StockAnalyzer

Financial Analysis

DashboardSectorsComparablesScreenerUniverseMicrocapsAI 2nd OrderTheme MapEnergy & MaterialsMacroWatchlistCompareMi CarteraPortfolio

Recent

v0.1
9326.KL$0.48+0.00%
Fair $0.48+0.0%

9326.KL

LB Aluminium Berhad

Basic Materials / AluminumKuala Lumpur

$0.48

+0.00 (+0.00%)

Fairly Valued+0.0%Fair Value $0.48Fund rank 27/100 · Data gapFallback financials|
SA 48/C
F-Score: 4/9

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 33% · confianza 19%

FCF escenarios

weak_data · normalized FCF $15.6M · quality 44.3/100

Data gap 27/100
Bear 5Yn/dn/d
Base 5Yn/dn/d
Bull 5Yn/dn/d
Return 0/100Downside 20/100Model quality 20/100Data 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

48/100

C

Piotroski

4/9

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 commodity mid-cycle model required: targets are disabled until normalized cycle price/cost-curve/reserve data exists.
Thesis & Journal · 9326.KLLocal privado en este navegador · LB Aluminium 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

$211M

P/E

3.5x

↓

EV/EBITDA

3.6x

↓

ROE

8.3%

↑

Gross Margin

16.9%

↓

Debt/Equity

0.56

↑
52-Week Range$0
$0$1

TradingView lightweight chart

9326.KL price, volumen y niveles de valoración

Último $0.485Periodo +86.5%
Fair value: $0.485

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

+15.7%

FCF CAGR

—

FCF margin

0.7%

FCF / Net income

0.19x

Latest source

Provider fallback

Margin decomposition

Último año: revenue $1.06B · net income $36.3M · FCF $6.9M

2022-FY → 2025-FY

Gross margin

16.9%-2.2% pts

Operating margin

9.1%+1.5% pts

Net margin

3.4%-2.7% pts

FCF margin

0.7%+17.7% pts
MetricTTM
2025
2024
2023
2022
Income Statement
Revenue$1.06B$1.06B$955.5M$777.8M$686.6M
Net Income$36.3M$36.3M$29.3M$38.7M$41.7M
EBITDA$113.0M$113.0M$74.5M$70.6M$72.2M
EPS——0.070.090.10
Gross Margin16.9%16.9%12.9%15.8%19.1%
Operating Margin9.1%9.1%5.6%6.9%7.5%
Net Margin3.4%3.4%3.1%5.0%6.1%
Balance Sheet
Debt/Equity0.560.560.550.560.72
Current Ratio1.841.84———
Cash Flow
Free Cash Flow$6.9M$6.9M$15.6M$87.1M$-116.7M
Returns
ROE8.3%8.3%7.1%9.9%11.5%
Valuation
P/E3.463.467.505.224.95
EV/EBITDA3.623.625.305.316.08
P/B0.480.480.530.520.57
Growth & Yield
Revenue Growth11.4%11.4%22.9%13.3%—
EPS Growth——-24.5%-7.1%—
Dividend Yield5.1%5.1%———

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 +6.2%

Total return

+6.2%

Start / end P/E

n/dx → n/dx

EPS bridge

0.07 → n/d

Residual

+1.0%

EPS growthn/d
Multiple reratingn/d
Dividend+5.1%
Residual / FX / buybacks / cross-term+1.0%

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.