Every figure this model derived for FNV, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FNV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
92.05
current ratio
8.3
current ratio reported
8.3
dilution pct
0.21
ebit cagr
12.0
ebit yoy
86.37
fcf margin
81.81
growth cv
1.8
interest cover
436.84
operating margin
74.29
owner earnings margin
80.89
revenue growth
63.69
revenue growth per share
63.35
roic
15.36
rule of 40
137.98
sbc pct revenue
0.93
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FNV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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