Every figure this model derived for POET, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
POET on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
2.19
current ratio reported
2.19
dilution pct
54.67
growth cv
2.05
revenue growth
2494.6
revenue growth per share
1577.5
sbc pct revenue
568.17
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about POET's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin -- net margin came out at -5,858% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,074,865 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating income last tagged 2021-12-31, 1461 days before the revenue period (2025-12-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
revenue is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 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.
gross profit last tagged 2018-12-31 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 39M of net cash against a 33M annual burn is 1.2 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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 ebit, 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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin 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 (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