Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 18.100
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 17.341
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.
- Model reliability
- Low
- Model fitInput stabilityRisk checks
- High requires the model’s diagnostic criteria to be met.
- Probability of outperforming peers
- 52.8%
- 12 monthsHistorical calibration
- Chance the return beats the median return of its sector peers.
These assessments address different questions. Neither establishes that the displayed valuation is correct or guarantees a future return.
12-month sector-relative outlook
Median 12-month return difference versus Cyclicals peers, for model gaps like this one.
- Not an absolute return forecast.
- Not a price target.
- A stock can underperform its sector and still rise.
- The sector’s historical range, not a prediction interval for this stock.
- Actual returns can fall outside it.
Valuation Breakdown
Cyclical companies (chemicals, oil & gas, basic resources) have earnings that swing dramatically with commodity prices and economic cycles. Valuing them on a single year's earnings is misleading: they look cheap at peaks and expensive at troughs. This model uses 7-year median EBITDA ("mid-cycle" earnings) and a 7-year median EV/EBITDA multiple to estimate what the firm is worth at a normal point in the cycle.
Technical details
Commodity/basic-material earnings swing with global prices. Using mid-cycle EBITDA normalizes across booms and busts, preventing overpayment at cyclical peaks. EV/EBITDA is preferred over P/E because it's capital-structure-neutral and not distorted by depreciation policies.
Computes the 7-year median EBITDA and the 7-year median EV/EBITDA. With fewer than 5 years of its own EBITDA, the company's EBITDA is estimated as revenue x the sector median margin. When mid-cycle EBITDA is not positive, the value is 70% of book value per share. Fair Value = (Mid-Cycle EBITDA x Fair EV/EBITDA) - Net Debt.
Commodity producers, basic materials, chemicals, and oil & gas companies with multi-year earnings cycles.
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
- 1.8873rd pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 4.0%62nd 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's Beneish M-Score is -1.2577 (84th percentile among Vietnamese peers) with a year-over-year increase of +1.33, signalling that its underlying accounting signals have become more aggressive relative to peers. The largest single driver is a high DSRI (2.7522) and weak receivables/revenue quality (receivables quality 0/100; revenue quality 0/100), while accruals and cash-conversion metrics are strong (accruals quality 100/100; cash conversion 100/100) and solvency/fundamentals look healthy (Altman Z = 23.81; Piotroski F = 7/9).
- Beneish DSRI = 2.7522: DSRI (Days Sales Receivables Index) measures whether receivables are growing faster than sales; 2.7522 is very high and is the key contributor to the elevated M-Score.
- Revenue quality = 0.0/100 and Receivables quality = 0.0/100: these earnings-quality components indicate revenue and receivable patterns that score poorly on the model's heuristics (suggesting revenue recognition or receivable composition issues).
- M-Score percentile 84th among Vietnamese peers and YoY change +1.33: while the absolute -1.2577 is above the original US cutoff, the high peer percentile and a sizeable year-on-year increase indicate the company's accounting signals have moved toward more aggressive patterns relative to its Vietnamese peer group.
- Accruals quality = 100.0/100: the accruals component scores perfectly, indicating low suspicious accrual behaviour by the model's measures.
- Cash conversion = 100.0/100 and three-year cash conversion = 1.88 (73rd percentile): operating cash flow covers reported profit (ratio 1.88), and the cash-conversion score itself is perfect, so profits are being converted into cash on the headline metric used here.
- Altman Z-Score = 23.81: Altman Z indicates a large distance from bankruptcy risk (the model's safe zone).
- Piotroski F-Score = 7/9: the firm shows generally strong accounting and operating fundamentals on Piotroski's nine-point test.
Ownership is concentrated in a few individuals: Đỗ Thanh Hải holds 21.5% and three other individuals hold 4.8%, 4.5% and 4.0% respectively, with the top five shareholders together holding a substantial block. No director-deal registrations were supplied in the data provided (registrations, if any, would be exchange filings rather than executed trades).
- Compare the components of trade receivables and 'receivables outside the trade cycle' in the notes (prepayments, loans receivable, long-term receivables) to the balance-sheet totals and to the DSRI calculation to verify what is driving the DSRI = 2.7522.
- Reconcile revenue by segment and the revenue recognition policy note against the accounts receivable ageing and related-party schedules to see whether growth in receivables reflects timing, related-party flows, or extended customer credit.
- Trace operating cash flow reconciling items in the cash-flow statement and the notes (non-cash items, changes in working capital) to confirm the cash-conversion behaviour (three-year cash conversion = 1.88) that contrasts with weak revenue/receivables scores.
- Check the equity and loss disclosures (statement of changes in equity, retained earnings note) and the auditor's report for any emphasis-of-matter; verify statutory loss test lines: the FY2025 audited statements do not meet any of the Decree 155/2020 (as amended) listed criteria.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 1.79
- P/S
- 3.38
- ROE
- 7.1%
- ROA
- 6.6%
- EPS
- 749
- BVPS
- 10.887
- Gross Margin
- 23.9%
- Net Margin
- 13.5%
- D/E
- 0.01
- Current Ratio
- 7.01
- Rev Growth
- −24.6%
- Profit Growth
- +53.4%
- EV/EBITDA
- 16.30
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 27.2M
- Charter Capital
- 272B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Hóa chất
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Hóa chất
- Sub-industry
- Nhựa, cao su & sợi
- Company Type
- CT