TR1
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 — TR1
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
The Beneish M-Score of -2.1124 indicates that TR1 is not likely to be engaged in earnings manipulation, as it is below the threshold of -1.78. However, the SGI of 1.3294 and LVGI of 1.1265 suggest potential growth pressures that could impact future performance.
- SGI of 1.3294 indicates sales growth significantly outpacing industry averages, which may not be sustainable.
- The revenue quality score of 0.0/100 raises concerns about the reliability of reported revenues.
- Earnings Quality Score of 81.3/100 indicates strong overall earnings quality, particularly in accruals (96.4/100) and cash conversion (93.5/100).
- The low DEPI of 0.9970 suggests that depreciation policies are consistent with revenue generation.
The concentrated ownership structure, with the top four shareholders holding over 60% of shares, increases the risk of governance issues and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should monitor sales growth closely due to the elevated SGI and consider the implications of revenue quality on future earnings. A deeper analysis of the ownership dynamics is recommended to assess governance risks.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for TR1 — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate