Mercalot Inc. (MRCL)

Every figure this model derived for MRCL, 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 2026-03-31.

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.

The ratios

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

Everything else this filing tags

53 more elements from MRCL'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 MRCL's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
• 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
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (1.3x) instead
• 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 2.1 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
• 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, 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 (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left