Every figure this model derived for PCT, 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 2026-06-30.
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
52,414,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
224,816,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
260,759,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
100,209,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
15,502,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
62,517,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-159,834,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
13,764,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
9,676,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
PCT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1033.98
current ratio
2.6
current ratio reported
2.6
dilution pct
9.12
fcf margin
-1542.05
interest cover
-2.9
operating margin
-1316.81
owner earnings margin
-1612.35
revenue growth
326.13
revenue growth per share
290.52
rule of 40
-990.68
sbc pct revenue
70.3
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about PCT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -1,619% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 13,764,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left