MCG
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 — MCG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
MCG exhibits several concerning financial metrics that suggest potential manipulation, particularly with a Beneish M-Score of -2.9642, indicating a significant risk of earnings manipulation. The earnings quality score of 50.4/100, coupled with low cash conversion metrics, raises additional concerns about the sustainability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.9642, significantly below the manipulation threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 50.4/100, with eq_cash_conv at only 25.7/100, indicating poor cash conversion relative to earnings.
- DSRI of 0.8530 suggests that inventory is being managed well relative to sales, which is a positive indicator.
The ownership structure is heavily concentrated among a few individuals, with the top five shareholders holding over 50% of shares. This concentration may lead to governance risks and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence before considering an investment in MCG, particularly focusing on cash flow sustainability and governance practices.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for MCG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate