
HPP
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 — HPP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
HPP's Beneish M-Score of -1.8889 indicates potential earnings manipulation, as it falls below the threshold of -1.78. The earnings quality score of 48.6/100, particularly low cash conversion metrics, raises concerns about the sustainability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -1.8889 suggests potential earnings manipulation, as it is below the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings quality cash conversion score of 14.2/100 indicates significant issues in converting earnings into actual cash flow.
- Receivables quality score of 100.0/100 indicates strong management of receivables, suggesting effective collection practices.
The ownership structure shows a concentration of institutional investors, which may provide some stability; however, the presence of significant individual shareholders could lead to potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence, particularly focusing on cash flow statements and operational performance before making investment decisions.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for HPP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate