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 figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LIVG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
4.83
current ratio reported
4.83
fcf margin
103.25
owner earnings margin
103.25
sbc pct revenue
0.0
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 market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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
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 (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