Top Wealth Group Holding Ltd (TWG)

Every figure this model derived for TWG, 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.

The ratios

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

Everything else this filing tags

115 more elements from TWG'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 TWG's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• WITHHELD: market capitalisation -- a price to earnings of 0.0181 means the price, the share count or the earnings is not what it seems. Every multiple built on it is left out rather than shown, and the valuation dimension rests on what remains; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to score it
• presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 26.4% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
• presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 74.59% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used (no value anywhere for OtherNonoperatingIncome, ProvisionForInventoryImpairment)
• revenue is annual, not TTM
• no operating income found in XBRL
• no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2022-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 2M of net cash against a 6M annual burn is 0.4 years
• analyst estimate not used: the consensus itself is a loss
• 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
• growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (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, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left