HFB
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 — HFB
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
HFB exhibits several concerning financial metrics, particularly with a Beneish M-Score of -2.7612, indicating a low risk of earnings manipulation. However, the earnings quality score of 75.8/100, while decent, reveals weaknesses in revenue recognition and margins, suggesting potential volatility in future earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.7612, indicating a low likelihood of manipulation but also reflecting a need for scrutiny given the threshold of > -1.78.
- Earnings quality metrics show a low revenue score of 35.9/100, indicating potential issues with revenue recognition.
- Strong cash conversion rate of 100.0/100, suggesting effective management of cash flows.
- Institutional ownership at 40.0% indicates a level of confidence from significant investors.
The ownership structure shows a significant concentration with the top shareholder holding 40.0%, which may lead to governance risks and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should monitor the company's revenue recognition practices closely and consider diversifying their holdings to mitigate risks associated with concentrated ownership.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for HFB — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate