Every figure this model derived for IMA, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
IMA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
21.47
current ratio reported
21.47
deferred revenue growth
-94.56
growth cv
82.97
interest cover
-120.57
roic
-786.68
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about IMA'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, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- owner earnings margin came out at -8,713% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 800,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
diluted share count moved -90% in a year (48M to 5M, a ratio of 0.10), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, 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 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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: revenue growth
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left