Every figure this model derived for UNG, 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
cash
287,602,465
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
ocf
39,272,980
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
40,328,337
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
UNG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
84.87
ebit yoy
-47.46
fcf margin
97.38
operating margin
84.87
owner earnings margin
97.38
revenue growth
-46.42
revenue growth per share
-46.42
rule of 40
38.46
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about UNG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
invested capital is 0M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
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`
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin 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: liquidity
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left