
USC
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 — USC
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
USC exhibits several concerning indicators of potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by its Beneish M-Score of -2.2682, which suggests a likelihood of financial statement manipulation. Additionally, the low earnings quality score of 23.1/100, particularly the 0.0/100 in cash conversion and receivables, raises significant red flags regarding the sustainability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.2682 indicates potential manipulation, exceeding the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 23.1/100, with 0.0/100 in cash conversion and receivables, suggests poor earnings quality.
- DSRI of 1.2350 indicates a reasonable level of inventory growth relative to sales, which may suggest operational stability.
The high concentration of ownership, with Tổng Công ty Tư vấn Xây dựng Việt Nam holding 57.8%, presents a risk of governance issues and potential conflicts of interest, particularly in decision-making processes.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence on USC, focusing on cash flow sustainability and governance practices, before considering any investment.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for USC — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate