Every figure this model derived for GFMH, 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 2026-04-30.
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
GFMH on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-184.38
current ratio
0.01
current ratio reported
0.01
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
-76.14
operating margin
-184.38
owner earnings margin
-76.14
revenue growth
-37.86
revenue growth per share
-37.86
rule of 40
-222.24
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GFMH's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2015-04-30); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2011-04-30); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 0.1 years
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, growth -- 45% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left