Every figure this model derived for GIPL, 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
123,231
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
244,235
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
270,609
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
7,791
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
531,470
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaid
2026-06-30
ocf
-335,223
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
187,200
Revenues
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GIPL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-345.63
current ratio
34.73
current ratio reported
34.73
fcf margin
-244.9
operating margin
-361.67
owner earnings margin
-244.9
roic
-186.21
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GIPL'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 market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
diluted share count moved +48% in a year (27M to 39M, a ratio of 1.48), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
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 0.5 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`
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 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 (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