Every figure this model derived for MAIR, 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
16,500,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
261,800,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
1,369,900,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
752,000,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
3,649,700,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
175,500,000
InterestAndDebtExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
156,400,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,915,000,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
25,400,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MAIR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
25.05
current ratio
2.24
current ratio reported
1.82
fcf margin
7.31
interest cover
1.98
operating margin
18.1
owner earnings margin
5.98
revenue growth
26.82
revenue growth per share
26.82
rule of 40
44.93
sbc pct revenue
1.33
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MAIR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-03-31 (152 days old, balance sheet); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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