
VMS
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 — VMS
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
VMS exhibits a Beneish M-Score of -2.1214, indicating a lower likelihood of earnings manipulation, as it is below the manipulation threshold of -1.78. However, the high SGI of 1.4357 and low revenue quality score of 0.0/100 raise concerns about growth sustainability and revenue recognition practices.
- SGI of 1.4357 indicates aggressive growth that may not be supported by actual revenue generation.
- Revenue quality score of 0.0/100 suggests potential issues with revenue recognition, which could impact financial reliability.
- Beneish M-Score of -2.1214 suggests a lower likelihood of earnings manipulation.
- Earnings Quality Score of 67.4/100, particularly high accrual score of 96.4/100, indicates strong cash flow management.
The ownership structure is heavily concentrated, with state and institutional shareholders holding a combined 102.1%, indicating potential governance risks and lack of minority shareholder influence.
Investors should closely monitor revenue recognition practices and growth sustainability, considering a cautious approach until further clarity on operational performance is established.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for VMS — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate