Every figure this model derived for FRVO, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
399,278,000
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2026-06-30
cash
2,106,371,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
2,154,182,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
250,028,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
2,793,837,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
4,932,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-43,773,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
174,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
10,845,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FRVO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
8.62
current ratio reported
8.62
interest cover
-9.89
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FRVO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, capex intensity, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- owner earnings margin came out at -260,860% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 174,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left