BDT
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 — BDT
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
BDT exhibits a Beneish M-Score of -3.0878, indicating a low likelihood of earnings manipulation. However, the earnings quality score of 56.3/100 reveals significant weaknesses in revenue and margin recognition, which could pose risks to financial stability.
- Earnings quality score of 0.0/100 for eq_margin and eq_revenue suggests potential issues in revenue recognition and profit margins.
- SGI of 1.2103 indicates aggressive sales growth, which may not be sustainable.
- Beneish M-Score of -3.0878 is well below the manipulation threshold of -1.78, signaling a lower risk of earnings manipulation.
- High cash conversion and receivables scores (100.0/100) indicate strong cash flow management.
The majority ownership by the state (51.0%) may provide stability but also raises concerns about potential political influence and lack of transparency in decision-making.
Investors should monitor revenue recognition practices closely and assess the sustainability of growth rates. Consider a cautious approach until further clarity on earnings quality is established.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for BDT — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate