STP
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 — STP
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
The Beneish M-Score of -2.8092 indicates that STP is unlikely to be manipulating earnings, as it is well below the threshold of -1.78. However, the low revenue quality score of 21.1/100 raises concerns about the sustainability of reported revenues.
- Revenue quality score of 21.1/100 indicates significant concerns regarding the reliability of revenue recognition.
- SGAI of 1.2826 suggests that selling, general, and administrative expenses are growing faster than sales, which could indicate inefficiencies.
- Earnings Quality Score of 79.3/100 reflects relatively strong overall earnings quality, particularly in cash conversion (100.0/100) and receivables (100.0/100).
- Beneish M-Score of -2.8092 suggests a low likelihood of earnings manipulation.
The ownership structure is relatively fragmented with no single shareholder holding a controlling stake, which may lead to potential governance issues and lack of strategic direction.
Investors should closely monitor revenue recognition practices and expense management while considering a cautious approach to investment in STP due to the identified risks.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for STP — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate