MDG
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 — MDG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
MDG's Beneish M-Score of -1.9167 indicates a potential risk of earnings manipulation, as it is below the threshold of -1.78. The earnings quality score of 33.2/100, particularly low cash conversion and revenue metrics, further raises concerns about the reliability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -1.9167 suggests potential earnings manipulation risk as it is below the critical threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 33.2/100 indicates poor earnings quality, with cash conversion at 0.0/100 and revenue metrics also at 0.0/100.
- The DSRI of 0.7163 indicates that accounts receivable are growing slower than revenue, which could suggest better cash management.
- High receivables quality score of 100.0/100 indicates that receivables are likely collectible, which is a positive sign for liquidity.
The ownership structure is heavily concentrated with three institutions holding a combined 67.2%, which may lead to governance risks and reduced minority shareholder influence.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence on MDG, particularly focusing on cash flow statements and management's explanations of revenue recognition practices.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for MDG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate