Every figure this model derived for KTCC, 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 2026-03-28.
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
4,759,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-03-28
cash
431,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-28
current assets
207,979,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-28
current liabilities
101,073,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-28
equity
103,088,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-28
interest expense
10,318,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-03-28
ocf
18,782,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-28
revenue
395,126,000
Revenues
2026-03-28
sbc
577,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-03-28
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
KTCC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1.02
current ratio
2.06
current ratio reported
2.06
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
3.55
growth cv
14.0
interest cover
-1.3
operating margin
-3.39
owner earnings margin
3.4
revenue growth
-18.35
revenue growth per share
-18.35
roic
-4.94
rule of 40
-21.74
sbc pct revenue
0.15
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about KTCC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-05-07 (115 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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