Every figure this model derived for GDLG, 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 2026-04-30.
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
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-01-31
cash
144
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-04-30
current assets
16,081
AssetsCurrent
2026-04-30
current liabilities
171,593
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-04-30
equity
-153,124
StockholdersEquity
2026-04-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2026-04-30
ocf
-109,263
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-04-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2026-04-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GDLG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.09
current ratio reported
0.09
growth cv
2.31
revenue growth
-100.0
revenue growth per share
-100.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GDLG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2025-01-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 0.0 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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left