Every figure this model derived for KANP, 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
632,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
37,956,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
88,904,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
17,575,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
21,832,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2011-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
KANP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
21.85
dilution pct
0.0
ebit cagr
87.37
fcf margin
77.61
growth cv
20.25
operating margin
21.19
owner earnings margin
77.61
revenue growth
1110.87
revenue growth per share
1110.87
roic
7.17
rule of 40
1132.06
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about KANP's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2011-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfRevenue
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity