Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 23.000
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 26.331
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.
Also note
- A release of working capital contributes to cash flow.
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 20 Nov 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
Developers often carry land banks at historical cost under VAS, so book value can understate asset value. This model blends two approaches: an RNAV proxy (book value with its property share marked up 1.5×) weighted 40%, and a DCF on normalized cash flows weighted 60%. Highly leveraged firms receive a +2% WACC penalty.
Technical details
RE developers carry large land inventories at historical cost; cash flows depend on project delivery timing. RNAV captures hidden land value, while DCF captures earnings power. The leverage screen guards against over-leveraged developers.
RNAV proxy: the property share of BVPS (investment property, fixed assets and inventories over total assets) × 1.5 plus the rest at book, or 1.25× all of book when that share is 10% or less or unknown, cut by up to 50% as D/E rises above 2. DCF: 5-year projection on median cash flow with CAPM-derived WACC. If D/E > 3 or interest coverage < 1.5, WACC is increased by 2%. Final value = 40% RNAV + 60% DCF.
Property developers and real estate firms with significant land banks recorded at below-market historical cost.
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)
DCF Sensitivity
Illustrative calibrated values from the standalone DCF scenarios below, anchored to the same last close. These scenarios leave out the other parts of a blended model and do not reproduce the headline value.
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
- −1.1213th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 3.5%59th 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 accounting signals are mixed. The Beneish M‑Score is 1.2049 (96th percentile vs Vietnamese peers; year‑over‑year change +3.12), showing the company sits high in Vietnamese peer distribution for indicators of aggressive accounting—noting the US cutoff -1.78 is not directly comparable. Other metrics show acute receivables/revenue signals (DSRI 7.2203; receivables quality 0/100; revenue quality 0/100) while solvency and cash/earnings accrual measures look healthier (Altman Z = 3.56 in the ‘safe’ zone; accruals quality 100/100; cash conversion component 100/100, though an independent 3‑year cash conversion check is -1.12).
- Beneish M‑Score = 1.2049 (96th percentile among Vietnamese peers; YoY change +3.12). The M‑Score aggregates eight ratios to flag earnings manipulation risk; the high percentile and large YoY rise indicate the company’s pattern of accruals and other ratios is more aggressive versus most Vietnamese companies.
- DSRI (days‑sales receivables index) = 7.2203. DSRI measures whether receivables are growing faster than sales; a value well above 1 signals receivables expansion relative to sales and can indicate early revenue recognition or collection deterioration.
- Receivables quality = 0.0/100 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100 (Earnings‑quality breakdown). These scores indicate the model finds very weak support that reported revenues and receivables are high quality.
- LVGI (leverage growth index) = 2.7051. LVGI >1 indicates balance‑sheet leverage rose materially year on year; a value this large flags an increase in leverage or financing that can affect sustainability of earnings.
- SGAI (sales, general & admin index) = 1.6128 and DEPI (depreciation index) = 1.5297. SGAI >1 indicates SG&A growing faster than sales; DEPI >1 suggests depreciation policies or asset base changes that reduced reported depreciation expense relative to prior periods—both can inflate reported margins.
- Earnings‑quality cash conversion discrepancy: accruals quality 100/100 and model cash‑conversion 100/100 vs Vietnam three‑year cash conversion (operating cash flow / net profit) = -1.12 (13th percentile). The published three‑year cash conversion ratio shows profits have not turned into operating cash over three years, which conflicts with the 'cash conversion' element of the other earnings‑quality score and warrants reconciliation in the filings.
- Altman Z‑Score = 3.56 (safe zone). The Altman Z aggregates liquidity, profitability and leverage proxies; 3.56 is in the range typically interpreted as distant from bankruptcy risk.
- Piotroski F‑Score = 4/9 (neutral). The F‑Score shows mixed operational and profitability signals rather than clear deterioration.
- Accruals quality = 100.0/100 and model cash conversion component = 100.0/100. The Beneish/Earnings‑quality components indicate reported earnings are not driven by simple accrual buildups per those specific measures (TATA = -0.1611 also indicates net total accruals measure is modestly negative).
- No accumulated losses; owner's equity (excluding minority interest) is positive and the statutory loss tests under the cited decrees are not met. The published statements therefore do not meet the statutory criteria for listing cancellation under Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e) as amended.
Ownership is concentrated: the top institutional holder (Công ty Cổ phần Đầu tư Dịch Vụ Tài Chính Hoàng Huy) holds 38.2%, and the listed group entity HHS (Công ty Cổ phần Đầu tư Dịch vụ Hoàng Huy) holds 35.3% (disclosed 2026‑06‑30), indicating a single group has significant influence (35.3%) and the top institutions together control a very large stake. Director‑deal registrations (0 sales, 2 purchase registrations totalling 12,314,398 shares; net registered volume +1.79% of shares outstanding between 2025‑10‑30 and 2026‑10‑30) are intentions to trade and show net insider registration to buy rather than sell over the year.
- Compare the year‑end trade receivables and 'other receivables / loans receivable / prepayments' lines in the FY2025 balance sheet with the related‑party transactions note and the revenue note to reconcile DSRI = 7.2203 and the 3.5% of total assets 'receivables outside the trade cycle.'
- Reconcile operating cash flow and net profit across the last three years in the cash flow statement and management discussion to explain the 3‑year cash conversion = -1.12 (operating cash flow / net profit) versus the accruals/cash‑conversion elements in the earnings‑quality model.
- Examine the fixed‑assets note (additions, disposals, depreciation policy) and the depreciation expense schedule to explain DEPI = 1.5297 and any change in useful lives or revaluations that affect reported depreciation.
- Review the SG&A and revenue schedules and any related‑party service or management‑fee disclosures to understand SGAI = 1.6128 and whether SG&A growth or allocation contributed to margin changes (margin quality = 36.2/100).
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 2.21
- P/S
- 20.76
- ROE
- 2.3%
- ROA
- 1.7%
- EPS
- 254
- BVPS
- 10.430
- Gross Margin
- 40.7%
- Net Margin
- 22.9%
- D/E
- 0.05
- Current Ratio
- 2.55
- Rev Growth
- −75.9%
- Profit Growth
- −76.9%
- EV/EBITDA
- 62.34
- Div Yield
- 5.4%
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 687M
- Charter Capital
- 6,874B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Bất động sản
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Bất động sản
- Sub-industry
- Bất động sản
- Company Type
- CT