Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 3.000
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 3.907
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 22 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
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 3.8%61st pctile
- Accumulated losses / paid-in capitalUndistributed earnings below zero
- 1.61×Statutory test met
- Consecutive years of net lossProfit after tax of the parent
- 4Statutory test met
- Owner's equityWithout the non-controlling interest
- NegativeStatutory test met
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 multiple signals of accounting stress: a Beneish M-Score of -0.0597 (93rd percentile vs Vietnamese peers) with a year-over-year increase of +3.39, an Altman Z-Score of -0.35 (distress zone) and accumulated losses equal to 1.61x paid-in capital; however there are offsetting strengths such as a perfect accruals-quality subscore (100/100) and high revenue-quality (81.4/100). The Piotroski F-Score is 5/9, indicating neutral operating fundamentals rather than clear improvement or deterioration.
- Beneish M-Score = -0.0597. The M-Score is a model that combines eight earnings-quality ratios to signal aggressive accounting; this company's score sits in the 93rd percentile versus Vietnamese peers (higher = more aggressive accounting relative to peers). Note: the usual -1.78 US cutoff is not directly transferable; peer percentile and the YoY change matter here.
- Year-over-year change in M-Score = +3.39. This large positive change indicates the accounting profile moved toward the aggressive side compared with the prior year (consecutive-year M-Scores have low autocorrelation, so the trajectory is a useful secondary cue).
- Earnings-quality components show concerns in margins and cash conversion: Margin quality = 0.0/100 (suggesting margin measures are weak relative to peers) and Cash conversion = 40.0/100 (slower conversion of profit to cash).
- Altman Z-Score = -0.35 (distress zone). The Z-Score measures distance to bankruptcy using balance-sheet and income statement items; a negative score is consistent with severe distress on a bankruptcy-probability scale.
- Accumulated losses = 1.61 × paid-in capital and owner's equity (excluding minority interest) is negative. These are balance-sheet facts showing retained losses exceed contributed capital and net equity is deficit.
- Net loss at parent level for 4 consecutive years up to FY2025. Repeated parent losses are a signal of persistent operating shortfall.
- Statutory loss tests (per Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e), amended) are met in the published statements: accumulated losses above paid-in capital, losses in each of the latest three years, and negative owner's equity. (The company trades on UPCoM where the HOSE/HNX delisting rule does not apply, but the statement-level tests are present.)
- Receivables outside the trade cycle = 3.8% of total assets (61st percentile among Vietnamese non-financials). This line includes prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable and other long-term receivables and may indicate non-trade claims or related-party funding sitting on the balance sheet.
- Accruals quality = 100.0/100. This subscore measures the extent to which earnings are driven by accruals rather than cash flows; a top score indicates low accruals-based distortion by that metric.
- Revenue quality = 81.4/100. This suggests reported revenue is relatively consistent with underlying indicators used in the revenue-quality component of the earnings-quality model.
- Receivables-quality = 55.8/100 and LVGI = 1.0092 (level variation in gross inventory). Receivables-quality is middling and LVGI near 1.0 indicates inventory levels did not inflate materially year over year by that metric.
- TATA (total accruals to total assets) = -0.0562. A negative TATA indicates accruals reduced reported earnings in the period rather than inflated them.
- Piotroski F-Score = 5/9 (neutral). The F-Score synthesizes profitability, leverage/liquidity, and operating efficiency signals; a 5 is neither strongly improving nor deteriorating in that framework.
The largest shareholder is Tổng Công ty Sông Đà (a state-linked institution) with 65.0% ownership, indicating strong controlling shareholder concentration and likely group or state influence; remaining public/free-float stakes are small (top individuals hold 0.5%, 0.2%, 0.1%, 0.0%). No director-deal registrations were provided in the data (registrations, when present, are intentions filed with the exchange).
- Compare the FY2025 line item and note for 'prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable and other long-term receivables' with the receivables-outside-trade-cycle amount (3.8% of total assets) to see composition and counterparty (related party vs third party).
- Reconcile the accumulated losses and paid-in capital lines in the statement of changes in equity and the parent-company profit (loss) note to confirm the 1.61× figure and the four consecutive years of parent-net losses.
- Review the cash-flow statement and the financing/operating-cash reconciliation to confirm cash conversion measures that produced Cash conversion = 40.0/100 and TATA = -0.0562 (focus on operating cash flow, changes in working capital and non-cash items).
- Inspect the revenue and receivables notes (revenue recognition policies and ageing) used to compute Revenue quality = 81.4/100 and Receivables quality = 55.8/100, including any related-party revenue and the trade vs non-trade receivable breakdown.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- —
- P/S
- 0.26
- ROE
- 51.3%
- ROA
- −0.8%
- EPS
- −522
- BVPS
- −1.277
- Gross Margin
- 28.4%
- Net Margin
- −4.6%
- D/E
- —
- Current Ratio
- 0.83
- Rev Growth
- −29.5%
- Profit Growth
- +87.3%
- EV/EBITDA
- 9.83
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 10.3M
- Charter Capital
- 103B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Xây dựng
- Company Type
- CT