Every figure this model derived for FRHC, 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
FRHC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1590.24
current ratio
0.98
current ratio reported
0.98
dilution pct
1.04
fcf margin
-54.49
growth cv
1.22
interest cover
-4.04
operating margin
-1677.77
owner earnings margin
-110.54
revenue growth
133.62
revenue growth per share
131.22
roic
-875.82
rule of 40
-1544.14
sbc pct revenue
56.05
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FRHC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2017-03-31, 3378 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerIncludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin trend