Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 66.000
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 74.034
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 26 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 · FY2025
- Cash conversion, 3 yearsOperating cash flow / net profit
- 1.2054th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 5.8%71st 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 -1.1551 (Vietnam peer percentile 86th, year-over-year change +3.11), indicating its accounting metrics are more aggressive than most Vietnamese peers and have shifted notably year-over-year. Key warning metrics include a very high DSRI (3.0273) and extremely poor receivables-quality (0.0/100 and 5.8% of assets outside the trade cycle), while other signals are mixed: Altman Z = 0.91 (distress zone) but Piotroski F = 7/9 (relatively strong fundamentals).
- Beneish DSRI = 3.0273 — measures the change in days' sales in receivables; a large increase suggests receivables (or revenue recognition) grew much faster than sales.
- Receivables quality = 0.0/100 and 'receivables outside the trade cycle' = 5.8% of total assets (71st percentile) — indicates a concentration of prepayments, loans receivable or long-term receivables that are atypical for normal trade receivables.
- Earnings-quality margin component = 7.0/100 — measures persistence and reliability of reported margins; a very low score signals margins are of low quality.
- SGAI = 1.2817 — measures change in SG&A relative to sales; >1 indicates SG&A rising faster than sales, which can reflect unusual expense recognition or cost structure shifts.
- Altman Z-Score = 0.91 — measures distance to financial distress; this value is in the distress zone and signals weak balance-sheet solvency.
- Beneish GMI = 0.5549 — Gross Margin Index <1 measures that gross margin improved (current/previous); improvement in gross margins reduces one manipulation pressure in Beneish's framework.
- Beneish DEPI = 0.5329 — Depreciation Index <1 (opposite of the suspect direction) suggests no sign of extending asset lives to inflate profits.
- Accruals quality = 92.5/100 — measures the reliability and size of accruals versus cash; a high score indicates reported earnings are not primarily driven by accruals.
- Piotroski F-Score = 7/9 — measures nine fundamental signals (profitability, leverage/liquidity, and operating efficiency); a 7 is consistent with comparatively strong reported operating and profitability fundamentals.
Ownership is highly concentrated: Công ty Cổ phần Anza holds 75.0% (institutional majority), and four individuals together hold about 13.0% (largest individual 5.2%). Director-deal registrations record one purchase registration (154,800 shares) between 2025-10-30 and 2026-10-30 equal to +1.55% of shares outstanding; registrations are intentions filed with the exchange, not executed trades.
- Compare the note/schedule that breaks down 'accounts receivable' and 'other receivables' in the FY2025 financial statements to identify the components making up the 5.8% of assets classified as receivables outside the trade cycle (prepayments, loans receivable, long-term receivables).
- Reconcile the operating cash flow statement (cash flow from operations, FY2023–FY2025) with reported net profit to confirm the 3-year cash-conversion ratio of 1.20 and to see which line items (changes in receivables, inventory, payables) drive the gap.
- Inspect related-party disclosures and the notes on 'loans to/from related parties' and 'advances to suppliers' to determine whether material receivable-like balances are with related parties and the terms (maturity, interest, collateral).
- Check the fixed-asset and depreciation note to confirm the depreciation policy and movements that underpin DEPI = 0.5329 (useful lives, revaluations, additions/disposals).
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 0.82
- P/S
- 1.81
- ROE
- 13.2%
- ROA
- 4.9%
- EPS
- 10.096
- BVPS
- 80.836
- Gross Margin
- 52.7%
- Net Margin
- 38.7%
- D/E
- 0.84
- Current Ratio
- 1.21
- Rev Growth
- −37.5%
- Profit Growth
- +10.0%
- EV/EBITDA
- 6.74
- Div Yield
- 1.5%
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 10.0M
- Charter Capital
- 100B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Xây dựng
- Company Type
- CT