TTZ
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 — TTZ
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2023
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2023
TTZ exhibits several concerning financial metrics that suggest potential earnings manipulation, particularly indicated by a Beneish M-Score of -1.43, which is above the manipulation threshold of -1.78. The earnings quality score of 33.7/100, particularly low cash conversion and receivables metrics, further highlight significant risks in financial reporting.
- Beneish M-Score of -1.43 indicates potential earnings manipulation, as it is above the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 33.7/100, with cash conversion at only 40.0/100 and receivables at 0.0/100, suggests poor earnings quality and potential issues in revenue recognition.
- DSRI of 1.9395 indicates that inventory growth is not excessive compared to revenue growth, which could imply reasonable inventory management.
The ownership structure is highly concentrated with the top five shareholders holding over 50% of the shares, which may lead to governance risks and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should exercise caution and consider conducting further due diligence on TTZ’s financial practices, particularly focusing on cash flow and revenue recognition, 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 TTZ — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate