Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 1.300
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 1.588
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 29 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
- 1.0347th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 1.7%46th pctile
- Accumulated losses / paid-in capitalUndistributed earnings below zero
- 0.79×
- 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’s Beneish M-Score is -1.2522 (84th percentile vs Vietnamese peers) with a year-over-year rise of +0.92, indicating accounting metrics that are more aggressive than most Vietnamese peers and that have moved materially this year. Earnings-quality components show strengths in accruals and receivables (accruals quality 99.1/100; receivables quality 100.0/100) but very weak revenue and margin signals (revenue quality 0.0/100; margin quality 33.5/100); the Altman Z-Score is -0.24 (in the distress zone) while the Piotroski F-Score is 6/9 (neutral).
- Beneish M-Score -1.2522, Vietnam peer percentile 84th: the absolute M-Score is above the US -1.78 threshold and, within Vietnam, sits high versus peers — the percentile shows the company’s pattern of accruals and ratios is more aggressive than 84% of non-financial Vietnamese peers.
- Year-over-year M-Score change +0.92: the M-Score moved substantially this year, and although single-year persistence is low, the direction is a secondary signal that accounting behaviour has changed.
- AQI (Asset Quality Index) = 3.5906: a high AQI measures increases in the relative size of non-current assets, intangible-type items, or other non-standard asset reclassifications, which can indicate capitalisation or reclassification policies shifting balance-sheet composition.
- GMI (Gross Margin Index) = 1.3877 and SGI (Sales Growth Index) = 1.1580 with Revenue quality = 0.0/100 and Margin quality = 33.5/100: rising GMI (>1) and low revenue/margin quality indicate declining gross margins and very weak revenue-quality signals (the revenue-quality metric here scores 0), suggesting the reported sales and margins deserve scrutiny.
- Altman Z-Score = -0.24 (distress zone): this Z-Score places the company in the zone associated with higher bankruptcy distance in the Altman model, reflecting weak liquidity/solvency ratios.
- Three-year cash conversion (operating cash flow / net profit) = 1.03, 47th percentile: this middling cash-conversion metric (close to 1) indicates profits are not strongly turning into operating cash relative to peers — a lower percentile would flag cash conversion problems but here it is mediocre.
- Accumulated losses = 0.79x paid-in capital: the company has accumulated losses equivalent to 79% of paid-in capital, a substantial historical loss position relative to capital.
- Receivables outside the trade cycle = 1.7% of total assets, 46th percentile: there are non-trade receivables / prepayments / loans classified outside the normal trade cycle that, while not extremely large, exist and should be checked for related-party or long-term terms.
- Accruals quality = 99.1/100: the accruals component scores very highly, indicating reported earnings are not being driven by unusual accruals in the periods measured.
- Receivables quality = 100.0/100: the receivables-quality metric scores at the top, suggesting no immediate sign of widespread receivable recognition issues in the tested measures.
- TATA (Total Accruals to Assets) = 0.0024: total accruals are very small relative to assets, supporting the high accruals-quality score and indicating reported profits are not dominated by large accounting accrual flows.
- Piotroski F-Score = 6/9: a neutral-to-favourable fundamental score showing several healthy operating/fundamental signals (profitability, leverage, liquidity and efficiency items mixed but not deeply negative).
- Owner’s equity (excluding minority interest) is positive and the company reports 0 consecutive years of parent net loss up to FY2025: the company is not reporting statutory consecutive-year net losses, and equity is positive.
Control is concentrated: PVX (Tổng Công ty Cổ phần Xây lắp Dầu khí Việt Nam) holds 51.0% and thus is the controlling shareholder. The company sits in a group where the same parent holds or exerts influence over multiple related listed entities (PFL 34.9%, PID 50.0%, PSG 24.7%, PVH 36.0%, PXI 51.0%, PXM 48.3%, PXS 51.0%), which can create intercompany business and related-party transaction patterns typical in Vietnamese group structures. No director-deal registrations were provided in the data set (no registered insider transaction intentions are listed here).
- Compare the FY2025 note(s) on related-party transactions and the disclosures to the line items that comprise the 1.7% of total assets labelled as receivables outside the trade cycle (identify prepayments, loans receivable and other long-term receivables).
- Reconcile the components of AQI in the balance-sheet notes: check changes in ‘construction in progress’, intangible assets, deferred costs and reclassifications year-over-year to see what drove AQI = 3.5906.
- Compare the cash-flow statement (operating cash flow) and the net-profit reconciliation to verify the three-year cash conversion ratio (operating cash flow / net profit = 1.03) and identify major non-cash adjustments or working-capital movements.
- Examine the revenue and margin disclosure schedules (revenue breakdown by segment/product and cost of goods sold detail) and the audit notes to explain why revenue quality = 0.0/100 and margin quality = 33.5/100 (look for one-off revenues, timing differences, or margin compression explanations).
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 0.45
- P/S
- 0.22
- ROE
- 3.2%
- ROA
- 0.7%
- EPS
- 90
- BVPS
- 2.878
- Gross Margin
- 7.7%
- Net Margin
- 1.6%
- D/E
- 0.16
- Current Ratio
- 1.14
- Rev Growth
- +15.8%
- Profit Growth
- +47.6%
- EV/EBITDA
- —
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 20.0M
- Charter Capital
- 200B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Xây dựng
- Company Type
- CT