ESG
Through the investors’ lenses
Each of these investors has said in public what they look at before buying. Click a name to see how this company measures up — a tick where it passes one of their tests, a cross where it does not.
Warren Buffett 1/4
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owner earnings | $-288.36k | positive | ✗ |
| Return on equity | -22.3% | median 11.7% | ✗ |
| Debt to equity | 0.15x | median 0.79x | ✓ |
| Operating margin | -36.7% | median 15.0% | ✗ |
Passes 1 of 4. To be clear: Warren Buffett has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Terry Smith 1/3
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return on capital employed | -22.3% | median 10.1% | ✗ |
| Cash conversion | — | median 1.78x | — |
| Operating margin | -36.7% | median 15.0% | ✗ |
| Debt to equity | 0.15x | median 0.79x | ✓ |
Passes 1 of 3. To be clear: Terry Smith has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Charlie Munger 0/3
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return on capital employed | -22.3% | median 10.1% | ✗ |
| Return on equity | -22.3% | median 11.7% | ✗ |
| Operating margin | -36.7% | median 15.0% | ✗ |
Passes 0 of 3. To be clear: Charlie Munger has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Chuck Akre 1/2
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return on equity | -22.3% | median 11.7% | ✗ |
| Debt to equity | 0.15x | median 0.79x | ✓ |
| Cash conversion | — | median 1.78x | — |
Passes 1 of 2. To be clear: Chuck Akre has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Philip Fisher 0/3
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating margin | -36.7% | median 15.0% | ✗ |
| Net margin | -31.8% | median 10.2% | ✗ |
| Return on capital employed | -22.3% | median 10.1% | ✗ |
Passes 0 of 3. To be clear: Philip Fisher has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Walter Schloss 1/2
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current ratio | 0.52x | median 1.25x | ✗ |
| Debt to equity | 0.15x | median 0.79x | ✓ |
Passes 1 of 2. To be clear: Walter Schloss has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Benjamin Graham 0/1
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current ratio | 0.52x | 2.00x published | ✗ |
| Long-term debt to working capital | — | 1.00x published | — |
Passes 0 of 1. To be clear: Benjamin Graham has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Joel Greenblatt 0/1
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return on capital employed | -22.3% | median 10.1% | ✗ |
Passes 0 of 1. To be clear: Joel Greenblatt has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
Peter Lynch 1/2
| Measure | ESGH | Checked against | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debt to equity | 0.15x | median 0.79x | ✓ |
| Net margin | -31.8% | median 10.2% | ✗ |
Passes 1 of 2. To be clear: Peter Lynch has never said anything about ESG. These are the company’s own figures put through the tests he described. What he looks at, and why →
| Basis | Payout | Why |
|---|---|---|
| GAAP earnings | negative | whyLost $0.0200 per share — no earnings to pay from. |
| Free cash flow | negative | whyOperating cash flow was $77k short of capital spending, so no ratio exists. The dividend was not funded from free cash flow this year. |
Nothing is marked as applying, deliberately — no basis produces a ratio. Earnings, operating cash flow and free cash flow are all negative, so there is no denominator to divide the dividend by. That is not a gap in the data; it is the answer. The dividend was funded from something other than the money the business made this year — borrowing, cash on hand, or asset sales — and the filing will say which.
Coverage rating 25 / 100 — Strained. ? Peer standing 0/50Direction 15/30Stability 10/20
The arithmetic
- GAAP earnings — dividends declared per share $0.0831 ÷ diluted EPS $-0.0200
- Free cash flow — dividends paid $2.15m ÷ (operating cash flow $101k − capex $178k)
Where the figures came from
- 10-K filed 2026-03-31 · accession 0001520138-26-000093
All public at sec.gov — you should not have to take our word for it.
Caveats on this company
- DPS derived from dividends paid ($0.08); no per-share tag filed
- basis discarded as outside the sane band (distribution far larger than the year's income — usually a special dividend or a return of capital, not a payout ratio): ocf
Computed straight from SEC XBRL. A number that looks wrong to you is more useful to us than agreement — tell us.
Also on: rated strained · when it files.
When this changes
Every figure above is recomputed whenever ESG files. The monthly letter carries what filed, what moved, and one finding computed across every company here.