Raw Mango AS
Not financial advice. The index, rank, signals and advice are rule-based indications from the latest filed annual accounts. They are not a credit rating, an assessment of management or a recommendation to buy, sell or do business with the company. Read more
Key facts
Is the company run well?
Five key figures against companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector. Green is better than most, amber about like the industry and red weaker than most.
- Profitability · operating margin −0.4% Weaker than the industry Industry: 1.9%
- Returns · return on assets −2.3% Weaker than the industry Industry: 5.8%
- Solidity · equity ratio −8.5% Weaker than the industry Industry: 15.1%
- Liquidity · current ratio 5.40 Better than the industry Industry: 1.02
- Growth · revenue growth 17.5% Better than the industry Industry: 5.8%
The mark comes from the company's place among comparable companies (percentile): green from 60, amber from 40, red below 40. Negative equity, an operating loss and a current ratio under 1 pull it down regardless. Methodology
Score · fiscal year 2025
36of 100
How to read this: the company is ahead of 32 % of companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025. What does this mean?
Rank in the Morning class Micro: 3,738 of 5,473 · What are Morning company classes?
Place in the whole sector: 5,664 of 8,037 · Overnatting og servering
Profile
Beaver · Builder
Lower profitability, lower resilience
Position against comparable companies in 2025, not a verdict on the company. Based on profitability 37 and resilience 25 out of 100 among companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025. Methodology
Against the sector
Raw Mango AS is 14 points below the median for companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025.
Median score 50 among 5,461 companies.
Against companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025: operating margin −0.4% (median 1.9%) and equity ratio −8.5% (median 15.1%).
How it has gone · 2023–2025
Revenue rose by 41 % from 2023 to 2025, to 2.7 MNOK. The operating margin rose from −3.7% in 2023 to −0.4% in 2025. The equity ratio fell from −1.6% in 2023 to −8.5% in 2025.
Amounts in the reporting currency. The full year-by-year table is further down under «Details». See every figure year by year
Accounts in short
| Key figure | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating revenue | 1.9 MNOK | 2.3 MNOK | 2.7 MNOK |
| Operating profit | −0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Net profit | −0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | −0.1 MNOK |
| Total assets | 0.7 MNOK | 0.6 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK |
| Equity | 0.0 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Total liabilities | 0.7 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK |
From the Brønnøysund Register Centre, in the company's reporting currency (NOK). See every figure year by year
From the Central Coordinating Register
- Org. no.
- 825397272
- Legal form
- AS
- Sector
- Overnatting og servering (56.300)
- Purpose
- Cafe og restaurantdrift og andre produkter/tjenester som naturlig hører sammen med dette, herunder å delta i andre selskap med lignende virksomhet, og kjøp og salg av aksjer eller på annen måte gjøre seg interessert i andre foretak.
- Morning company class
- Micro
- Employees
- 0–4 (not registered) Payroll costs in the accounts: 1.0 MNOK (2025).
- Founded
- 23 May 2020 6 years in operation
- Share capital
- 0.03 MNOK
- Business address
- Vulkan 5, 0178 OSLO
- Municipality
- Oslo rank 63–220 of 357 in Norway
- Audit
- Audit opted out from 31 July 2020
- Latest accounts filed
- 2025
- VAT registered
- Yes
Source: Central Coordinating Register, Brønnøysund Register Centre. The employee count is reported by the company and may be older than the accounts. See the company at the Brønnøysund Register Centre
Raw Mango AS has a score of 36 for 2025, rank 5,664 of 8,037 in the sector.
Strongest: Liquidity: percentile 95 against peers, current ratio 5.40 against a median of 1.02.
Weakest: Solidity: percentile 0 against peers, equity ratio −8.5% against a median of 15.1%. Profitability: percentile 37 against peers, operating margin −0.4% against a median of 1.9%.
Worth a closer look
- Equity is negative. How will it be rebuilt, and what do lenders and the auditor say about going concern? Based on: equity ratio −8.5% (median 15.1%).
- The operating result does not cover the financial costs. How will the debt be serviced, and what do the lenders say? Based on: interest coverage (times) −0.3 (median 2.2); financial costs as a share of debt 6.2% (median 0.7%).
- The company made a loss before tax. Are these one-off items or a pattern? Based on: profit margin −1.6% (median 1.3%).
- What lies behind weak solidity, and will it last?
Written by fixed rules from the figures. Describes the figures, does not explain causes. Not investment or financial advice. How the summary is made
Worth a closer look
- critical
Equity is negative. How will it be rebuilt, and what do lenders and the auditor say about going concern?
Based on: Equity ratio −8.5% (median 15.1%).
- critical
The operating result does not cover the financial costs. How will the debt be serviced, and what do the lenders say?
Based on: Interest coverage (times) −0.3 (median 2.2); Financial costs as a share of debt 6.2% (median 0.7%).
- watch
The company made a loss before tax. Are these one-off items or a pattern?
Based on: Profit margin −1.6% (median 1.3%).
Indications based on the latest annual accounts from open data. Not investment or financial advice.
Financial costs were 6.2% of the debt in 2025. The policy rate averaged 4.30 % the same year. This is a plain description of what the debt cost, not a model of interest sensitivity.
See interest rates, prices and exchange rates for the sector
Data quality
- critical Negative equity
Scenario analysis: the sector's weakest year
We have no accounts for 2021, the sector's weakest year, for this company.
The sector's weakest year was 2021, with a median operating margin of −12.1%. Based on the 10 fiscal years we have. The analysis grows as more years are fetched or imported. Methodology
What the score is made of
| Profitability | 37 | weight 40% |
|---|---|---|
| Solidity | 0 | weight 20% |
| Liquidity | 95 | weight 5% |
| Growth | 50 | weight 25% |
| Consistency | 41 | weight 10% |
Three goals: profitability 40%, growth 25%, resilience 35%. Why these weights?
Durability: 40 (average over 3 years)
Index version 3. Data completeness 100%: the share of the weights that had data.
The numbers behind the score
| Measure | Company | Median |
|---|---|---|
| Operating revenue | 3 MNOK | 4 MNOK |
| Operating margin | −0.4% | 1.9% |
| Profit margin | −1.6% | 1.3% |
| Return on assets | −2.3% | 5.8% |
| Equity ratio | −8.5% | 15.1% |
| Debt-to-equity | – | 1.90 |
| Current ratio | 5.40 | 1.02 |
| Revenue growth | 17.5% | 5.8% |
The median and “ahead of” refer to companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025. The bar shows the share of companies the figure is ahead of.
With an index of 36, Raw Mango AS does better than 32% of companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector (5,473 companies) in 2025.
Score 2023–2025
- Raw Mango AS
- Median: companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector
Working capital and debt
| Measure | Company | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Working capital | |||
| Receivable days All current receivables, including those on group companies, in days of revenue. |
0 days | 11 days | |
| Inventory and other current assets, days Current assets other than receivables and bank deposits, that is inventory and short-term investments, in days of revenue. |
0 days | 5 days | |
| Net working capital to revenue Current assets less bank deposits less current liabilities, divided by revenue. Negative: short-term debt funds the operations. |
−0.6% | −10.3% | |
| Cash share of current assets How much of the short-term buffer is bank deposits and cash. |
98.8% | 63.1% | |
| Debt and interest burden | |||
| Interest coverage (times) Operating result divided by all financial costs. Below 1: operations do not cover the cost of the debt. |
−0.3 | 2.2 | |
| Financial costs as a share of debt All financial costs (interest, currency losses and other) divided by all debt, interest-free debt included. Not an interest rate. |
6.2% | 0.7% | |
| Long-term share of debt Long-term debt as a share of all debt. A low share means more falls due within a year. |
96.9% | 21.8% | |
The operating result is negative, so the interest coverage is negative: operations cover none of the financial costs.
Net working capital (current assets less bank deposits less current liabilities): 0.0 MNOK.
Of the financial costs of 0.0 MNOK, 0.0 MNOK is reported as interest costs in the accounts.
The median and the bar refer to companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025. The bar shows the share of the group with a lower figure: higher is not always better, long receivable days tie up capital, for example. These figures do not count in the score.
Returns, debt against earnings and quality
| Measure | Company | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Returns | |||
| Return on equity (ROE) Net result over the average of equity at the start and end of the year (the end alone when last year is missing). Not calculated with negative equity. |
−705.0% | 19.3% | |
| Return on capital employed (ROCE) Operating result over capital employed, that is total assets less current liabilities. The return regardless of how the company is financed. |
−2.4% | 14.8% | |
| Net margin Net result over revenue. The first part of the DuPont split of return on equity. |
−4.2% | 1.1% | |
| Asset turnover (revenue over assets) Revenue over total assets: how many kroner of revenue each krone of assets gives. The second part of the DuPont split. |
5.57 | 3.40 | |
| Equity multiplier Total assets over equity: 4 means three quarters is financed with debt. The third part of the DuPont split. |
– | 2.90 | |
| Debt and financing | |||
| Net debt in times operating result Long-term liabilities less cash, over the operating result: roughly how many years the business must earn to repay the debt. A negative figure means more cash than long-term debt. Rough, because the accounts do not split out interest-bearing debt. Only calculated when the operating result is positive. |
– | −0.7 | |
| Fixed-asset cover Equity plus long-term liabilities over fixed assets (total assets less current assets). Below 1: fixed assets are partly financed with short-term debt. |
1.18 | 1.00 | |
| Quick ratio (without inventory) Cash plus receivables over current liabilities. Like the current ratio but without inventory and short-term investments. |
5.40 | 0.89 | |
| Quality and resilience | |||
| Effective tax rate Tax expense over profit before tax, only when the profit is positive. Far from 22% points to one-off items, tax losses carried forward or group contributions. |
– | 22.0% | |
| Operating leverage Percentage change in operating result over percentage change in revenue from last year. 3 means a 1% fall in revenue gives a 3% fall in operating result. Only calculated when revenue moved at least 2% and last year's operating result was positive. |
−6.3 | 1.4 | |
| Payroll costs over revenue Payroll costs (with employer's contribution and pension) over revenue. Shows how much of revenue is a fixed cost in a service business. |
37.6% | 38.4% | |
| Revenue safety margin How far revenue can fall before the operating result is zero, assuming payroll is fixed and all other costs follow revenue. A calculation, not a measurement: depreciation and rent are also fixed, so reality is lower. |
– | 16.6% | |
| Cash runway (months) Cash over the operating loss per month, only for years with a loss. Assumes the loss continues unchanged and no new financing arrives. Capped at 120 months. |
92 mo. | 12 mo. | |
The operating result is not positive, so net debt over operating result and the safety margin are not calculated.
The median and the bar are for companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector in 2025. The bar shows the share of the group with a lower figure: high is not always good. The figures are our own calculations from the annual accounts and do not count in the score. Open data has no depreciation, so no EBITDA, and the accounts do not split out interest-bearing debt. How we calculate
The industry or the company: what drove the result?
In 2025 the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell by 5.2 percentage points. Comparable companies fell by a median 0.5 points. So the company did 4.7 points weaker than the industry, for reasons of its own.
Over 2 year-to-year changes Raw Mango AS moved the same way as comparable companies 2 times. About 6% of the changes in operating margin were common to the industry; the rest was the company's own.
| Year | The company | Comparable (median) | Change, company | Change, industry | The company's own |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 4.8% | 2.4% | +8.5 percentage points | +0.4 percentage points | +8.1 percentage points |
| 2025 | −0.4% | 1.9% | −5.2 percentage points | −0.5 percentage points | −4.7 percentage points |
Comparable companies are those in the same industry and Morning company class. Their change shows what hit the whole industry, the sector drivers below included. The rest is the company's own: contracts, costs, one-off items or operations. The share is approximate, and we claim no cause.
The company and its sector's drivers
Prices, rate and currency that shape the sector's year, year by year beside the operating margin of Raw Mango AS. The figures stand side by side; we claim no cause.
Service prices: accommodation and food (indeks (2021 = 100))
Service prices: accommodation and food rose 3.6% in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Service prices: accommodation and food, annual average | 100.0 | 107.9 | 114.0 | 118.8 | 123.1 | 126.9 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | – | +7.9% | +5.7% | +4.1% | +3.6% | +3.1% |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: SSB (14335, CC BY 4.0). Source
Turnover index: accommodation and food service (indeks (2021 = 100))
Turnover index: accommodation and food service rose 2.3% in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turnover index: accommodation and food service, annual average | 97.0 | 139.7 | 153.5 | 157.8 | 161.5 | 170.4 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | +23.4% | +44.1% | +9.9% | +2.8% | +2.3% | +5.5% |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: SSB (13863, CC BY 4.0). Source
Consumer price index (indeks (2025 = 100))
Consumer price index rose 3.0% in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer price index, annual average | 84.3 | 89.2 | 94.1 | 97.0 | 100.0 | 103.0 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | +3.5% | +5.8% | +5.5% | +3.2% | +3.0% | +3.0% |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: SSB (14710, CC BY 4.0). Source
EUR/NOK (kr)
EUR/NOK rose 0.8% in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUR/NOK, annual average | 10.16 | 10.10 | 11.42 | 11.62 | 11.72 | 11.04 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | −5.2% | −0.6% | +13.1% | +1.8% | +0.8% | −5.8% |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: Norges Bank (EXR, NLOD 2.0). Source
Policy rate (prosent)
Policy rate fell 0.20 percentage points in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy rate, annual average | 0.08 | 1.32 | 3.54 | 4.50 | 4.30 | 4.17 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | −0.28 percentage points | +1.24 percentage points | +2.22 percentage points | +0.96 percentage points | −0.20 percentage points | −0.12 percentage points |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: Norges Bank (IR, NLOD 2.0). Source
Wage index: food and beverage service (indeks)
Wage index: food and beverage service rose 6.5% in 2025; the operating margin of Raw Mango AS fell 5.2 percentage points.
| Measure | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wage index: food and beverage service, annual average | 88.0 | 91.3 | 96.4 | 101.5 | 108.1 | 110.6 (so far) |
| Change from the year before | +3.5% | +3.8% | +5.6% | +5.4% | +6.5% | +2.3% |
| The company's operating margin | – | – | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | – |
Source: SSB (12314, CC BY 4.0). Source
We show the drivers and the margin side by side and claim no cause. Sensitivity per company is not computed until we have at least 10 years of accounts per company: with three years such figures are false precision.
What the numbers say
Raw Mango AS had an operating margin of −0.4% and an equity ratio of −8.5% in 2025, and ranks 5,664 of 8,037 in Overnatting og servering.
From 2024 to 2025: went from a profit to a loss before tax and the equity ratio fell from 12.1% to −8.5%.
This text is generated automatically from the 2025 accounts.
Three simple methods
| Method | Multiple | Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| P/E | 19.8 | not meaningful |
| EV/EBIT | 16.2 | debt above value |
| P/B | 3.3 | not meaningful |
| EV/EBIT: from enterprise value to equity | NOK |
|---|---|
| Enterprise value (EV) at the listed multiple | 0 MNOK |
| Enterprise value after the size adjustment | 0 MNOK |
| Less net debt (rough figure) | 0 MNOK |
| Equity value | debt above value |
Net debt is a rough figure: long-term liabilities minus cash. The accounts do not split interest-bearing debt from other liabilities, and short-term borrowings are not included. The size adjustment applies to the enterprise value, not to the debt. Net debt is 287% of the enterprise value after the size adjustment, so the equity value from EV/EBIT is sensitive to errors in the debt figure.
The multiples are from the listed industry that matches the NACE code (56): Restaurant/Dining.
Not financial advice. The value range is a rough model estimate from listed-company multiples, not a valuation, a price target or a price offer. The actual value may differ greatly. Read more
A mechanical estimate from public accounts, not advice. A mechanical estimate from public accounts with listed multiples and fixed adjustments. Not a valuation and not advice to buy or sell. See the calculation
Figures you will not find in any register
We calculated these figures ourselves from the accounts and registers we have read. The company has not reported them and the Brønnøysund Register Centre does not publish them. They are indications and are not part of the index. How we calculate
- Implied dividend (net payout)
- Equity moved as the result implied in 2025.
Calculated as retained earnings at the start of the year + net result − retained earnings at the end of the year. What remains is dividends and group contributions, plus transfers to other items and corrections of earlier years. It is not a dividend figure. - Owners and leadership aged 60 or older
- No sign of a near generation change in the ages.
- The chair is under 60.
- The managing director is under 60.
- 0 of 1 on the board are 60 or older.
Not financial advice. The index, rank, signals and advice are rule-based indications from the latest filed annual accounts. They are not a credit rating, an assessment of management or a recommendation to buy, sell or do business with the company. Read more
Questions and answers
How profitable is Raw Mango AS?
The operating margin was −0.4% in 2025, against a median of 1.9% among companies in the Morning class Micro in the same sector. Return on assets was −2.3%. The company made a loss before tax.
How solid is Raw Mango AS?
The equity ratio was −8.5% in 2025 (median 15.1%). Equity is negative, so liabilities exceed assets.
What is the liquidity of Raw Mango AS like?
The current ratio was 5.40 in 2025 (median 1.02).
How does Raw Mango AS compare in Overnatting og servering?
Raw Mango AS ranks 5,664 of 8,037 in Overnatting og servering for 2025. Among companies in the Morning class Micro it is number 3,738 of 5,473. Revenue changed by 17.5% from the year before.
Competitors
The 8 closest competitors in the same line of business, placed in the same matrix as the sector page: profitability up, resilience to the right. These are the companies the competitor analysis and the strategy report compare with.
Each bubble is a company: this company and its closest competitors in the same line of business and size, the same ones the competitor analysis uses. Placement is 0–100 against the whole sector and Morning company class: further right is more robust, higher up is more profitable. Bubble size is revenue. The light bubble and arrow show where the company stood the year before. Pick a profile to see fewer at a time.
| Company | Profile | Operating revenue | Operating margin | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spritz AS |  Lion |
3 MNOK | 11.6% | 83 |
| Uteliv AS |  Beaver |
3 MNOK | −13.6% | 31 |
| Raw Mango AS (this company) | Beaver |
3 MNOK | −0.4% | 36 |
| Barrakuda Eiendom AS | Lion |
3 MNOK | 51.5% | 61 |
| Naturlig Raw AS | Beaver |
3 MNOK | −0.6% | 39 |
| Bryggekompaniet AS |  Elephant |
3 MNOK | −30.4% | 24 |
| Svartlamon Auto AS | Lion |
3 MNOK | 9.0% | 72 |
| MB Restaurant AS | Beaver |
3 MNOK | −4.4% | 23 |
| Espresso AS · same municipality | Beaver |
3 MNOK | −1.6% | 28 |
The selection is the closest in revenue within the same industry code. When you order, you can swap competitors. Order competitor analysis
Group structure · 2025
4 companies in the group according to the shareholder register for 2025. A company counts as a subsidiary when a Norwegian company owns more than half of its shares.
Private persons own 100% of the shares in Vee Evolusjon AS. Persons are not shown by name.
Vee Evolusjon AS has not filed group accounts in open data, so the group has no index of its own. Each company has its own accounts.
The group in figures
- Sectors
- Eiendom (1 company), Overnatting og servering (2 companies) 3 of 4 companies in the tree have accounts with us. Sectors are sorted by the companies' own revenue, which includes sales between the group's companies.
- Negative equity
- 3 companies: Vee Evolusjon AS, Raw Mango AS, Fat Angel AS
- Loss
- 3 companies: Vee Evolusjon AS, Raw Mango AS, Fat Angel AS
A subsidiary with negative equity or a loss may be backed by the group, for example with group contributions or guarantees. It is an indication of what is worth asking about, not an assessment.
-
Vee Evolusjon AS
- Raw Mango AS you are here
- Org. no. 911573385
- Fat Angel AS
Read the figures with care: a company in a group can look strong because of group contributions, or weak because dividends go up to the parent. The figures are indications, not the full picture.
Source: the Norwegian Tax Administration's shareholder register 2025 (majority owner with more than 50 % of the shares). Voting agreements and ownership through other countries are not included.
Ownership and roles
Loading roles …
Source: Central Coordinating Register, fetched 1 November 2026. Only names are shown.
Shareholders (2025)
- Number of shareholders
- 1 (one owner)
- Largest owner
- 100.0%
- Split
- companies 100% · private persons 0% · foreign 0%
- Owned from the same municipality
- 0%
- Group chain
-
Owned by: Vee Evolusjon AS (100%)
Ultimate owner: private person
The owner: the majority owner Vee Evolusjon AS (holds 100%) had negative equity in 2024. made a loss in 2024. A weak parent can affect the subsidiary through group contributions, loans and guarantees. It is an indication to watch, not an assessment of the company.
- Vee Evolusjon AS · 100.0%
The company is new in the shareholder register in 2025.
Source: the Norwegian Tax Administration's shareholder register as of 2025. Figures may be older than today's ownership. Private persons are not shown by name.
Error in the data?
Do you see an error in the figures or in how the company is mapped (sector, holding, group)? Let us know. Corrections require documentation.
Is this your company? Suggest changes or add information
Figures last fetched 30 October 2026.
Year by year · 2023–2025
| Key figure | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index | 25 | 61 | 36 | |
| Rank | 5,372 | 2,279 | 5,664 | |
| Operating margin | −3.7% | 4.8% | −0.4% | |
| Return on assets | −9.9% | 18.2% | −2.3% | |
| Equity ratio | −1.6% | 12.1% | −8.5% | |
| Current ratio | 2.31 | – | 5.40 | |
| Revenue growth | – | 19.6% | 17.5% |
Accounts
From the Brønnøysund Register Centre, in the company's reporting currency (NOK).
| Key figure | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating revenue | 1.9 MNOK | 2.3 MNOK | 2.7 MNOK |
| Operating profit | −0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Profit before tax | −0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Tax expense | 0.0 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK |
| Net profit | −0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | −0.1 MNOK |
| Financial expenses | 0.0 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Total assets | 0.7 MNOK | 0.6 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK |
| Current assets | 0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK |
| Equity | 0.0 MNOK | 0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
| Retained earnings | 0.0 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK | −0.1 MNOK |
| Total liabilities | 0.7 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK | 0.5 MNOK |
| Current liabilities | 0.0 MNOK | −0.1 MNOK | 0.0 MNOK |
Source: Brønnøysund Register Centre (Register of Company Accounts), fetched 30 October 2026, accounts id 6929868.
Further
Similar companies
- Restaurant Venezia AS index 36, rank 5,666 · compare
- Beijing House BØ AS index 36, rank 5,668 · compare
- Hotell Ullensvang Eiendom AS index 36, rank 5,669 · compare
- Thai Spicy AS index 36, rank 5,670 · compare
- Fire Årstider Restaurant og Pizzeria AS index 36, rank 5,671 · compare