
ADP
ConstructionValuation Breakdown
Construction and industrial firms have characteristics of both cyclical businesses (lumpy project-based revenue) and growth companies (expanding order books). This model blends two approaches 50/50: EV/EBITDA valuation (captures current earning power relative to peers) and FCF-based DCF (captures future cash generation potential). If EV/EBITDA produces a negative value (debt exceeds enterprise value), only DCF is used.
Valuation Track Record
Retroactive intrinsic value vs actual close price — ADP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
ADP's Beneish M-Score of -2.9931 indicates a low likelihood of earnings manipulation, as it is well below the threshold of -1.78. However, the earnings quality metrics reveal significant concerns, particularly with a very low receivables score of 2.0/100, which suggests potential issues with revenue recognition.
- Very low receivables score of 2.0/100 indicates potential issues with revenue recognition.
- Earnings Quality Score of 61.0/100 suggests moderate concerns, particularly with revenue metrics scoring 0.0/100.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.9931 indicates a low likelihood of earnings manipulation.
- High cash conversion score of 99.7/100 suggests strong cash flow relative to earnings.
The ownership structure is highly concentrated with the top five shareholders holding a combined 55.7%. This concentration may lead to governance risks, as decisions could be heavily influenced by a small group of individuals.
Investors should closely monitor ADP's revenue recognition practices and consider the implications of concentrated ownership on corporate governance. A deeper analysis of cash flow sustainability is recommended.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for ADP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate