Mesoblast Limited (MESO)

Every figure this model derived for MESO, 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 2025-06-30.

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.

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up MESO on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

225 more elements from MESO's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about MESO's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 231.2% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
• presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 35.50% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
• revenue is annual, not TTM
• no operating income found in XBRL
• revenue period ends 2025-06-30 (471 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
• the market value here was 17.8B: 1.3B shares from the filing at the quoted price. The price feed reports 129.9M shares, and that count at this same price gives 1.8B, which is the value the feed itself reports. So the two counts are of different things — a depositary receipt against the ordinary shares behind it, or a count filed in thousands — and the count the price belongs to is used
• gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenue - CostOfSales
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• valuation rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
• durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
• growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, growth -- 50% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left