Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 2.700
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 3.516
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.
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 28 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
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
- 0.9448th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 0.1%14th 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 company shows a high Beneish M‑Score of 2.0165 (97th percentile versus Vietnamese peers) with a year‑over‑year increase of +5.40, signalling that its accounting profile has moved toward more aggressive patterns relative to peers. This stands alongside a mixed earnings‑quality picture: strong accruals, cash conversion and receivables metrics (each 100/100) but very weak revenue quality (0/100) and low margin quality (25/100); solvency and fundamentals appear healthy (Altman Z‑Score 3.77; Piotroski F‑Score 7/9).
- Beneish M‑Score = 2.0165 (measures the likelihood of earnings manipulation using eight financial ratios); the company is at the 97th percentile vs Vietnamese peers, meaning its score is higher (more aggressive) than 97% of local peers.
- Year‑over‑year M‑Score change = +5.40 (measures the trajectory of the M‑Score); a large positive change indicates the accounting profile moved materially in the last year.
- AQI (quality of receivables index) = 10.0000 (component of the M‑Score measuring unusual receivable behaviour) — unusually high compared with typical M‑Score component ranges.
- Revenue quality = 0.0/100 (from the Earnings Quality Score; measures persistence and reliability of reported revenue) — the weakest pocket in the earnings‑quality map.
- Margin quality = 25.0/100 (measures stability and sustainability of margins) — indicates margins may be driven by non‑recurring items or volatile components.
- GMI (gross margin index) = 3.3939 (M‑Score component: rising GMI >1 can indicate deteriorating gross margins) — this value is well above 1 and consistent with worsening margin trends.
- DSRI (days sales receivable index) = 0.5173 (M‑Score component measuring changes in receivables relative to sales) — an unusual value that contributed to the M‑Score movement and should be checked against receivable composition.
- Accruals quality = 100.0/100 (Earnings Quality Score: measures the level and sustainability of accruals) — indicates accruals are not a source of concern under the applied metrics.
- Cash conversion = 100.0/100 (Earnings Quality Score: operating cash flow relative to profit) and three‑year operating cash flow / net profit = 0.94 (48th percentile) — operating cash flow broadly supports reported profits over three years, though the percentile shows room for improvement versus peers.
- Receivables quality = 100.0/100 and receivables outside the trade cycle = 0.1% of total assets (14th percentile) — low non‑trade receivables and a high receivables‑quality score indicate limited reliance on related‑party loans or long‑dated receivables.
- TATA (total accruals to total assets) = -0.0579 (M‑Score component; negative/low accruals reduce manipulation signalling) — consistent with the high accruals‑quality score.
- LVGI (living gross index?) = 0.3270 (M‑Score component as provided) and DEPI = 1.0219, SGAI = 0.4747, SGI = 0.9982 — mixed component signals but several are near 1 or low, limiting some manipulation indicators.
- Altman Z‑Score = 3.77 (models distance to bankruptcy) — falls in the safe zone, indicating low bankruptcy risk by that model.
- Piotroski F‑Score = 7/9 (measures improvements in profitability, leverage/liquidity, and operating efficiency) — indicates generally strong reported fundamentals.
Ownership appears dispersed among several individual shareholders: Đặng Hoàng Kim Anh 7.0%, Nguyễn Trung Kiên 6.3%, Nguyễn Bá Duy 5.4%, Trần Đình Quyết 5.0%, and Phạm Thị Thuý 5.0%. No state majority or single‑party control is evident from the top five; no director‑deal registrations were provided in the input (registrations are intentions filed with the exchange, not executed trades).
- Compare the 2024 revenue line and the revenue‑recognition note: reconcile the components of revenue growth (domestic vs export, product vs service) and check for large one‑off or timing items that explain the Revenue quality = 0.0/100.
- Reconcile profit to cash flow in the consolidated cash‑flow statement and the notes: verify the items driving the three‑year operating cash flow / net profit = 0.94 and inspect working‑capital changes, non‑cash adjustments and related‑party cash flows.
- Inspect the detailed receivables and related‑party disclosure (note/schedule): verify the composition supporting receivables outside the trade cycle = 0.1% of total assets and confirm there are no significant long‑term loans to related parties or large prepayments.
- Review the notes on gross margin and selling/administrative expenses and any one‑off items: explain GMI = 3.3939 and Margin quality = 25/100, and reconcile SGA movements (SGAI = 0.4747) to recurring expense patterns.
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
- 6.6M
- Charter Capital
- 66.0B 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