Every figure this model derived for EFG.PA, 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 2025-06-30.
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
EFG.PA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-92.68
current ratio
0.55
current ratio reported
0.55
ev owner earnings
-53.47
ev sales
1.7
fcf margin
-3.18
operating margin
-92.68
owner earnings margin
-3.18
revenue growth
-38.44
revenue growth per share
-38.44
rule of 40
-131.12
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EFG.PA'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 stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
share count is from 2025-06-30 (423 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (1.7x) instead
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 62M of net cash against a 5M annual burn is 12.0 years
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left