Every figure this model derived for LAT.PA, 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
cash
56,769,000
CashAndCashEquivalents
2026-01-01
current assets
422,032,000
CurrentAssets
2026-01-01
current liabilities
287,252,000
CurrentLiabilities
2026-01-01
equity
88,699,000
EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent
2026-01-01
ocf
19,692,000
CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
756,714,000
RevenueFromContractsWithCustomers
2025-12-31
sbc
2,900,000
AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LAT.PA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
0.62
current ratio
1.47
current ratio reported
1.47
fcf margin
2.6
operating margin
0.24
owner earnings margin
2.22
revenue growth
7.21
revenue growth per share
7.21
roic
4.45
rule of 40
7.45
sbc pct revenue
0.38
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LAT.PA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
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
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 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 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, 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