Every figure this model derived for SIGA, 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 2026-06-30.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SIGA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-13.12
current ratio
21.72
current ratio reported
21.72
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
-0.05
fcf margin
-37.58
operating margin
-20.76
owner earnings margin
-44.12
revenue growth
-70.13
revenue growth per share
-70.11
roic
-18.44
rpo growth
-60.16
rule of 40
-90.89
sbc pct revenue
6.54
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SIGA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2019-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 118M of net cash against a 20M annual burn is 5.8 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`
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