PSB
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 — PSB
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
The Beneish M-Score of -1.7491 is slightly above the manipulation threshold of -1.78, indicating a potential risk of earnings manipulation. While the earnings quality score of 69.6 suggests reasonable quality, the concerning metrics in revenue and margin raise red flags about the sustainability of earnings.
- SGI of 1.8114 indicates aggressive growth that may not be supported by actual revenue generation.
- EQ margin and EQ revenue scores of 0.0/100 suggest significant issues with profitability and revenue recognition.
- High accrual score of 98.2/100 and cash conversion score of 100.0/100 indicate strong operational efficiency and cash flow management.
The top shareholders hold a significant portion of shares, with the largest institutional investor owning 51.0%. This concentrated ownership could lead to governance risks, particularly in decision-making and transparency.
Investors should closely monitor revenue growth and margin improvements while considering a cautious approach due to the elevated risk of earnings manipulation. Engaging with management for clarity on growth strategies and financial practices is advisable.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for PSB — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate