Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 3.100
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 3.920
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
- Trading liquidity is below the comparison threshold.
- Under financial distress the model falls back to book value.
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 15 Nov 2026
- Model reliability
- Very 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 · FY2025
- Cash conversion, 3 yearsOperating cash flow / net profit
- 0.1524th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 3.6%60th pctile
- Accumulated losses / paid-in capitalUndistributed earnings below zero
- 0.10×
- 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 company shows multiple accounting-signal concerns: a high Beneish M-Score of 3.263 (98th percentile versus Vietnamese peers, year-over-year change +6.30) and an Altman Z-Score of 1.33 in the distress zone. Earnings-quality metrics are weak overall (Earnings Quality 21.1/100) driven by extremely poor cash conversion (0.8/100), receivables quality (0.0/100) and revenue/margin quality (0.0/2.8 out of 100); Piotroski F-Score is 6/9 (neutral).
- Beneish M-Score = 3.263: measures the likelihood of earnings manipulation using eight ratios; company ranks in the 98th percentile versus Vietnamese peers (higher = more aggressive accounting) and the M-Score rose by +6.30 year-over-year (a substantial trajectory signal).
- DSRI = 1.3728: (Days' sales in receivables index) indicates receivables growing faster than sales, a component that raises the M-Score.
- GMI = 4.2850: (Gross margin index) >1 signals worsening gross margins year-over-year; here it is markedly >1, contributing to the high M-Score.
- SGI = 5.0785: (Sales growth index) well above 1, showing rapid sales growth—high SGI increases manipulation risk in Beneish’s model.
- TATA = 0.0450 (total accruals to total assets): positive accruals suggest earnings are outpacing cash flow; while not huge in isolation, it contributes to weaker earnings quality.
- Earnings Quality = 21.1/100 with Cash conversion = 0.8/100 and Receivables quality = 0.0/100: operating cash flow is not converting reported profit into cash, and receivables metrics score at the bottom, both indicating low quality of reported earnings.
- Altman Z-Score = 1.33: places the company in the distress zone (Z < 1.8 by the original model), indicating low distance to bankruptcy per the Z-Score inputs.
- Margin quality = 2.8/100 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100: margins and revenue measures are extremely weak, consistent with the high GMI and SGI components of the M-Score.
- Accruals quality = 82.0/100: the accruals component scores strongly, suggesting accrual-based adjustments are relatively high-quality compared with peers.
- Receivables outside the trade cycle = 3.6% of total assets (60th percentile): the level of non-trade receivables/prepayments/loans is moderate versus Vietnamese peers, not unusually large.
- Piotroski F-Score = 6/9: measures fundamental health (profitability, leverage/liquidity, operating efficiency); a 6 is neutral-to-moderately positive rather than strongly negative.
Shareholding is concentrated among a few individuals: Trần Lê Dũng 15.1%, Lưu Quang Hưng 12.1% and three other holders >5% (Hà Quang 7.1%, BHN 6.0%, Lê Quang Tuấn 5.6%). There is a mix of individual and institutional/state-linked ownership (BHN is a listed beverage SOE conglomerate), implying potential influence from large insiders and group relationships.
- Compare the FY2025 note on trade receivables and the schedule of related-party receivables/prepayments to verify the components behind DSRI = 1.3728 and the reported 3.6% of assets in receivables outside the trade cycle.
- Reconcile the consolidated cash flow from operations and the parent-company profit to confirm the 3-year cash conversion ratio = 0.15 (operating cash flow / net profit) and the Cash conversion score = 0.8/100.
- Inspect the revenue-recognition note and the schedule of sales by customer and timing (including any large year-end sales or returns provisions) to assess drivers of SGI = 5.0785 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100.
- Review the audit report and the statement of owners’ equity to confirm the accumulated losses metric (0.10x paid-in capital), the absence of consecutive-year parent net losses up to FY2025, and the company’s UPCoM listing status with respect to statutory loss-test rules.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 0.33
- P/S
- 0.45
- ROE
- 6.2%
- ROA
- 5.0%
- EPS
- 557
- BVPS
- 9.301
- Gross Margin
- 7.9%
- Net Margin
- 8.1%
- D/E
- 0.12
- Current Ratio
- 1.89
- Rev Growth
- +407.9%
- Profit Growth
- +211.0%
- EV/EBITDA
- —
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 9.5M
- Charter Capital
- 95.0B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Vật liệu xây dựng & Nội thất
- Company Type
- CT