Every figure this model derived for RAKR, 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 2024-12-31.
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
RAKR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-275.9
current ratio
0.01
current ratio reported
0.01
fcf margin
-7.15
interest cover
-53.27
operating margin
-307.73
owner earnings margin
-38.98
revenue growth
82.13
revenue growth per share
82.13
rule of 40
-225.6
sbc pct revenue
31.83
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RAKR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (607 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2020-09-30); 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 2025-10-29 (305 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.
diluted share count moved +53% in a year (13M to 20M, a ratio of 1.53), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
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