Every figure this model derived for RMHI, 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 2017-06-30.
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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2016-09-30
cash
0
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2020-09-30
current assets
348
AssetsCurrent
2021-03-31
current liabilities
300,510
LiabilitiesCurrent
2021-03-31
equity
-603,396
StockholdersEquity
2022-12-31
revenue
0
Revenues
2017-06-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2017-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
RMHI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.0
current ratio reported
0.0
dilution pct
-3.16
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RMHI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2022-12-31 (3y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
operating income last tagged 2022-12-31, -2010 days before the revenue period (2017-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
operating cash flow last tagged 2022-12-31, -2010 days before the revenue period (2017-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
only 272 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
revenue period ends 2017-06-30 (3349 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2022-06-30 (1523 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 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, 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 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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
growth DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, 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
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect