Every figure this model derived for MLMC, 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 2018-12-31.
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
108
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2018-12-31
current assets
108
AssetsCurrent
2018-12-31
current liabilities
1,454,429
LiabilitiesCurrent
2018-12-31
equity
-1,454,321
StockholdersEquity
2018-12-31
interest expense
360,533
InterestExpense
2018-03-31
ocf
-13,113
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2018-12-31
revenue
1,400
Revenues
2018-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MLMC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.0
current ratio reported
0.0
dilution pct
369.11
fcf margin
-936.64
interest cover
-0.52
owner earnings margin
-936.64
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MLMC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, net margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -19,109% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,400 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
newest fact in the filing is 2018-12-31 (7y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2018-12-31 (2799 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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 2017-12-31 (3164 days old, weighted average diluted); 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`
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 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left