900,000	`PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities`	2025-12-31
cash	109,700,000	`CashAndCashEquivalents`	2026-01-01
current assets	552,700,000	`CurrentAssets`	2026-01-01
current liabilities	508,200,000	`CurrentLiabilities`	2026-01-01
equity	357,800,000	`EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent`	2026-01-01
ocf	148,300,000	`CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities`	2025-12-31
revenue	3,153,100,000	`Revenue`	2025-12-31
sbc	1,500,000	`AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments`	2025-12-31

The ratios

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

Ratio	Value
cash operating margin	2.83
current ratio	1.09
current ratio reported	1.09
ev ebit	5.39
ev owner earnings	4.93
ev sales	0.15
fcf margin	3.09
operating margin	2.78
owner earnings margin	3.04
revenue growth	14.84
revenue growth per share	14.84
roic	21.84
rule of 40	17.62
sbc pct revenue	0.05

What to be careful about

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

revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
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`
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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 69M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect