Every figure this model derived for GFC.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.
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
77,938,000
CashAndCashEquivalents
2026-01-01
current assets
651,850,000
CurrentAssets
2026-01-01
current liabilities
2,515,864,000
CurrentLiabilities
2026-01-01
equity
10,561,488,000
EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent
2026-01-01
ocf
479,021,000
CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
sbc
4,896,000
AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GFC.PA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.26
current ratio reported
0.26
ev ebit
17.91
ev owner earnings
21.15
net debt ebitda
8.33
roic
2.91
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GFC.PA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no revenue found in XBRL
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 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 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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, sbc discipline, 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 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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
growth DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, 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, durability, growth -- 60% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 4,742M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect