Every figure this model derived for FVR, 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
cash
6,001,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
437,322,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
17,276,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
43,312,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
69,508,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
2,864,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
FVR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
41.75
fcf margin
62.31
interest cover
-0.32
net debt ebitda
12.35
operating margin
-8.0
owner earnings margin
58.19
revenue growth
9.45
revenue growth per share
9.45
roic
-0.58
rule of 40
1.44
sbc pct revenue
4.12
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about FVR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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`
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 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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left