ABUNDIA GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP, INC. (AGIG)

Every figure this model derived for AGIG, 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
capex	8,660,829	`PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment`	2025-12-31
cash	11,810,424	`CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue`	2026-06-30
current assets	11,815,850	`AssetsCurrent`	2026-06-30
current liabilities	19,904,433	`LiabilitiesCurrent`	2026-06-30
equity	28,449,480	`StockholdersEquityIncludingPortionAttributableToNoncontrollingInterest`	2026-06-30
interest expense	398,356	`InterestExpense`	2026-06-30
ocf	-8,110,485	`NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities`	2026-06-30
revenue	410,632	`RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax`	2025-12-31
sbc	1,908,051	`ShareBasedCompensation`	2026-06-30

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up AGIG on one particular measure came for.

Ratio	Value
current ratio	0.59
current ratio reported	0.59
dilution pct	3.37
ev owner earnings	-2.57
ev sales	116.96
growth cv	6.15
interest cover	-86.78
revenue growth	-26.7
revenue growth per share	-29.08
roic	-97.83
rule of 40	-8444.97
sbc pct revenue	464.66

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about AGIG's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, capex intensity, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -8,773% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 410,632 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (117.0x) instead
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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, owner earnings, cash operating margin 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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability -- 40% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left