Every figure this model derived for LPCN, 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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2024-12-31
cash
23,266,609
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
23,736,777
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
2,067,957
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
21,767,404
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-11,190,794
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,569,460
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
229,833
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LPCN on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-782.44
current ratio
11.48
current ratio reported
11.48
dilution pct
5.27
fcf margin
-713.03
operating margin
-800.82
owner earnings margin
-727.68
revenue growth
-62.7
revenue growth per share
-64.57
rule of 40
-863.52
sbc pct revenue
14.64
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LPCN's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2024-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 23M of net cash against a 11M annual burn is 2.1 years
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
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