Every figure this model derived for USCI, 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 2020-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
cash
574,634,618
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2022-03-31
revenue
-16,559,249
Revenues
2020-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
USCI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
revenue growth
290.43
revenue growth per share
290.43
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about USCI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: every margin -- revenue is -16,559,249, and a share of a negative total is not a share. Divided into a negative result it produced a confident positive, which is the reading this withholds. The margins are absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating income last tagged 2016-09-30, 1553 days before the revenue period (2020-12-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
operating cash flow last tagged 2022-03-31, -455 days before the revenue period (2020-12-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2020-12-31 (2068 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged; 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 2026-02-23 (188 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.
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 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
resilience DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
5 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, resilience, growth -- 100% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left