Every figure this model derived for GAMG, 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 2026-06-30.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
7,108,463
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2025-09-30
cash
64,180
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
182,588
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
196,032
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-277,239
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
66,773
InterestExpenseOperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-39,793
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
191,784
Revenues
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GAMG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-454.69
current ratio
0.93
current ratio reported
0.93
dilution pct
152.82
interest cover
-13.06
operating margin
-454.69
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GAMG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: owner earnings margin, fcf margin, capex intensity -- owner earnings margin came out at -3,727% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 191,784 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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`
quality rests on 3 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic, owner earnings
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage 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 (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left