QNP
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 — QNP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
QNP presents several concerning indicators suggesting potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by a Beneish M-Score of -2.2337, which is below the manipulation threshold. However, the earnings quality score of 71.5 indicates relatively strong cash conversion metrics, suggesting some operational strength.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.2337 indicates potential earnings manipulation, significantly below the threshold of -1.78.
- Low receivables quality score of 40.8/100 raises concerns about revenue recognition practices.
- High earnings quality score of 71.5/100, particularly strong cash conversion at 100.0/100, indicating effective cash management.
- Strong institutional ownership at 85.0%, primarily by Tổng Công ty Hàng hải Việt Nam, suggesting confidence from major stakeholders.
The high concentration of ownership by institutional investors, particularly Tổng Công ty Hàng hải Việt Nam at 75.0%, may lead to governance risks and reduced minority shareholder influence.
Investors should closely monitor QNP's financial disclosures and consider a cautious approach due to the elevated risk of earnings manipulation, while also recognizing the strong cash conversion metrics as a potential buffer.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for QNP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate