
TTB
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 — TTB
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
TTB exhibits a moderate risk profile with a Beneish M-Score of -0.3596, indicating no immediate signs of earnings manipulation. However, the SGI of 4.4420 suggests aggressive growth that may not be sustainable, warranting caution.
- SGI of 4.4420 indicates aggressive revenue growth that may not be supported by underlying fundamentals.
- Earnings Quality Score of 63.8/100, particularly low scores in eq_margin (0.0/100) and eq_revenue (0.0/100) raise concerns about the quality of reported earnings.
- Strong cash conversion metrics with eq_cash_conv at 100.0/100, indicating effective cash generation from operations.
- Low DSRI of 0.2526 suggests that accounts receivable are well-managed relative to sales, reducing the risk of revenue recognition issues.
The ownership structure is relatively fragmented among institutions, with no single entity holding a controlling stake, which may reduce the risk of undue influence but could also lead to governance challenges.
Monitor TTB closely for signs of sustainability in revenue growth and consider a cautious investment approach, focusing on cash flow performance and earnings quality metrics.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for TTB — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate