Every figure this model derived for GYGY, 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 2025-12-31.
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
GYGY on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
2360.26
current ratio
0.88
current ratio reported
0.88
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
-2266.14
interest cover
-73.62
operating margin
-1831.44
revenue growth
293.23
revenue growth per share
293.23
rule of 40
-1538.21
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GYGY's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, ocf margin -- owner earnings margin came out at -6,445% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 58,505 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
every figure here comes from one filing (10-Q, S-1, S-8), so there is no annual report and no history behind it. A company that has just reorganised files under a new registration number, and what it reported before that is not part of this record.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left