Every figure this model derived for JFTH, 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 2024-06-30.
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
8,116
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2024-06-30
current assets
17,324
AssetsCurrent
2024-06-30
equity
-32,023
StockholdersEquity
2024-06-30
ocf
-314,531
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2024-06-30
revenue
20,562
Revenues
2024-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
JFTH on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1321.53
fcf margin
-1529.67
operating margin
-1321.53
owner earnings margin
-1529.67
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about JFTH's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -3,768% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 20,562 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
newest fact in the filing is 2024-10-01 (1y 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 2024-06-30 (791 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 2023-06-30 (1157 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 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 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 0.0 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 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left