Every figure this model derived for LZM-WT, 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
20,144,250
CashAndCashEquivalents
2025-12-31
current assets
27,448,597
CurrentAssets
2025-12-31
current liabilities
59,080,398
CurrentLiabilities
2025-12-31
equity
73,831,715
EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent
2025-12-31
interest expense
10,397,885
InterestExpense
2025-12-31
ocf
-15,592,766
CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
1,057,043
Revenue
2025-12-31
sbc
2,121,036
AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LZM-WT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1404.98
current ratio
0.46
current ratio reported
0.46
dilution pct
1.53
fcf margin
-1475.13
growth cv
2.18
interest cover
-1.77
operating margin
-1742.17
owner earnings margin
-1675.79
revenue growth
652.23
revenue growth per share
640.91
roic
-26.1
rule of 40
-1089.94
sbc pct revenue
200.66
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LZM-WT'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
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 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