Calibrated intrinsic value vs last close
Illustrative estimate- Last close (VND)
- 2.450
- Calibrated intrinsic value (VND)
- 3.304
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.
- The model uses profit in place of cash flow, which was not available.
- The latest cash flow is zero or negative.
- Recent losses require review of cash-flow assumptions.
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 2 Dec 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
Developers often carry land banks at historical cost under VAS, so book value can understate asset value. This model blends two approaches: an RNAV proxy (book value with its property share marked up 1.5×) weighted 40%, and a DCF on normalized cash flows weighted 60%. Highly leveraged firms receive a +2% WACC penalty.
Technical details
RE developers carry large land inventories at historical cost; cash flows depend on project delivery timing. RNAV captures hidden land value, while DCF captures earnings power. The leverage screen guards against over-leveraged developers.
RNAV proxy: the property share of BVPS (investment property, fixed assets and inventories over total assets) × 1.5 plus the rest at book, or 1.25× all of book when that share is 10% or less or unknown, cut by up to 50% as D/E rises above 2. DCF: 5-year projection on median cash flow with CAPM-derived WACC. If D/E > 3 or interest coverage < 1.5, WACC is increased by 2%. Final value = 40% RNAV + 60% DCF.
Property developers and real estate firms with significant land banks recorded at below-market historical cost.
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)
DCF Sensitivity
Illustrative calibrated values from the standalone DCF scenarios below, anchored to the same last close. These scenarios leave out the other parts of a blended model and do not reproduce the headline value.
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
- −16.402nd pctile
- Receivables outside the trade cyclePrepayments to suppliers, loans and other long-term receivables / total assets
- 26.2%94th pctile
- Accumulated losses / paid-in capitalUndistributed earnings below zero
- None
- Consecutive years of net lossProfit after tax of the parent
- 1
- 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 -0.5619 (90th percentile versus Vietnamese peers), indicating its accounting is more aggressive than most domestic peers; the M-Score moved by -4.33 year-over-year, signalling a material change in the same direction. Earnings-quality metrics are weak overall (27.7/100) with especially poor cash conversion (0.0/100) and margin/revenue quality (0.0/100), while receivables quality scores strongly (100/100). The Altman Z-Score is 0.63 (in the distress zone) and the Piotroski F-Score is 4/9 (neutral).
- High Beneish peer percentile: M-Score = -0.5619 at the 90th Vietnam percentile — this measures a composite of eight accrual- and profitability-based signals used to detect earnings manipulation tendencies; the company ranks among the more aggressive 10% of Vietnamese listed peers on this metric.
- Large year-over-year M-Score change: YoY change = -4.33 — this measures trajectory of the M-Score components and indicates the accounting profile shifted materially compared with the prior year.
- Very poor cash conversion: three-year operating cash flow / net profit = -16.40 (2nd percentile among Vietnamese non-financials) — this measures whether reported profits are converting into operating cash flows; the figure indicates profit is not translating into cash.
- Altman bankruptcy-distance: Z-Score = 0.63 (distress zone) — this measures a blend of liquidity, profitability and leverage indicators to estimate distance from bankruptcy; 0.63 signals low buffer versus insolvency norms.
- Earnings-quality weaknesses: overall Earnings Quality = 27.7/100 with Cash conversion = 0.0/100, Margin quality = 0.0/100 and Revenue quality = 0.0/100 — these sub-scores measure respectively cash realization of profits, stability/quality of margins, and the quality/recurrence of reported revenue.
- High proportion of receivables outside the trade cycle: Receivables outside trade cycle = 26.2% of total assets (94th percentile) — this measures balances such as prepayments to suppliers, loans receivable and other long-term receivables, which are unusually large relative to peers.
- Strong receivables quality sub-score: Receivables quality = 100.0/100 — this measures indicators around receivables (e.g., aging, collectibility proxies) and suggests the receivables-related inputs to quality scoring are favorable.
- Low Beneish component signs for some ratios: DSRI = 0.4214 (days-sales-receivable index), GMI = 0.5249 (gross-margin index), SGAI = 0.3103 (SG&A index), DEPI = 0.9129 (depreciation index), and TATA = 0.2095 (total accruals) — each component measures specific accrual, margin, or revenue timing behaviors and several are below 1.0 or low, which in many contexts are not the classic warning directions.
- No accumulated losses and positive owner’s equity: accumulated losses = none and owner’s equity excluding minority interest is positive — these facts measure that retained earnings are non-negative and the company reports a positive equity base.
- Statutory loss tests: none met under the cited Decree tests — the audited FY2025 statements do not meet the regulatory criteria (Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e) as amended) that trigger the specific statutory loss listing action.
Top holders are concentrated among individuals with the same family name: VÕ ANH TUẤN 11.0%, Võ Nguyễn Như Nguyện 8.2%, Võ Phan Hồng Ngọc (Võ Gwenyth Ngọ) 8.2%, Võ Phan Khôi Nguyên 8.2%, and PHAN TIẾT HỒNG MINH 6.9%. This indicates a concentrated, likely family-linked ownership block; no director-deal registrations were provided in the input (director-deal registrations are exchange-registered intentions, not executed trades).
- Compare the line items for 'Prepayments to suppliers' and 'Loans and long-term receivables' in the FY2025 balance sheet and the related-party note to reconcile the 26.2% of total assets classified as receivables outside the trade cycle.
- Reconcile operating cash flow to parent net profit in the cash flow statement and the notes (three-year series) to assess drivers of the three-year cash conversion ratio = -16.40.
- Inspect the revenue recognition note and the revenue breakdown (by product/customer and timing) to understand causes of the Revenue quality = 0.0/100 and SG&A/margin drivers.
- Review the auditor’s report and the statutory footnotes that document the company’s compliance with Decree 155/2020 Art.120(1)(e) (and subsequent amendments) to confirm the reported statement facts that no statutory loss tests were met.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
- P/B
- 0.23
- P/S
- 1.74
- ROE
- −1.9%
- ROA
- −1.1%
- EPS
- −216
- BVPS
- 10.731
- Gross Margin
- 14.3%
- Net Margin
- −15.3%
- D/E
- 0.52
- Current Ratio
- 1.42
- Rev Growth
- +184.0%
- Profit Growth
- −115.4%
- EV/EBITDA
- —
- Div Yield
- —
Company Overview
- Shares outstanding
- 95.4M
- Charter Capital
- 954B VND
- Sector (ICB L2)
- Bất động sản
- Industry (ICB L3)
- Bất động sản
- Sub-industry
- Bất động sản
- Company Type
- CT