LOTTOMATICA GROUP S.P.A. (LTMC.MI)

Every figure this model derived for LTMC.MI, 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.

Figure	Value	XBRL tag	As at
capex	62,938,000	`PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities`	2025-12-31
cash	143,898,000	`CashAndCashEquivalents`	2026-01-01
current assets	408,615,000	`CurrentAssets`	2026-01-01
current liabilities	825,986,000	`CurrentLiabilities`	2026-01-01
equity	325,070,000	`EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent`	2026-01-01
interest expense	193,422,000	`FinanceCosts`	2025-12-31
ocf	635,017,000	`CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities`	2025-12-31
revenue	2,262,004,000	`Revenue`	2025-12-31

The ratios

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

Ratio	Value
current ratio	0.49
current ratio reported	0.49
ev owner earnings	10.74
ev sales	2.72
fcf margin	25.29
owner earnings margin	25.29
revenue growth	12.0
revenue growth per share	12.0
sbc pct revenue	0.0

What to be careful about

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

revenue is annual, not TTM
no operating income found in XBRL
no current stock compensation tagged; 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
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 rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
durability DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow 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: interest cover
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, growth -- 60% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left