Every figure this model derived for KPHMW, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
107,068
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
16,838,527
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
21,262,515
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
2,370,495
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
16,856,689
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
19,960
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-8,506,810
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
807,666
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
KPHMW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
8.97
current ratio reported
8.97
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
-0.51
growth cv
11.6
interest cover
-642.71
revenue growth
-100.0
revenue growth per share
-100.0
roic
-55800.61
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about KPHMW'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`
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left