PBP
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 — PBP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
PBP exhibits a concerning Beneish M-Score of -4.0917, significantly below the manipulation threshold of -1.78, indicating potential earnings manipulation. While the earnings quality score of 65.6 suggests moderate quality, the low accrual score of 19.6 raises questions about the sustainability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -4.0917 indicates potential earnings manipulation, well below the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings quality score of 19.6/100 for eq_accrual suggests poor earnings sustainability.
- Strong cash conversion rate of 100.0/100 indicates effective cash flow management.
- Ownership by the state at 51.0% may provide stability and support for the company.
The significant state ownership at 51.0% may mitigate some risks associated with management decisions, but the concentration of ownership could lead to governance issues and lack of transparency.
Investors should closely monitor PBP's financial disclosures and consider a cautious approach due to the elevated risk of earnings manipulation, while also leveraging the strengths in cash flow management.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for PBP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate