Every figure this model derived for NOBH, 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 2026-05-02.
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
60,020
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-05-02
cash
10,293,186
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-05-02
current assets
49,652,582
AssetsCurrent
2026-05-02
current liabilities
7,019,435
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-05-02
equity
56,517,686
StockholdersEquity
2026-05-02
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2025-11-01
ocf
5,740,538
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-05-02
revenue
48,582,297
Revenues
2026-05-02
sbc
213,117
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-05-02
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NOBH on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
19.39
current ratio
7.07
current ratio reported
7.07
dilution pct
-0.2
ebit cagr
1.67
ebit yoy
-7.6
fcf margin
11.69
growth cv
2.39
operating margin
18.37
owner earnings margin
11.25
revenue growth
-7.7
revenue growth per share
-7.52
roic
15.25
rule of 40
10.67
sbc pct revenue
0.44
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NOBH's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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`
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