
HHV
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 — HHV
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
HHV's Beneish M-Score of -2.291 indicates a low likelihood of earnings manipulation, as it is below the threshold of -1.78. However, the earnings quality metrics reveal some areas of concern, particularly in receivables, which may suggest potential issues in revenue recognition.
- Receivables quality score of 62.6/100 indicates potential issues in revenue collection.
- SGI of 1.1491 suggests that sales growth is outpacing the growth in total assets, which could be a sign of aggressive revenue recognition.
- Earnings Quality Score of 85.9/100 and cash conversion rate of 100.0/100 indicate strong overall earnings quality and effective cash management.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.291 suggests a low likelihood of earnings manipulation, which is a positive signal for investors.
The top shareholders include significant institutional investors, which can provide stability. However, the largest individual shareholder holds 17.6%, indicating potential concentration risk and influence over corporate decisions.
Monitor the receivables closely and assess the sustainability of revenue growth. Consider diversifying investments to mitigate risks associated with ownership concentration.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for HHV — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate