Every figure this model derived for WF, 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
WF on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
24.62
ebit cagr
10.72
ebit yoy
6.22
ev ebit
11.85
ev owner earnings
-7.94
ev sales
2.29
fcf margin
-28.85
growth cv
1.77
interest cover
0.34
operating margin
19.33
owner earnings margin
-28.85
revenue growth
-6.85
revenue growth per share
-6.85
roic
49.32
rule of 40
12.48
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about WF's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2024-12-31 (1y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (605 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 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`
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 rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity