Every figure this model derived for AGGI, 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 2025-12-31.
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
213,617
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
1,606,042
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
392,608
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
1,304,721
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
13,776
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
53,228
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
1,916,320
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AGGI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
56.4
current ratio
4.09
current ratio reported
4.09
dilution pct
634.15
fcf margin
2.78
interest cover
77.48
operating margin
55.7
owner earnings margin
2.78
revenue growth
446.46
revenue growth per share
-25.56
roic
77.29
rule of 40
502.17
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AGGI's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
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
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
durability DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left