
THG
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 — THG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
THG exhibits a Beneish M-Score of -2.3651, indicating a low likelihood of earnings manipulation. However, the earnings quality metrics reveal a significant weakness in revenue recognition, which could pose risks to the sustainability of reported earnings.
- Earnings Quality Score is low at 83.7/100, particularly driven by an eq_revenue score of 15.1/100, suggesting potential issues with revenue recognition.
- Strong cash conversion and receivables metrics at 100.0/100 indicate effective cash management and collection processes.
The ownership structure is fragmented with no single shareholder holding a significant majority, which may lead to governance challenges and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should closely monitor revenue recognition practices and consider conducting further due diligence on management's integrity and operational transparency before making investment decisions.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for THG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate