BackChesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units Overview

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units Net Tangible Assets

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units's net tangible assets is $9.7M.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Net Tangible Assets
$9.69M

Peer average

Loading

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units Net Tangible Assets History

Loading

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units vs. peers: Net Tangible Assets Comparison

Loading

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units Net Tangible Assets Growth (YoY per quarter)

Latest change versus the prior comparable period (same company).

Loading

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units (CHKR) FAQ

Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units posts a net tangible assets of $9.7M as of June 2025. In the prior-year period, the figure was $0. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

In the prior comparable period, Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units's net tangible assets was $0. The latest reading is $9.7M (period ending June 2025). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Net Tangible Assets is one piece of Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units's financial statement story. At $9.7M, it should be interpreted next to related metrics — for example revenue with costs, assets with liabilities, or income with margins. Stockcircle links those related pages so you can move from this number to the surrounding context quickly.

Context for CHKR's net tangible assets usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers, and (3) consistency with growth and profitability. This page covers the first two; Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units's other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust - Units against Energy peers is usually better than using a market-wide rule of thumb. Business models inside Energy are more comparable, which makes gaps in net tangible assets easier to interpret. Start with $9.7M here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.