VHG
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 — VHG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2019
VHG exhibits significant red flags indicating potential earnings manipulation, as evidenced by its Beneish M-Score of -31.2659, well below the manipulation threshold of -1.78. The earnings quality score of 27.5/100, particularly low scores in receivables, margins, and revenue, further highlight concerns regarding the sustainability and transparency of its financial reporting.
- Beneish M-Score of -31.2659 indicates strong likelihood of earnings manipulation.
- Earnings Quality Score of 27.5/100 suggests poor earnings quality, with 0.0/100 in receivables, margins, and revenue metrics.
- DSRI of 0.9737 indicates a slight decrease in Days Sales Receivable, which may suggest improved collection efficiency.
The ownership structure is fragmented with no single shareholder holding a significant controlling stake, which may lead to governance issues and lack of accountability in decision-making.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence on VHG, particularly focusing on its financial reporting practices and governance structure 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 VHG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate