Every figure this model derived for NNAX, 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 2025-09-30.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2014-06-30
cash
4,280
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-09-30
current assets
10,812
AssetsCurrent
2025-09-30
current liabilities
738,146
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-09-30
equity
-727,334
StockholdersEquity
2025-09-30
interest expense
0
InterestExpense
2025-09-30
ocf
-78,745
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-09-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2025-09-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2022-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NNAX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.01
current ratio reported
0.01
dilution pct
251.31
growth cv
2.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NNAX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2022-09-30); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2014-06-30); 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 2025-11-13 (290 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: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 0.1 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 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue 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, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left