Dados B3 › Transparency
Transparency
Transparency — how you check the numbers yourself
Data version 2026-11-09-ancora-do-fre · page generated 2026-11-12 08:09 UTC. If these do not match /saude, you are reading a cached copy.
What is checked, before every publication — 1298 automated tests, collected live
8 are DATA invariants (does the number tie out?) and 131 are product tests — access gate, navigation, language, AI connector. Calling all 1298 'invariants' would be inflating it: the split is checkable in the list itself. Not a hand-picked highlight reel: every test below was found by introspecting the actual test files just now, the same way pytest --collect-only would. Grouped by what it protects against, not by which file it lives in.
Level 1 — Integrity: does the data tie out? (5)
JC04— Without a database or with an empty macro table the page answers 200 and says the official rate was not collected yet and asks for a typed rate; the typed rate works; the Selic and IPCA shortcuts answer 400 with that message in JSON and on the page; the comparison marks those rows as not collected.JC05— Invalid input (missing, negative, non-numeric or above R$ 1 trillion amounts; missing, zero, fractional or longer than 60 years terms; unknown unit or mode; rate outside 0 to 100 percent; real rate or inflation out of range) answers 400 in JSON with the field and message and 400 on the page with the same message, the form filled in and no result.JC06— The calculator page in Portuguese and English has a title and H1 with the query, meta description, clean canonical, a FAQPage JSON-LD whose questions and answers are visible on the page as the single script; the formula and monthly rate are explained with worked examples; a calculation shows a server-side SVG chart with integer coordinates and an accessible label plus the year-by-year table, and is noindex with a clean canonical.JC07— The calculator has entry points: an llms.txt entry with the JSON route, a section on the API page, a link from the DI future calculator in both languages, and the clean page in the sitemap without calculation URLs or the JSON route.JC08— The page opens with 4 fields (initial amount, contribution, rate a year OR a month, term) and the button; Selic, IPCA + X%, inflation and income tax sit in a closed "More options" that opens when the URL already asks for one. 1% a month = 12.6825% a year.
Level 2 — Semantics: does the account mean what the calculation assumes? (3)
JC01— Compound interest calculator: hand-checked cases (R$ 1,000 at 12 percent a year for 1 year with no contribution gives R$ 1,120.00; R$ 100 a month only gives R$ 1,264.65; R$ 1,000 plus R$ 100 a month for 10 years gives R$ 25,298.85; monthly rate 0.948879 percent; zero rate returns the amount invested), the yearly table closes on the final value, Brazilian thousand separators are read, and the JSON route returns the same figures with the formula.JC02— Regressive income tax table (22.5, 20, 17.5 and 15 percent by days held) applied to each contribution with its own term: R$ 1,000 at 12 percent for 1 year pays R$ 21.00 and nets R$ 1,099.00; contributions only pay R$ 13.29; the value in todays money divides by inflation (R$ 1,071.77 at 4.5 percent); the page labels the tax as simplified.JC03— With the macro table filled, the Selic shortcut uses the latest Copom target (15 percent, not the older target nor the effective rate) and IPCA plus X compounds the latest 12-month IPCA with the real rate; typed inflation takes precedence; the comparison shows Selic, inflation only and the simulation rate on the same money; the page states each source and date and that the CDI is not published.
Level 3 — Economic: is the result possible in the real world? (0)
Other product tests (0)
Access gate, navigation and the MCP connector — they test whether the product works, not whether a number is right, so they don't fit the 3 levels above by design. Still counted, still listed:
Reconstruct it yourself — net margin across 5 companies, 4 sectors
We don't ask you to trust the numbers. Here's the net margin of five companies in four different sectors, each rebuilt straight from its annual report (DFP) at the CVM — net income ÷ revenue, matching the published figure exactly. For ANY indicator, of any company, the whole chain down to the line in CVM's file is at /linhagem:
| Company · sector | Net income (CVM acct) | Revenue (CVM acct) | Margin =÷ |
|---|---|---|---|
| WEGE3 · industrial | R$ 6.78 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 40.80 bn DRE:3.01 | 16.6% |
| VALE3 · mining | R$ 11.81 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 213.59 bn DRE:3.01 | 5.5% |
| PETR4 · oil & gas | R$ 110.61 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 497.55 bn DRE:3.01 | 22.2% |
| ITUB4 · bank | R$ 45.85 bn DRE:3.09 | R$ 387.12 bn DRE:3.01 | 11.8% |
| BBAS3 · bank | R$ 16.78 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 319.46 bn DRE:3.01 | 5.3% |
Download any of these DFPs from the CVM, take the income and revenue accounts, divide — you get the same number. Banks use interest income as revenue (what makes sense for a bank), so the reconciliation is sector-aware; the others use sales revenue. Figures are the latest fiscal year.
Why we may differ from another site (and it's not an error)
A difference between two sites usually isn't one being wrong — it's a method choice. We disclose ours:
- Average vs ending capital: ROE and ROIC use average equity/capital (this year + last ÷ 2), not the ending balance — so they're not a naive single-year division.
- Controlling vs consolidated: we state which one each item uses.
- TTM vs annual: quarterly multiples use trailing-twelve-months earnings.
- IFRS 16, goodwill, cash, exceptional tax: each handled explicitly and flagged when it distorts.
Do the tests bite? Yes — real cases the suite has caught
A test that never fails could mean perfect data — or a weak test. These were born from real errors that slipped through, and now fail — only shown for tests that actually exist in the collected suite above:
- I-B16 · banks' P/E = 0: the CVM reports share count sometimes in units, sometimes in thousands (varying by company and year); market cap came out 1000× too small and P/E was zero. I-B16 (price × shares recomputed) caught it — we fixed 661 annual and 2,027 quarterly multiples.
- I-B24 · the vanishing profit: the profit/equity account varies by bank (Itaú 3.09, BB 3.11); if the label search fails, the number vanishes silently and ROE is born wrong. I-B24 makes that hole fail.
- H-B23 · the 800% dividend yield: old B3 dividends carry a price not adjusted for splits; without H-B23 the yield would look absurdly real. The flag keeps the record and warns.
- I-B20 · the missing COTAHIST 2023: on the first deploy one year of prices failed to download silently; the API shipped with ~50k fewer prices and the suite passed, because nothing checked coverage. We added I-B20 — a year without prices now fails the build loudly.
- I-B33 · Oil & Gas at −89.6% in one week: COTAHIST isn't split-adjusted; a 10:1 split read as a −90% weekly return and stayed in the cumulative return forever, with nothing failing (a blind amplitude filter didn't fix it either — it just flipped which direction was wrong). I-B33 (no sector week beyond ±35%, the ruler is the exchange itself) stops the build.
- I-B31 · 364 of 865 sector-index weeks frozen: extending the series back to 2010, a sector with no company carrying a market cap that week turned into a factor of 1.0 — a flat line that the cumulative return read as 'market stood still', and the 'since 2010' return came out fictional (+527%). I-B31 fails on any week repeated to the cent.
- I-E05 · EMBRAER's 2010 P/E priced with 2025 data: the point-in-time price lookup fell forward with no ceiling whenever the current ticker had no price at balance-sheet time (ticker change, share-class migration); the multiple came out priced 15 years into the future, in 22% of annual and quarterly rows, silently. The 45-day window (and I-E05) blocks it: no session inside the deadline, no multiple computed.
- I-E04 · AZUL at R$ 1.67 quadrillion market cap: the balance sheet carried 54.7 trillion shares from the judicial recovery issuance, but the price used was already on the post-reverse-split (1:150,000) basis — two ends measured on different bases, market cap wrong by orders of magnitude. I-E04 (market cap never above Brazil's GDP) fails the build on that absurdity.
How far back each block of data goes
No asterisks here: this is coverage year by year, counted right now. Indicators (ROE, ROIC, margins, growth) come from the filings alone and cover the whole series. Multiples (P/E, P/BV, EV/EBITDA) need a price and a share count — and the share count comes from CVM's reference form, which the further back you go the fewer companies filed in a usable format. The gap between the two columns is a source limit, not an ingestion hole. If you look for an old P/E and do not find it, it is because nobody has it — not because we hid it. The same numbers as JSON: /cobertura.
| Year | Companies with indicators | Companies with multiples |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 441 | 290 |
| 2024 | 443 | 296 |
| 2023 | 441 | 298 |
| 2022 | 428 | 295 |
| 2021 | 422 | 296 |
| 2020 | 410 | 274 |
| 2019 | 371 | 166 |
| 2018 | 326 | 167 |
| 2017 | 317 | 165 |
| 2016 | 311 | 154 |
| 2015 | 303 | 144 |
| 2014 | 301 | 140 |
| 2013 | 292 | 131 |
| 2012 | 291 | 112 |
| 2011 | 284 | 98 |
| 2010 | 277 | 34 |
Live coverage
457 companies · 884,647 price points · 8,650 recorded restatements · last refresh 2026-11-12 01:38:24. Full live counts at /saude.
Sources: CVM (open data, ODbL) and B3 (COTAHIST). Not affiliated with B3 or the CVM. Not investment advice.
Numbers on this page are live. Data version 2026-11-09-ancora-do-fre · page generated 2026-11-12 08:09 UTC. If this does not match /saude, you are reading a cached copy.