StockAnalyzer

Financial Analysis

DashboardSectorsComparablesScreenerUniverseMicrocapsAI 2nd OrderTheme MapEnergy & MaterialsMacroWatchlistCompareMi CarteraPortfolio

Recent

v0.1
0260.KL$0.31+0.00%
Fair $0.31+0.0%

0260.KL

PT Resources Holdings Berhad

Consumer Defensive / Packaged FoodsKuala Lumpur

$0.31

+0.00 (+0.00%)

Fairly Valued+0.0%Fair Value $0.31Fund rank 23/100 · Data gapFallback financials|
SA 30/D
F-Score: 2/9

FCF base 3Y

n/d

n/d CAGR · yield n/d

FCF base 5Y

n/d

n/d base · n/d expected

Precio de entrada

n/d

MOS 34% · confianza 16%

FCF escenarios

weak_data · normalized FCF $-13.6M · quality 33.7/100

Data gap 23/100
Bear 5Yn/dn/d
Base 5Yn/dn/d
Bull 5Yn/dn/d
Return 0/100Downside 20/100Model quality 12/100Data QA 20/100

Ranking barato/determinista: CAGR esperado 5Y + downside bear + calidad del modelo + balance + capital allocation + data gate. No entra en buy-candidate si la data es débil o el CAGR 5Y no compensa.

Quality + valuation scorecard

SA Score

30/100

D

Piotroski

2/9

balance/quality

Valuation

50/100

+0.0% upside

5Y CAGR

+0.0%

50/100

Data QA

16/100

SEC 0%

Latest source: unknownPeriods: 4Warnings: 0unknown: 4
No SEC-backed annual rows; valuation uses fallback financial data. Sector-specific holding-company NAV/SOTP model required: targets are disabled until look-through holdings, debt and discount data exists.
Thesis & Journal · 0260.KLLocal privado en este navegador · PT Resources Holdings Berhad
Plantilla tipo buy-side: tesis, bull/base/bear, catalizadores, riesgos, kill criteria y fecha de revisión. Esto no gasta GPT-5.5; luego lo usamos como contexto del memo.

Sin guardar todavía.

Market Cap

$166M

P/E

N/A

•

EV/EBITDA

10.8x

↑

ROE

5.9%

↓

Gross Margin

8.9%

↓

Debt/Equity

0.72

↑
52-Week Range$0
$0$0

TradingView lightweight chart

0260.KL price, volumen y niveles de valoración

Último $0.310Periodo -16.2%
Fair value: $0.310

Price & Ratios

Absolute Values (Left Axis)

Ratios / Percentages (Right Axis)

Financial statement dashboard

Crecimiento, márgenes y provenance

2022–2025 · 3 años de histórico normalizado

Revenue CAGR

+17.0%

FCF CAGR

—

FCF margin

-0.2%

FCF / Net income

-0.11x

Latest source

Provider fallback

Margin decomposition

Último año: revenue $558.7M · net income $12.2M · FCF $-1.3M

2022-FY → 2025-FY

Gross margin

8.9%-2.2% pts

Operating margin

3.1%-3.6% pts

Net margin

2.2%-3.9% pts

FCF margin

-0.2%-6.1% pts
MetricTTM
2025
2024
2023
2022
Income Statement
Revenue$558.7M$558.7M$554.8M$502.6M$349.1M
Net Income$12.2M$12.2M$53.0M$36.8M$21.1M
EBITDA$22.7M$22.7M$63.0M$43.5M$26.6M
EPS——0.100.080.04
Gross Margin8.9%8.9%15.2%12.5%11.1%
Operating Margin3.1%3.1%10.5%8.0%6.7%
Net Margin2.2%2.2%9.5%7.3%6.0%
Balance Sheet
Debt/Equity0.720.720.600.510.69
Current Ratio1.761.76———
Cash Flow
Free Cash Flow$-1.3M$-1.3M$-28.3M$-13.6M$20.4M
Returns
ROE5.9%5.9%26.1%23.4%28.8%
Valuation
P/E——5.006.14—
EV/EBITDA10.7710.775.315.69—
P/B0.790.791.301.44—
Growth & Yield
Revenue Growth0.7%0.7%10.4%44.0%—
EPS Growth——29.4%93.9%—

Revenue, Net Income & Free Cash Flow ($B)

Margins (%)

Returns (%)

Leverage & Liquidity

Reverse DCF · market-implied EPS growthterminal P/E 15.0x · COE 10.0%
Reverse DCF requires positive EPS; loss-making or zero-EPS companies cannot produce a clean EPS hurdle.

Qué te dice: cuánto EPS CAGR está descontando el precio si sales al múltiplo terminal indicado. Si el growth observado queda por debajo, el mercado está pidiendo una ejecución muy fina.

Return attribution · 1Y approxreconcilia total -3.1%

Total return

-3.1%

Start / end P/E

n/dx → n/dx

EPS bridge

0.10 → n/d

Residual

-3.1%

EPS growthn/d
Multiple reratingn/d
Dividend+0.0%
Residual / FX / buybacks / cross-term-3.1%

EPS/multiple decomposition requires positive EPS at both endpoints; residual absorbs price move not explained by dividends.

Simple additive decomposition: total return = EPS growth contribution + P/E multiple contribution + dividend contribution + explicit residual. The residual captures cross-terms, buybacks/share-count effects, FX, special dividends, data noise and methodology mismatch so the bridge always reconciles.