Every figure this model derived for FNGR, 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 2026-05-31.
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
20,216
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-02-28
cash
987,391
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-05-31
current assets
52,933,912
AssetsCurrent
2026-05-31
current liabilities
48,552,060
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-05-31
equity
13,376,997
StockholdersEquity
2026-05-31
interest expense
173,178
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-05-31
ocf
-5,046,631
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-05-31
revenue
16,323,607
Revenues
2026-05-31
sbc
484,039
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-05-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FNGR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-35.92
current ratio
1.09
current ratio reported
1.09
dilution pct
7.17
fcf margin
-31.04
growth cv
2.47
interest cover
-39.76
operating margin
-42.18
owner earnings margin
-34.01
revenue growth
-54.27
revenue growth per share
-57.32
roic
-34.62
rule of 40
-96.45
sbc pct revenue
2.97
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FNGR'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