
HSP
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 — HSP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
HSP exhibits several concerning indicators of potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by a Beneish M-Score of 0.9333, which is above the manipulation threshold. Additionally, the earnings quality score of 49.8/100 reflects significant weaknesses in cash conversion and revenue recognition.
- Beneish M-Score of 0.9333 indicates potential earnings manipulation, exceeding the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings quality cash conversion score of 18.5/100 suggests poor cash flow relative to reported earnings.
- Revenue quality score of 0.0/100 indicates significant issues in revenue recognition practices.
- Receivables quality score of 100.0/100 indicates strong management of accounts receivable.
- DSRI of 1.0084 suggests that inventory growth is in line with revenue growth, which is a positive sign.
The top shareholder, Công ty TNHH Quản Lý Đầu Tư Hap Việt Nam, holds a significant 30.8% stake, which may lead to concentrated decision-making and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence on HSP, particularly focusing on cash flow and revenue recognition practices before considering any investment.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for HSP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate