
NAP
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 — NAP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
The Beneish M-Score of -3.1994 indicates a low likelihood of earnings manipulation, well below the threshold of -1.78. Additionally, the earnings quality score of 75.4/100 reflects strong cash conversion and receivables management, suggesting a solid operational foundation.
- The SGI of 1.1836 indicates that sales growth is outpacing the growth of receivables, which could suggest aggressive revenue recognition practices.
- The earnings quality metrics show a perfect cash conversion score of 100.0/100, indicating strong cash flow generation relative to reported earnings.
The concentrated ownership structure, with 93.6% held by three institutional investors, may pose risks related to governance and decision-making, potentially limiting minority shareholder influence.
Investors should monitor sales growth closely, particularly in relation to receivables, while considering the strong cash flow metrics as a positive indicator for operational performance.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for NAP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate