Every figure this model derived for JOE, 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 2026-06-30.
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
capex
4,510,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
117,315,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
764,461,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
28,921,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
216,796,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
547,840,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
1,287,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
JOE on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
38.83
dilution pct
-0.66
ebit cagr
32.71
ebit yoy
63.92
fcf margin
38.75
growth cv
0.95
interest cover
5.72
net debt ebitda
1.2
operating margin
30.18
owner earnings margin
38.51
revenue growth
28.41
revenue growth per share
29.27
roic
12.84
rpo growth
5.56
rule of 40
58.59
sbc pct revenue
0.23
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about JOE's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity