DID

• Beneish M-Score = 2.1288 (98th percentile vs Vietnam). The M-Score measures a composite of eight accounting ratios intended to flag earnings manipulation; this company ranks higher (more aggressive) than 98% of Vietnamese peers.
• M-Score year-over-year change = +4.01. This large upward move in the score indicates the accounting profile has recently shifted toward more aggressive signals compared with the prior year.
• Earnings-quality Cash Conversion = 20.0/100 and three-year operating cash flow / net profit = 6.26 (93rd percentile). These measure how much reported profit converts into cash — the company’s profits have converted poorly to cash over three years.
• Earnings-quality Margin quality = 0.0/100 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100. These component scores indicate very weak stability/quality in margins and revenue recognition measures used in the scoring model.
• Altman Z-Score = 2.02 (grey zone). The Z-Score estimates distance from bankruptcy thresholds; 2.02 sits in the middle (neither clearly safe nor distressed).

• Accruals quality = 97.8/100. This measures the extent to which earnings are explained by accrual components; a high score implies reported earnings are not driven by aggressive accruals.
• Receivables quality = 100.0/100 and Receivables outside the trade cycle = 0.3% of total assets (17th percentile). These measure the size and quality of receivables and related non-trade receivables; the company has very low non-trade receivables relative to assets.
• Piotroski F-Score = 7/9. This score summarizes nine fundamental signals (profitability, leverage/liquidity, operating efficiency); a 7 indicates generally strong fundamentals under that framework.
• TATA (Total Accruals to Total Assets) = 0.0056 and DEPI = 1.0000. Low TATA suggests accruals are not large relative to assets; DEPI at 1.0000 (depreciation index) indicates no obvious change in depreciation policy driving earnings.

Ownership is concentrated: two institutions hold 66.6% combined (41.6% and 25.0%). Three individuals hold small stakes (3.7%, 3.0%, 1.2%). The large institutional blockholders imply control is concentrated within the listed group; no director-deal registrations were provided in the data.

• Compare the FY2025 statement of cash flows (operating cash flows) to the consolidated income statement to reconcile why three-year OCF/net profit = 6.26; check the notes to cash flows for one-off items and changes in working capital.
• Inspect the trade receivables and related-party receivables schedule in the notes to confirm the 0.3% of total assets classified as receivables outside the trade cycle and to identify counterparty names and maturities.
• Review the revenue recognition note and segment disclosures to understand drivers of the Revenue quality = 0.0/100 and Margin quality = 0.0/100 scores (e.g., large one-off revenues, changes in sales mix, or unusual rebates/returns).
• Examine the long-term liabilities and equity notes for any off-balance-sheet arrangements, group guarantees or intra-group balances given the concentrated institutional ownership and group structure.