Poet Technologies Inc. (POET)

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 ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up POET on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

233 more elements from POET's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

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: market capitalisation -- a market value of 1.0B against 1.1M of revenue is over five hundred times sales, which is a share count that is wrong. Every multiple built on it is left out rather than shown, and the valuation dimension rests on what remains; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to score it
• 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
• the market value here was 772.6M: 132.3M shares from the filing at the quoted price. The price feed reports 173.1M shares, and that count at this same price gives 1.0B, which is the value the feed itself reports. So the two counts are of different things — a depositary receipt against the ordinary shares behind it, or a count filed in thousands — and the count the price belongs to is used
• 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
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability
• 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
• 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