Every figure this model derived for MMA, 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 figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MMA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.34
current ratio reported
0.34
dilution pct
27.03
fcf margin
-603.09
growth cv
1.77
owner earnings margin
-1308.21
revenue growth
145.05
revenue growth per share
92.9
sbc pct revenue
705.12
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MMA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -1,888% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,377,921 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no operating income found in XBRL
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-06-30 (426 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: 2M of net cash against a 8M annual burn is 0.2 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 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 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 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 (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent 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