Every figure this model derived for TGHL, 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
1,242
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
905,187
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
959,928
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
3,320,480
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
-2,299,129
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
70,621
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-10,919,652
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
64,574
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
TGHL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.29
current ratio reported
0.29
dilution pct
5.96
interest cover
-186.37
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about TGHL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -20,716% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 64,574 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, owner earnings, 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 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 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left