Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 10.900
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 11.222
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
- The closing price is too old for comparison.
- 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 1 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
- −84.300th pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 3.3%58th 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 shows multiple accounting and financial-stress signals: a high Beneish M‑Score of 0.822 (95th percentile vs Vietnamese peers; YoY change +2.21) — the M‑Score is a statistical screen that combines eight ratios to detect earnings manipulation tendencies — and an Altman Z‑Score of 0.87 (in the distress zone, a measure of bankruptcy distance). At the same time some specific accrual and receivable metrics look stronger (receivables-quality 100/100 and AQI 8.6827 flagging measurement issues), but cash-generation is weak (three‑year cash conversion = -84.30; 0th percentile), and the Piotroski F‑Score is low at 3/9 (weak fundamental-score).
- Beneish M‑Score = 0.822 (95th percentile vs VN peers; YoY change +2.21). The M‑Score aggregates eight indicators (DSRI, GMI, AQI, SGI, DEPI, SGAI, LVGI, TATA) to screen for aggressive accounting; a higher score signals greater divergence from peers in this Vietnamese sample.
- Cash conversion (three‑year operating cash flow / net profit) = -84.30 (0th percentile). This metric measures whether reported profits are turning into operating cash; a strongly negative value indicates profits have not converted into cash over three years.
- Altman Z‑Score = 0.87 (distress zone). The Z‑Score combines working capital, retained earnings, EBIT, market value of equity and sales to assess distance to bankruptcy; 0.87 is well within the distress range.
- Piotroski F‑Score = 3/9. The F‑Score is a set of nine binary tests of profitability, leverage/liquidity, and operating efficiency; a score of 3 indicates weak operational and financial fundamentals.
- Earnings‑quality components: Cash conversion = 0.0/100; Margin quality = 0.0/100; Revenue quality = 0.0/100. These sub-scores measure respectively conversion of earnings to cash, stability/quality of margins, and likelihood revenue is persistent/real. All three at zero point to concerns around profit quality and revenue sustainability.
- Total Accruals‑TATA = 0.0972 (component of M‑Score). TATA measures total accruals (net income less operating cash flow) scaled to assets; a positive value indicates accruals contributed to earnings rather than cash.
- AQI = 8.6827 (Asset Quality Index). AQI measures shifts toward less tangible or more illiquid assets (e.g., capitalized costs, long‑term receivables); a high AQI suggests more assets that are easier to manipulate or harder to convert to cash.
- Receivables‑outside‑trade‑cycle = 3.3% of total assets (58th percentile). This checks for prepayments, long‑term receivables and loans receivable; a modest 3.3% share is not unusually large within the Vietnamese sample.
- Receivables quality = 100.0/100. This score measures the reported receivables' apparent alignment with revenue recognition and collectability patterns; it indicates no obvious red flag in the trade receivables schedule.
- DSRI = 0.7830 and SGI = 0.9922. DSRI (days‑sales receivable index) below 1 suggests receivables relative to sales have not risen; SGI near 1 indicates sales growth is roughly flat, reducing one driver of manipulation risk tied to aggressive revenue recognition.
- No accumulated losses; owner's equity (excluding minority interest) is positive; parent profit has not shown consecutive-year net losses up to FY2025. These are balance‑sheet facts indicating the company is not showing statutory or balance‑sheet losses that some regulation uses as triggers.
Ownership is highly concentrated: one individual (Lê Thị Hồng Thủy) holds 70.5% and three other named shareholders hold single‑digit stakes (7.8%, 5.5%, 2.9%, 2.7%). Director‑deal registrations in the last 12 months show 2 purchase registrations (200,000 shares registered across 2 traders, one registration without a volume) and 0 sale registrations; registrations are declarations of intent filed with the exchange, not executed trades.
- Compare the FY2025 statement of cash flows (operating cash flow line) with the consolidated net profit to verify the -84.30 three‑year cash conversion calculation and to inspect major non‑cash adjustments.
- Inspect the notes and schedules supporting 'receivables' and 'other long‑term receivables' to confirm the 3.3% of total assets composition (identify prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable, related‑party balances and maturities).
- Reconcile total accruals: compare net income, depreciation/amortisation notes and net change in operating working capital to reproduce TATA = 0.0972 and to identify which accrual components (inventory, receivables, payables) drive it.
- Read the auditor's report and the statutory loss test lines (Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e) as amended) in the audited financial statements to confirm that none of the statutory loss/delisting criteria for FY2025 are met.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 0.92
- P/S
- 0.22
- ROE
- 0.3%
- ROA
- 0.0%
- EPS
- 28
- BVPS
- 11.809
- Gross Margin
- 7.7%
- Net Margin
- 0.1%
- D/E
- 1.84
- Current Ratio
- 0.98
- Rev Growth
- −0.8%
- Profit Growth
- −49.5%
- EV/EBITDA
- 10.56
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 3.4M
- Charter Capital
- 34.0B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Xây dựng và Vật liệu
- Sub-industry
- Xây dựng
- Company Type
- CT