
SSG
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 — SSG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
SSG exhibits significant red flags indicating potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by a Beneish M-Score of 0.3001, which is well above the manipulation threshold of -1.78. Additionally, the company's earnings quality metrics are alarmingly low, with an Earnings Quality Score of 0.0/100, suggesting severe issues in revenue recognition and cash conversion.
- Beneish M-Score of 0.3001 indicates potential earnings manipulation, significantly above the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 0.0/100 reflects extremely poor earnings quality, with all components (accrual, cash conversion, margin, revenue) scoring 0.0.
The concentrated ownership structure, with the top five shareholders holding 86.5% of the shares, raises concerns about governance and potential conflicts of interest. This level of concentration may hinder independent oversight and exacerbate risks of management self-dealing.
Given the high risk of earnings manipulation and poor earnings quality, it is advisable to avoid investment in SSG until there is a clear improvement in financial transparency and governance practices.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for SSG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate