NEO ENERGY METALS PLC (NEO.L)
Every figure this model derived for NEO.L, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cash | 19,065 | CashAndCashEquivalents |
2025-10-01 |
| current assets | 138,333 | CurrentAssets |
2025-10-01 |
| current liabilities | 18,883,530 | CurrentLiabilities |
2025-10-01 |
| equity | -107,811 | EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent |
2025-10-01 |
| interest expense | 355 | FinanceCosts |
2025-09-30 |
| ocf | 699,619 | CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities |
2025-09-30 |
| sbc | 2,220,566 | AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments |
2025-09-30 |
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up NEO.L on one particular measure came for.
| Ratio | Value |
|---|---|
| current ratio | 0.01 |
| current ratio reported | 0.01 |
| interest cover | -17053.42 |
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NEO.L's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
- no revenue found in XBRL
- operating income is annual, not TTM
- 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
- 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
- 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 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 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
- 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