Every figure this model derived for RFL, 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 2026-04-30.
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
4,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-07-31
cash
76,635,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-04-30
current assets
34,858,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-04-30
current liabilities
11,020,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-04-30
equity
75,386,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-04-30
interest expense
327,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-04-30
ocf
-31,990,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-04-30
revenue
980,000
Revenues
2026-04-30
sbc
2,066,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-04-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
RFL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
3.16
current ratio reported
3.16
dilution pct
23.92
growth cv
48.79
interest cover
-111.4
revenue growth
33.88
revenue growth per share
8.03
rule of 40
-3683.37
sbc pct revenue
210.82
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RFL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- operating margin came out at -3,717% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 980,000 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
share count is from 2026-04-30 (122 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 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 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
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left