SGN
Công ty Cổ phần Phục vụ mặt đất Sài Gòn
Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 61.800
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 69.322
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.
Also note
- Trading liquidity is low.
Comparison assessed 3 Nov 2026Valid through 2 Dec 2026
- Model reliability
- Low
- Model fitInput stabilityRisk checks
- High requires the model’s diagnostic criteria to be met.
- Probability of outperforming peers
- 51.8%
- 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 Construction 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
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
- 1.3659th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 13.1%85th 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 -1.6458 (above the US manipulation cutoff of -1.78 but in the Vietnamese context the percentile and trajectory matter): it sits at the 76th percentile versus Vietnamese peers and rose by +1.19 year-over-year, indicating accounting measures that are more aggressive than most local peers and that have shifted materially this year. Earnings-quality metrics are mixed: accruals quality is strong (100.0/100) and margin quality is high (95.2/100), but receivables and revenue quality score 0.0/100, and the DSRI is high (2.1441). The Altman Z-Score is 6.15 (in the safe zone for bankruptcy distance) and the Piotroski F-Score is 5/9 (neutral). Statutory loss tests show none met in the published statements.
- Beneish M-Score -1.6458 (measures likelihood of earnings manipulation using an 8‑variable model); the company is at the 76th percentile among Vietnamese peers (higher = more aggressive accounting versus VN peers) and the M‑Score increased by +1.19 year-over‑year (the trajectory moved materially).
- Days Sales Receivable Index (DSRI) = 2.1441 (measures growth in receivables relative to sales; a value >1 suggests receivables growing faster than sales).
- Receivables outside the trade cycle = 13.1% of total assets (85th percentile among VN non‑financials; this line captures prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable and other long‑term receivables).
- Receivables quality score = 0.0/100 and Revenue quality score = 0.0/100 (these quantify the quality of reported receivables and revenue recognition; both are very weak).
- SGAI = 1.1532 and GMI = 1.1372 (SGA expense growth relative to sales >1 and deterioration in gross margins; both are components that, when >1, indicate pressure on core profitability or increasing selling/administrative expenses).
- AQI = 0.5000 and LVGI = 1.0328 (asset quality and leverage/growth inputs to the M‑Score indicate changes in asset composition and modestly higher leverage/growth signals).
- Accruals quality = 100.0/100 (measures the extent of accruals versus cash—high score indicates accruals are not the primary driver of reported profit).
- TATA = -0.0079 (total accruals as a fraction of assets is very small/near zero, supporting the high accruals-quality score).
- Margin quality = 95.2/100 (measures stability/quality of reported margins—score near top suggests reported margins are supported by underlying results).
- Altman Z‑Score = 6.15 (measures bankruptcy risk; a value well above distress thresholds indicates sizeable buffer on traditional solvency ratios).
- Piotroski F‑Score = 5/9 (measures nine fundamental signals; a middling score indicates mixed but not deeply deteriorated fundamentals).
- No accumulated losses; owner's equity (excluding minority interest) is positive; parent net loss = 0 consecutive years up to FY2025 (these are factual statutory balance-sheet signals of solvency and profitability continuity).
- Statutory loss tests per Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e) (as amended) — none met in the audited annual statements (this is a defined regulatory test and the company’s statements do not meet any of the cancellation criteria).
Top shareholders are concentrated: Tổng Công ty Cảng Hàng không Việt Nam holds 48.0% (a large, likely state‑linked industrial shareholder), a foreign entity labeled 'america limited liability company' holds 25.0%, and industry-related institutions hold further stakes (Vietjet 9.1%, Trường Sơn real-estate 4.7%, SSI AM 2.5%). Director‑deal registration data were not supplied in the input (registrations, when present, are intentions recorded with the exchange rather than executed trades).
- Compare the line item(s) for 'Receivables', 'Loans and advances to customers/third parties', and 'Prepayments to suppliers' in the FY2025 balance-sheet/schedule to confirm the 13.1% of total assets classification and to identify counterparty/related‑party disclosures.
- Reconcile the DSRI implication (DSRI = 2.1441) by comparing year‑over‑year revenue (sales) and trade‑receivables days in the revenue note and ageing schedule; check for any new long‑dated receivables or reclassifications in the notes.
- Review the cash‑flow statement and the note to cashflows to verify the three‑year operating cash flow / net profit series that produced cash conversion = 1.36 (59th percentile) and to see which items (working capital movements, non‑cash adjustments) drove the conversion rate.
- Examine the related‑party/transactions note and the loans/other‑receivables schedules for disclosures on prepayments, loans to related parties, or other non‑trade receivable balances supporting the 'receivables outside the trade cycle' figure; check contract terms and collateral or settlement dates.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 1.72
- P/S
- 1.37
- ROE
- 18.3%
- ROA
- 12.9%
- EPS
- 6.215
- BVPS
- 35.272
- Gross Margin
- 28.8%
- Net Margin
- 15.7%
- D/E
- 0.00
- Current Ratio
- 4.73
- Rev Growth
- −2.5%
- Profit Growth
- −23.2%
- EV/EBITDA
- 3.76
- Div Yield
- 4.1%
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 33.5M
- Charter Capital
- 335B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Hàng & Dịch vụ Công nghiệp
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Vận tải
- Sub-industry
- Kho bãi, hậu cần và bảo dưỡng
- Company Type
- CT