
GKM
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 — GKM
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
GKM exhibits significant red flags indicating potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by a Beneish M-Score of 1.145, which is above the threshold of -1.78. The earnings quality score of 43.2/100, particularly low scores in receivables and revenue metrics, further highlight concerns regarding the reliability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of 1.145 indicates potential earnings manipulation, exceeding the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 43.2/100, with particularly low scores in eq_receivables (6.6/100) and eq_revenue (0.0/100), suggests poor earnings quality.
- High cash conversion score of 100.0/100 indicates strong cash flow relative to earnings.
The ownership structure shows a lack of concentrated institutional ownership, with the largest shareholder holding only 7.5%. This may lead to governance issues and a lack of accountability.
Given the high risk of earnings manipulation, it is advisable to approach GKM with caution and consider further due diligence before any investment decisions.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for GKM — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate