Every figure this model derived for HG, 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
cash
717,335,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
2,850,836,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
19,397,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
815,182,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
2,994,462,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
28,214,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
HG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
29.74
dilution pct
-4.82
ebit yoy
42.12
ev ebit
2.07
ev owner earnings
2.23
ev sales
0.59
fcf margin
27.22
growth cv
0.86
interest cover
43.65
operating margin
28.27
owner earnings margin
26.28
revenue growth
15.49
revenue growth per share
21.34
roic
29.29
rule of 40
43.76
sbc pct revenue
0.94
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about HG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus BenefitsLossesAndExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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`
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin 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: liquidity