Livento Group, Inc. (LIVG)

Every figure this model derived for LIVG, 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.

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up LIVG on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

284 more elements from LIVG's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about LIVG's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, net margin -- operating margin came out at -2,782% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 500,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
• no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2016-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
• 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
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin 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 ebit, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
• resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
• growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: revenue growth
• 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left