LOT US Equity☆

Every bar is a figure as filed. The blue bars are the reported subtotals (Revenue → Gross profit → Operating income → Pretax income → Net income), drawn from zero at exactly the number in the filing — never a sum computed here. The coloured steps between them are the filed component lines, applied as decreases (the taxonomy stores expenses as positive magnitudes) or, for “Other non-operating”, exactly as signed in the filing.

Residuals. Whatever part of a reported subtotal-to-subtotal gap the served lines do not name is drawn as its own hatched step and labelled a residual. Stretching a neighbouring step to make the arithmetic close — what a conventional waterfall does — would put a number on screen that nobody filed.

Nested lines left out: interest expense. This filer tags that line AND a broader line that already contains it — Apple, for instance, files a marketing figure that sits inside its own SG&A, and many filers report an interest-expense line that is also inside their net “other non-operating”. Applying both would double-count and break the reported subtotal, so the bridge keeps the decomposition that reconciles and names the dropped line here. Every figure is still shown, unchanged, in the statements grid below.

The ghost. Each dashed outline is the same step in the prior period (2024), anchored at this period’s running level so the reader sees whether the step grew or shrank. It contributes nothing to this period’s arithmetic.

Reconciliation.

No composite. The three scores are not averaged into one “quality” number. They point in different directions (F is a 0–9 count, higher-better; Z is a distress distance, higher-safer; M is a manipulation screen, lower-cleaner) and were fitted on different samples for different questions — a blended figure would be ours, not theirs, and would hide exactly the disagreement that is worth reading.

Piotroski F

0–9, higher is stronger — nine yes/no checks on profitability, leverage and efficiency, latest fiscal year vs prior. A 0–9 checklist of basic financial-health signs — profitability, low debt, improving efficiency. 7+ is strong; below 3 is weak.

Altman Z

distress model, higher is safer: above 2.99 = safe zone, below 1.81 = distress zone. Uses MARKET capitalisation, and the coefficients were fitted on manufacturers — a bank or REIT reading is not comparable.

Altman Z′

the private-firm re-estimation: BOOK equity instead of market cap, with its own cut-offs (2.90 / 1.23). It sits lower than the market Z for a highly-valued company by construction — that is the model changing, not the company weakening.

Sector context. The percentile columns on the trend rows are the ones this payload serves: “vs own” ranks the latest value inside this company’s own served history, “vs sector” inside its sector pool. A blank sector cell means the pool was too thin to rank honestly (or the metric is a currency level, where a cross-currency rank would be meaningless) — never a filled-in guess. The three SCORES carry no sector percentile: the payload’s percentile block covers the served ratios only, so “is this Z good for Consumer Discretionary?” is a question we cannot answer from what is served, and we don’t pretend to.

No score history. A 12-year F-Score / Z-Score strip is not drawn. The point-in-time factor store carries valuation, returns, margin, momentum and growth factors — not these composites — and recomputing them here from the annual columns would produce a series that disagrees with the headline above (different vintage of facts, different restatement handling). A score that disagrees with itself is a wrong number, so the history is omitted rather than approximated.

The nine named F-Score checks, the Merton distance-to-default / default probability, ROIIC and the growth-durability CAGRs live on FS · Financial Strength; the full ratio grid — every served ratio, with its own trend and both percentiles — is the Ratios section below.