Every figure this model derived for NB, 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.
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
4,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2016-06-30
cash
419,196,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
423,502,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
current liabilities
13,628,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
435,394,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
48,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-06-30
ocf
-16,672,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
sbc
3,912,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NB on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
31.08
current ratio reported
31.08
dilution pct
31.36
ev owner earnings
-10.54
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NB's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no revenue found in XBRL
no operating income found in XBRL
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 419M of net cash against a 17M annual burn is 25.1 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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, 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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, 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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, growth -- 60% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left