StockAnalyzer

Financial Analysis

DashboardSectorsComparablesScreenerUniverseMicrocapsAI 2nd OrderTheme MapEnergy & MaterialsMacroWatchlistCompareMi CarteraPortfolio

Recent

v0.1
9568.SR$2.10+0.00%
Fair $2.10+0.0%

9568.SR

Mayar Holding Company

Industrials / ConglomeratesSaudi

$2.10

+0.00 (+0.00%)

Fairly Valued+0.0%Fair Value $2.10Fund rank 28/100 · Data gapFallback financials|
SA 32/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 19%

FCF escenarios

weak_data · normalized FCF $-12.6M · quality 49.0/100

Data gap 28/100
Bear 5Yn/dn/d
Base 5Yn/dn/d
Bull 5Yn/dn/d
Return 0/100Downside 20/100Model quality 18/100Data 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

32/100

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 · 9568.SRLocal privado en este navegador · Mayar Holding Company
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

$252M

P/E

N/A

•

EV/EBITDA

N/A

•

ROE

1200.7%

↑

Gross Margin

10.7%

↓

Debt/Equity

-73.51

↓
52-Week Range$2
$1$4

TradingView lightweight chart

9568.SR price, volumen y niveles de valoración

Último $2.100Periodo -52.3%
Fair value: $2.100

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

-1.2%

FCF CAGR

—

FCF margin

-6.8%

FCF / Net income

0.59x

Latest source

Provider fallback

Margin decomposition

Último año: revenue $399.2M · net income $-46.3M · FCF $-27.2M

2022-FY → 2025-FY

Gross margin

10.7%-2.8% pts

Operating margin

-9.1%-11.2% pts

Net margin

-11.6%-11.9% pts

FCF margin

-6.8%+9.1% pts
MetricTTM
2025
2024
2023
2022
Income Statement
Revenue$399.2M$399.2M$446.7M$355.0M$413.8M
Net Income$-46.3M$-46.3M$16.6M$-38.2M$1.4M
EBITDA$-7.7M$-7.7M$59.0M$-6.2M$29.5M
EPS——0.14-0.320.01
Gross Margin10.7%10.7%16.8%11.5%13.5%
Operating Margin-9.1%-9.1%5.4%-5.8%2.1%
Net Margin-11.6%-11.6%3.7%-10.8%0.3%
Balance Sheet
Debt/Equity-73.51-73.516.507.943.22
Current Ratio0.580.58———
Cash Flow
Free Cash Flow$-27.2M$-27.2M$16.2M$-12.6M$-65.8M
Returns
ROE1200.7%1200.7%41.8%-117.8%1.8%
Valuation
P/E——23.50——
EV/EBITDA——10.87——
P/B——9.9617.94—
Growth & Yield
Revenue Growth-10.6%-10.6%25.9%-14.2%—
EPS Growth——143.8%-2880.4%—

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 -22.2%

Total return

-22.2%

Start / end P/E

n/dx → n/dx

EPS bridge

0.14 → n/d

Residual

-22.2%

EPS growthn/d
Multiple reratingn/d
Dividend+0.0%
Residual / FX / buybacks / cross-term-22.2%

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.