Every figure this model derived for FLNC, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FLNC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
2.08
current ratio
1.34
current ratio reported
1.34
dilution pct
-29.21
ev owner earnings
-1.6
ev sales
0.08
fcf margin
-4.38
growth cv
1.01
interest cover
-0.29
operating margin
-0.17
owner earnings margin
-5.07
revenue growth
7.46
revenue growth per share
51.81
roic
-10.62
rpo growth
30.61
rule of 40
7.29
sbc pct revenue
0.69
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FLNC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result; summed as revenue minus the costs it does tag (CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold, GeneralAndAdministrativeExpense, ResearchAndDevelopmentExpense). Checked against the company's own figures: the answer lands 3.5% of revenue from the -96M pre-tax profit it reports, which is its interest and other non-operating items
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (0.1x) instead
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`
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions