Every figure this model derived for LHAI, 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
303,650
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
5,361,474
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
5,700,332
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
561,240
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
7,574,261
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
2,260
InterestExpenseDebt
2026-06-30
ocf
-2,138,931
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
20,902,172
Revenues
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LHAI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
1.0
current ratio
10.16
current ratio reported
10.16
dilution pct
5.99
ebit cagr
-25.4
ebit yoy
-92.98
fcf margin
-11.69
interest cover
33.82
operating margin
0.37
owner earnings margin
-11.69
revenue growth
17.6
revenue growth per share
10.96
roic
2.71
rule of 40
17.97
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LHAI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left