Every figure this model derived for GRNL, 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 2012-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
current assets
19,509
AssetsCurrent
2012-12-31
current liabilities
280,785
LiabilitiesCurrent
2012-12-31
equity
-224,526
StockholdersEquity
2012-12-31
interest expense
0
InterestExpense
2012-06-30
ocf
-41,163
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2012-12-31
revenue
0
Revenues
2012-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GRNL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.07
current ratio reported
0.07
dilution pct
56.5
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GRNL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2012-12-31 (13y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
revenue period ends 2012-12-31 (4990 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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
share count is from 2012-12-31 (4990 days old, weighted average diluted); 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`
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 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
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