HMS
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 — HMS
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
HMS exhibits a Beneish M-Score of -3.1459, indicating a low likelihood of earnings manipulation, as it is well below the threshold of -1.78. However, the earnings quality score of 58.9 suggests potential concerns in revenue recognition and margin quality, which may warrant further scrutiny.
- Earnings quality metrics show 0.0/100 for eq_margin and eq_revenue, indicating significant issues with profitability and revenue recognition.
- The SGI of 1.4070 suggests aggressive growth strategies that may not be sustainable.
- A Beneish M-Score of -3.1459 indicates a low risk of earnings manipulation.
- The cash conversion score of 100.0/100 reflects strong cash flow management.
The ownership structure is concentrated among a few individuals, with the largest shareholder holding 23.6%. This concentration can lead to governance risks and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should closely monitor HMS's revenue recognition practices and margin improvements. Consider a cautious approach, focusing on cash flow metrics and governance structures before making significant investment decisions.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for HMS — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate