MES
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 — MES
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
The forensic assessment of MES reveals significant red flags indicating potential earnings manipulation, particularly given its Beneish M-Score of -2.9139, which is well below the manipulation threshold of -1.78. Additionally, the company's earnings quality score of 23.2/100, coupled with alarming metrics such as 0.0/100 in cash conversion and revenue quality, raises serious concerns about the reliability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.9139 indicates potential earnings manipulation, significantly below the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 23.2/100, with 0.0/100 in cash conversion and revenue quality, suggests poor earnings sustainability.
- DSRI of 1.3978 indicates that the company is managing its receivables relative to sales, but this is overshadowed by other negative metrics.
With 98.9% of shares held by the state (Ủy Ban Nhân Dân Thành Phố Hà Nội), there is a lack of independent oversight, which can exacerbate risks related to governance and transparency.
Investors should exercise caution and consider avoiding MES until there is clear evidence of improved earnings quality and transparency in financial reporting.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for MES — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate