Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 1.100
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 1.520
Last close × (1 + calibrated gap / 100)
Earnings-capitalised value
Not available: the company reported a loss last year or its shares have too short a price history.
How it is calculated
- 1Measure the gap
Between the model and the last close.
- 2Check the record2015–2024
What gaps of that size went on to earn over the following year.
- 3Apply to the close
That return is applied to the last close.
Keep in mind
- For illustration only: not a validated forecast.
- No uncertainty range: the estimate is a single figure.
- Older record: it has not been re-measured on the current data.
Why it needs review
- The closing price is too old for comparison.
This estimate remains visible for checking its calculation. Its inputs require review before using it in a stock comparison. The model comparison behind this value needs review. The estimate does not remove the data limitations listed above.
Comparison assessed 3 Nov 2026Valid through 19 Jul 2026
- Model reliability
- Low
- Model fitInput stabilityRisk checks
- High requires the model’s diagnostic criteria to be met.
- Probability of outperforming peers
- Not assessed
- A separate peer-outperformance probability is unavailable for this valuation.
These assessments address different questions. Neither establishes that the displayed valuation is correct or guarantees a future return.
Valuation Breakdown
Construction and industrial firms have lumpy, project-based earnings that swing with the building cycle. Order books fill and empty, so a single year's profit is a poor guide to normal earning power. This model values them on through-cycle EBITDA: a 7-year median EBITDA ("mid-cycle" earnings) times a fair EV/EBITDA multiple, less net debt. It mirrors the cyclical model.
Technical details
Project-based revenue is lumpy and asset-backed. EV/EBITDA is capital-structure-neutral and undistorted by depreciation policy, and mid-cycle EBITDA normalizes across the building cycle so a firm isn't overvalued at a peak or undervalued at a trough.
Computes 7-year median EBITDA and a fair EV/EBITDA from the firm's own history blended toward the construction-sector median. Net debt is taken directly from the balance sheet (short- plus long-term borrowings minus cash and short-term investments, which hold most term deposits). Fair Value = (Mid-Cycle EBITDA x Fair EV/EBITDA) - Net Debt.
Construction & materials and industrial goods & services companies with lumpy, project-based revenue and asset-backed balance sheets.
We take the model’s gap to the last close, read what gaps of that size went on to earn over the following year in our 2015 to 2024 record, and apply that to the last close.
Last close × (1 + calibrated gap / 100)
Earnings Quality
Financial Forensics
Ranked vs Vietnamese peers. The −1.78 Beneish cutoff is US-calibrated; ~28% of VN stocks exceed it.
Checks measured on Vietnamese companies · FY2024
- Cash conversion, 3 yearsOperating cash flow / net profit
- −1.6213th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 51.8%98th pctile
- Accumulated losses / paid-in capitalUndistributed earnings below zero
- None
- Consecutive years of net lossProfit after tax of the parent
- 0
- Owner's equityWithout the non-controlling interest
- Positive
Percentiles rank each fiscal year against Vietnamese non-financial companies (0 lowest, 100 highest). Over FY2015-2024, low cash conversion and a large share of receivables outside the trade cycle came before more listing trouble and more net losses the next year.
Statutory loss tests (Decree 155/2020/NĐ-CP, Art. 120(1)(e), amended by Decree 245/2025/NĐ-CP): a HOSE or HNX listing is cancelled when the audited annual statements show net losses in each of the latest 3 years, accumulated losses above the paid-in charter capital, or negative owner's equity. Read here from the annual statements as the data vendor publishes them. The company trades on UPCoM, where these tests do not apply.
The signal set shows multiple accounting and cash-quality concerns: a Beneish M-Score of -1.6279 (80th percentile versus Vietnamese peers; year-over-year increase +1.06) indicates relatively more aggressive accounting metrics in the Vietnamese universe, driven by a high DSRI (1.7984) and GMI (1.5329). Operating-cash and balance-sheet distress is evident from a low cash-conversion metric (three-year operating cash / net profit = -1.62, 13th percentile) and an Altman Z-Score of 0.55 (distress zone). At the same time, accruals quality scores well (94.6/100).
- Beneish M-Score -1.6279: measures a composite likelihood of earnings manipulation; company ranks at the 80th percentile among Vietnamese peers (higher percentile = more aggressive accounting metrics) and the M-Score rose by +1.06 year-over-year (the change is a secondary cue because single-year serial correlation of M-Scores is low). Note: the -1.78 US cutoff is US-calibrated and about 28% of Vietnamese companies cross it, so peer percentile and trajectory are more informative here.
- DSRI (Days Sales Receivable Index) = 1.7984: measures growth in receivables relative to sales; a value >1 suggests receivables are growing faster than sales and may indicate revenue recognition timing or collectability issues.
- GMI (Gross Margin Index) = 1.5329: measures deterioration in gross margins year-over-year (values >1 indicate gross margin deterioration), which can pressure management to manage earnings.
- Receivables outside the trade cycle = 51.8% of total assets (98th percentile among Vietnamese non-financials): measures non-trade receivables such as prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable and other long-term receivables; a very large share is a high-ranking outlier in Vietnam and raises questions about the nature, terms and collectability of these balances.
- Receivables quality score = 0.0/100 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100: indicates weak metrics on receivables collectability and revenue sustainability in the scoring model.
- Cash conversion (operating cash flow / net profit, 3-year) = -1.62 (13th percentile): measures whether reported profits convert into operating cash flows; a negative multi-year ratio in the low percentile signals profits have not translated into cash.
- Altman Z-Score = 0.55 (distress zone): measures distance to bankruptcy based on profitability, leverage, liquidity and activity — this value places the company in the distress zone by the Altman model.
- Piotroski F-Score = 3/9: measures nine accounting and financial signals of firm strength; a score of 3 indicates relatively weak fundamental accounting signals.
- Margin quality = 17.3/100 and SGAI (SG&A Index) = 1.2103: margin-quality scoring is low and SG&A grew faster than sales (SGAI >1), which together suggest margin pressure and cost behavior that may mask underlying profitability trends.
- Accruals quality = 94.6/100: the accruals component scores highly, suggesting reported earnings are not dominated by unusual accrual patterns as measured by this metric.
- TATA (Total Accruals to Total Assets) = 0.0136: measures the scale of total accruals relative to assets; a small positive number implies accruals are present but not large in absolute proportion to assets.
- LVGI (Leverage Index) = 0.8925: measures change in leverage (values <1 indicate leverage fell year-over-year); a decrease in leverage can be a stabilizing signal.
- SGI (Sales Growth Index) = 0.7087: measures sales growth (values <1 indicate sales declined versus prior year), which can reduce incentives to push aggressive revenue recognition compared with rapidly growing peers (but declining sales can also introduce other pressures).
- No accumulated losses / owner's equity positive and parent net profit not in consecutive loss years: the statutory balance-sheet indicators show retained earnings are not negative and equity (excluding minority interest) is positive.
The ownership is highly concentrated: Bamboo Capital (BCG) holds 62.1% (control, disclosed 2026-02-13). The listed parent also controls or significantly influences several other listed companies (BGE 47.7%, DTG 21.0%, TCD 43.9%), which indicates the company is part of a larger group structure. Other top shareholders are smaller (Tracodi 9.4%, individuals below 1%).
- Compare the line items for 'Loans and receivables' and 'Prepayments to suppliers' in the FY2024 balance sheet and reconcile them against the related-party schedules and note disclosures to identify how much of the 51.8% of total assets classified as receivables outside the trade cycle are to related parties and what terms are disclosed.
- Review the cash-flow statement and the notes to operating cash flows for FY2022–FY2024 to verify the components that produced the three-year operating cash / net profit = -1.62 (check non-cash adjustments, changes in working capital, and one-off items).
- Examine the revenue recognition and trade-receivable notes for FY2024 to see policies, allowances for doubtful accounts, ageing schedules and any large receivable concentrations that would explain the DSRI = 1.7984 and the receivables-quality score of 0.0.
- Inspect the segment or related-party disclosures and the consolidated group schedules to map intra-group balances and transactions with BCG and other group companies (BCG, BGE, DTG, TCD), and check for large intercompany prepayments, loans or guarantees in FY2024.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- —
- P/S
- —
- ROE
- 0.0%
- ROA
- 0.0%
- Gross Margin
- 0.0%
- Net Margin
- 0.0%
- D/E
- —
- Current Ratio
- 0.00
- EV/EBITDA
- —
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 474M
- Charter Capital
- 4,738B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Xây dựng
- Company Type
- CT