Every figure this model derived for LIPO, 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 2025-09-30.
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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2023-12-31
cash
2,156,317
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-09-30
current assets
2,079,288
AssetsCurrent
2025-09-30
current liabilities
642,399
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-09-30
equity
1,487,595
StockholdersEquity
2025-09-30
interest expense
11,263
InterestPaidNet
2025-09-30
ocf
-4,775,734
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-09-30
revenue
389,783
Revenues
2025-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LIPO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1387.2
current ratio
3.24
current ratio reported
3.24
dilution pct
39.59
fcf margin
-1225.23
growth cv
1.63
interest cover
-480.33
operating margin
-1387.94
owner earnings margin
-1225.23
revenue growth
-19.39
revenue growth per share
-42.25
rule of 40
-1407.33
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LIPO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-11-13 (290 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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 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