Every figure this model derived for MINR, 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 2026-02-28.
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
2026-02-28
cash
7,077
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-02-28
current assets
7,491
AssetsCurrent
2026-02-28
current liabilities
60,280
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-02-28
equity
-50,164
StockholdersEquity
2026-02-28
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2026-02-28
ocf
-10,103
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-02-28
revenue
33,500
Revenues
2026-02-28
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MINR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-25.94
current ratio
0.13
current ratio reported
0.12
deferred revenue growth
-62.5
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
-30.16
operating margin
-28.03
owner earnings margin
-30.16
revenue growth
28.85
revenue growth per share
28.85
rule of 40
0.82
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MINR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-05-08 (114 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 debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 0.7 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend 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