NETS A/S (Z2G.F)
Every figure this model derived for Z2G.F, 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 2023-12-31.
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 | 17,400,000 | PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities |
2023-12-31 |
| cash | 478,400,000 | CashAndCashEquivalents |
2024-01-01 |
| current assets | 2,151,200,000 | CurrentAssets |
2024-01-01 |
| current liabilities | 2,194,200,000 | CurrentLiabilities |
2024-01-01 |
| equity | 1,588,300,000 | EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent |
2024-01-01 |
| ocf | 197,300,000 | CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities |
2023-12-31 |
| revenue | 1,322,800,000 | Revenue |
2023-12-31 |
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up Z2G.F on one particular measure came for.
| Ratio | Value |
|---|---|
| cash operating margin | -3.4 |
| current ratio | 0.98 |
| current ratio reported | 0.98 |
| fcf margin | 13.6 |
| operating margin | -3.4 |
| owner earnings margin | 13.6 |
| revenue growth | 3.14 |
| revenue growth per share | 3.14 |
| roic | -2.67 |
| rule of 40 | -0.26 |
| sbc pct revenue | 0.0 |
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about Z2G.F's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
- newest fact in the filing is 2024-01-01 (2y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
- revenue is annual, not TTM
- operating income is annual, not TTM
- revenue period ends 2023-12-31 (992 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
- no current stock compensation tagged; 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`
- 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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: interest cover
- growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
- 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
- no interest expense tagged while 220M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect