Every figure this model derived for HOV, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
24,215,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-04-30
cash
221,939,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2018-07-31
equity
824,889,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-04-30
interest expense
45,415,000
InterestPaidNet
2025-10-31
ocf
295,644,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-04-30
revenue
2,918,084,000
Revenues
2026-04-30
sbc
12,191,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-04-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
HOV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
2.72
dilution pct
-1.64
ebit cagr
-39.37
ebit yoy
-78.15
fcf margin
9.3
growth cv
1.6
interest cover
1.14
net debt ebitda
10.14
operating margin
1.77
owner earnings margin
8.88
revenue growth
-4.71
revenue growth per share
-3.12
roic
2.72
rule of 40
-2.94
sbc pct revenue
0.42
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about HOV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-04-30 (122 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`
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin 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
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