Every figure this model derived for KRG, 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
0
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2023-03-31
cash
144,578,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
2,869,196,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
129,010,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
399,308,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
806,163,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
11,495,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
KRG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
60.94
dilution pct
-0.59
ebit yoy
-31.09
fcf margin
49.53
growth cv
1.37
interest cover
1.02
net debt ebitda
5.62
operating margin
16.3
owner earnings margin
48.11
revenue growth
-5.59
revenue growth per share
-5.03
roic
1.87
rule of 40
10.71
sbc pct revenue
1.43
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about KRG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2025-03-31, 456 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-03-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no 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 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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left