CORPORATE FINANCE GROUP ASSIGNMENT POMINA (POM) ANALYSIS

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

CORPORATE FINANCE
GROUP ASSIGNMENT

POMINA (POM) ANALYSIS

Group members:
Truong Bao Thach – 2170312 -
Pham Thanh Trung – 2170297
Truong Minh Chuong – 2192005
Dang Vinh Hien – 2192007

Lecturer: Dr. Nguyen Thu Hien

HCM City, 12/2021


ROLES AND WORK DELEGATION OF GROUP MEMBERS
Members
Trương Bảo
Thạch
- 2170312

Phạm Thành
Trung
- 2170297

Trương Minh

Chương
- 2192005

Đặng Vinh
Hiển
- 2192007

Roles

Comments
- Group leader
- Good, met all
- Assign tasks, create deadlines
deadlines
- Create overall ratio form with formulas for - Did the most work
members to fill in components
- Download required financial statements
- Guide members to collect data from financial
statements and to write comments for each ratio
- Check all numbers put in the ratio form
- Write part 1 and part 2.3
- Write overall purposes for part 2.1 and 2.2, adjust
all part 2.1 and 2.2 comments of ratios from
members
- Complete final group report
- Part 2.1 and 2.2: Fill in components of 6 - Good, met all
profitability ratios (ROA, ROE, EPS, P/E, BVPS, deadlines
and P/B) of trend analysis and benchmark analysis; - Needed minor
write comments for each ratio
correction of data

- Helps Thạch with adjusting comments of input and minor
liquidity ratios and activity ratios in part 2.2 (first changes of comments
adjustment, then Thạch made another adjustment)
- Part 2.1 and 2.2: Fill in components of 7 ratios, - Met all deadlines
including 2 liquidity ratios (current ratio and quick - Needed minor
ratio) and 5 activity ratios (inventory turnover, correction of data and
average age of inventory, average collection major adjustment of
period, average payment period, and total assets comments
turnover) of trend analysis and benchmark
analysis; write comments for each ratio
- Part 2.1 and 2.2: Fill in components of 5 ratios, - Met all deadlines
including 2 financial leverage ratios (debts ratio - Needed minor
and times interest earned) and 3 activity ratios correction of data and
(GPM, OPM, and NPM) of trend analysis and major adjustment of
benchmark analysis; write comments for each ratio comments

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading

Page

Roles and work delegation of group members

i

Table of contents

ii

List of tables

iii

PART 1. COMPANY INTRODUCTION

1

PART 2. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

2

2.1. Trend analysis (2018-2020)

2

2.2. Benchmark analysis (Peer analysis)

5

2.3. Summary and investment recommendation

9

REFERENCES

11

APPENDICES

12

ii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Trend analysis of POM (2018-2020)

1

Table 2. Stock exchange, market capitalization and total assets of POM, NKG, DTL,
and TIS (2020)
5
Table 3. Benchmark analysis of POM (2020)

iii

6


PART 1. COMPANY INTRODUCTION
Pomina specializes in manufacturing basic metal, specifically manufacturing steel from raw
materials. Currently, it is one of the largest steel producers in Viet Nam with an annual capacity
of 1.8 million tons. Pomina consists of three steel factories (Pomina 1, Pomina 2 and Pomina
3), including rolling and melting mills with the total of 1.1 million tons of various types of
construction steels a year and 1.5 million tons of billet a year. Its main operation is in Southern
Vietnam, with Pomina 1 located in Binh Duong, and Pomina 2 and Pomina 3 located in Ba Ria
– Vung Tau. (Pomina Introduction)

The predecessor of Pomina Steel Co., Ltd. was Thep Viet Steel Co., Ltd. which was established
in 1992 with a charter capital of 42 billion VND. In 1999, Pomina 1 was found and it reached
the with a capacity of 600 thousand tons of steel a year in 2002. In 2005, Pomina 2 was formed.
On July 17, 2008, the two companies were equitized and renamed into Pomina Steel Joint Stock
Company with charter capital of 500 billion VND. In 2008, the macroeconomic of Viet Nam
faced a crisis and brought many challenges to steel industry in particular . However, steel
companies like Pomina with good foundation survived and still developed. (Pomina
Introduction)
After the foundation of Pomina 1 and Pomina 2, in July 2009, Pomina 3 was established. Hence,
Pomina Steel Joint Stock Company had increased its charter capital to 820 billion VND by July
2009. On August 31, 2009, it became a public company. By January 2010, the company had
increased its charter capital to 1,630 billion VND (Pomina Introduction, Vietstock)
On April 07, 2010, Pomina Steel Joint Stock Company was officially listed on the Ho Chi Minh
City Stock Exchange (HOSE) with the stock code POM. Its first trade on HOSE was on April
20, 2010, with the stock reference price was around 18,600, according to Vietstock. Currently,
the stock price ended at 16,250 on November 29, 2021, with market capitalization of around
4,526 billion VND. 145,161,815. Thep Viet Steel is the current largest shareholder of Pomina
Steel, with around 52.1% shares owned (last updated on August 28, 2021 – Vietstock).
Regarding competitive advantages, POMINA has the Level 2 automation system, which allows
the production process to be flexible in order to produce various construction steel grades for
high-quality projects in Southern Viet Nam and exports. Pomina is the pioneer in investing in
some of the most advanced technologies and equipment in the world from top suppliers such
as Techint, SMS – Concast and Siemens – VAI. Additionally, synchronized and consistent
investment is another competitive advantage. (Pomina Introduction)
For development strategy, the company aims to increase the production output of construction
steel and export output billet, and to gain market share in the Northern market and focus on the
national market. According to BMI, Vietnam's construction industry is forecasted to grow in
the near future. Besides, the abundant FDI inflows and the recovery of the economy are also
expected to promote the construction of houses, factories and warehouses. Therefore, steel
manufacturing industry can benefit from it. However, the company has to face increasingly

fierce competition from other steel producers such as Thai Nguyen Steel, Viet Uc Steel, Viet
Han steel, Vinakansai Steel, and Chinese companies with low cost. The company also bears
high financial costs due to multiple project investment. (Vietstock)

1


2. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
2.1. Trend analysis (2018-2020)
Trend analysis uses historical data to predict the trend of market in the future. In other words,
trend analysis is based on the idea that what has happened in the past gives investors a forecast
of what will happen in the future (Hayes, 2021). In this project, to recommend investors
whether they should invest in Pomina (POM) or not, an intermediate-term trend analysis (3year period – 2018, 2019 and 2020) is used (as required). The analysis consists of 18 financial
ratios, and the components of the ratios are collected from published separate audited financial
statements of the company POM. Separate financial statements, instead of consolidated
financial statements, are used in order to reflect true business operations of POM.
Table 1 describes the results of our calculation of 18 ratios from 2018 to 2020 for POM.
Table 1. Trend analysis of POM (2018-2020)

Liquidity Ratios

Activity Ratios

Financial
Leverage Ratios
Profitability
Ratios

Market Ratios

Current Ratio
Quick Ratio
Inventory Turnover
Average Age of Inventory
Average Collection Period
Average Payment Period
Total Assets Turnover
Debt Ratio
Times Interest Earned
Gross Profit Margin
Operating Profit Margin
Net Profit Margin
ROA
ROE
EPS
P/E
BVPS
P/B

2020

2019

2018

0.87
0.38
2.64
138.21
110.15

41.96
0.59
0.52
1.21
3.23%
4.85%
0.79%
0.49%
1.04%
122.65
104.37
10,040.67
1.27

0.97
0.53
4.21
86.73
80.59
22.03
1.02
0.58
0.89
1.93%
2.48%
-0.38%
-0.38%
-0.89%
-120.09
-43.30

10,046.77
0.52

0.99
0.49
5.01
72.89
74.70
10.84
1.23
0.52
3.08
4.60%
5.99%
4.07%
4.57%
9.55%
1296.49
5.55
10,046.77
0.72

Regarding liquidity ratios, the current ratio of POM has been always below 1, indicating that
the company’s debts due in a year or less have been greater than cash and other short-term
assets expected to be converted to cash within a year or less. In other words, it is likely that
POM has not had the capital on hand to meet its short-term obligations if they were all due at
once. The current ratio had been decreasing from 2018 to 2020 too, worsening the company's
liquidity. Based on this trend, it is expected that POM will struggle to pay its bills in the
upcoming year.
The quick ratio measures a company's ability to meet its short-term obligations with its most

liquid assets and therefore excludes inventories from its current assets. Although POM’s quick
ratio slightly rose in 2019 compared to 2018, it significantly decreased in 2020 (decreased by

2


22.5% compared to 2018). It is expected that POM will still be likely to struggle with paying
debts in the future.
For activity ratios, inventory turnover shows how many times the company is able to replace
the inventory that it has sold. If it is low, that means inventory is moving too slowly and is
tying up capital. POM’s inventory turnover had been decreasing in the given period, and in
2020 the decrease was 47.3% compared to 2018. This suggests that inventory had been moving
too slowly and is anticipated to move slowly in the next coming year.
Average age of inventory measures the number of days the company takes to sell inventory
balance. POM’s figure had been increasing, meaning it took more time to sell inventory for a
profit, therefore the less profit had been made. This reflects that POM may have had efficiency
issue in their business activities.
Average collection period is indicative of the effectiveness of accounts receivable management
practices. For POM, it had been increasing since 2018, meaning that the time to collect
payments owed by clients had been longer. This indicates the organization had been less
efficient in collecting payments.
POM’s average payment period had been increasing during the period, and in 2020 it increased
by 3.78 times compared to 2018. This indicates the difficulty to pay its creditors had increased.
The total assets turnover of POM had been decreasing, suggesting that too much capital is tied
up in assets and that assets are not being used efficiently in generating revenue .
With respect to financial leverage ratios, for debt ratio, it slightly increased in 2019 (from 0.52
to 0.58), but in 2020 it decreased back to the level of 2018 (from 0.58 to 0.52). In all three
years, the company’s assets were financed through more liabilities than equity (all debt ratios
were larger than 0.5). The figure dropped back to 0.52 which is near 0.5 in 2020, indicating the
use of liabilities was relatively balanced compared to the use of equity.

For times interest earned, it substantially dropped by 71.1% from 3.08 in 2018 to 0.89 in 2019,
and recovered to 1.21 in 2020. The significant decrease in 2019 came from poor business
performance, specifically, the firm's EBT was 312 billion VND in 2018 and fell to negative 23
billion VND in 2019. Times interest earned less than 1 shows that earnings before taxes and
interest was lower than interest expenses. Hence, the company's income sources from operating
activities were not enough to cover the incurred interest expenses. However, with the increase
by 36% in 2020, although the ratio was still quite far from 2018 figure, it showed that there is
potential recovery for the company’s financial leverage to be managed more efficiently.
Regarding profitability ratios, gross profit margin of POM saw a significant drop from 4.6%
in 2018 to 1.9% in 2019, and partially recovered to 3.2%. Compared to 2018, in 2020, both
gross profit (numerator of the ratio) and net sales (denominator) decreased, but gross profit
dropped more substantially, with gross profit decreased by 60.7% while net sales decreased by
44.11% during the period (or, the decrease of net sales was not as much as the increase of
COGS, because gross profit equals to net sales minus COGS). This decrease indicates that
POM’s efficiency of using its materials and labor to produce profits dropped. In addition, the
fluctuation of the ratio may signal poor management practices and/or inferior products.

3


However, with the increase in 2020, there is potential that the company can recover its
profitability in the future.
Similarly, operating profit margin saw a big drop in 2019 and partial recovery in 2020.
Compared to gross profit margin ratio, the trend was similar because the changes of financial
income, selling expenses, administration expenses, other expenses, other losses and other
income were insignificant. This also suggests that while POM had been less profitable from its
operations, with the partial recovery in 2020, there is possibility that the company’s
profitability can recover.
Net profit margin also saw the similar trend too, but in 2019 the ratio was even negative. This
negative figure primarily came from the outstandingly high interest expenses, and came from

high tax expenses, but to a lesser degree. Although interests and taxes in 2020 was less than
209, they were still higher than 2018.
The similar trend was also seen in ROA, ROE, with a huge decrease in 2019 and a very slight
increase in 2020. Although net income recovered, both total assets and total equity dropped
significantly. Overall, POM had not been efficient in terms of assets usage to produce income.
With respect to market ratios, EPS significantly decreased from 1,296 to -120 in 2019 and
recovered to 122 in 2020. In 2020, the net income improved, while the company also issued
more shares.
The company’s performance was also reflected in the market stock price, where it was
7,200/share in 2018 when the operation was still good, dropped to 5,200 in 2019, representing
a loss of investor confidence in the company. In 2020, with the partial recovery of the company,
the market value increased. Due to high expectation of investors, although EPS was still
relatively low (122 VND/share), the stock price peaked in the given period with the figure of
12,800 VND/share (note that more shares were issued in 2020). Thus, P/E reached 104.37
which is a somewhat unattractive figure compared to 2018.
BVPS had been kept around 10,040. Because the decrease in investor confidence due to poor
performance in 2019, market price decreased leading to the decrease of P/B from 0.72 to 0.52.
Both figures were below 1 suggesting the company was undervalued at that time. However,
expectations of the company's recovery in 2020 pushed the stock price up and P/B hit 1.27. A
P/B larger than 1 could indicate that the company was overvalued. However, P/B and P/E of
one company alone should not absolutely reflect if it is overvalued or undervalued, that is why
benchmark analysis is needed to compare these ratios of companies in the same industry to
determine whether they are high or low.

4


2.2. Benchmark analysis (Peer analysis)
Benchmark analysis is the process of comparing a firm's performance criteria to its competitors.
In this section, because we cannot collect the industry average of steel manufacturing industry,

we will compare the 2020 financial ratios of POM with three competitors within the industry
with the most similar market capitalization (POM’s ending 2020 market capitalization was
3,565 billion VND, total assets was 6,912 billion VND): Nam Kim Steel Joint Stock Company
(NKG, listed on HOSE, market capitalization was 2,150 billion VND, total assets was 7,650
billion VND), Dai Thien Loc Corporation (DTL, listed on HOSE, market capitalization was
661 billion VND, total assets was 1,416), and Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel JSC (TIS, listed on
UPCOM – Unlisted Public Company Market – a “transiting” stock exchange, market
capitalization was 2,024 billion VND, total assets was 9,179 billion VND). Although the
market capitalization and total assets of these companies have significantly changed to this date
(for example, DTL’s market capitalization increased to 2,152 billion VND on December 01,
2021), for this assignment, the end of 2020 is the specific timeline to analyze and give investing
recommendation. Similar to trend analysis, the data of this analysis is also collected from
published separate audited financial statements. We also calculated the average value of
financial ratios of NKG, DTL, and TIS. With the average figures, the comparison between
ratios of POM and competitors can be clear er.
Table 2 shows the stock exchange, market capitalization and total assets of POM, NKG, DTL,
and TIS at the end of 2020.
Table 2. Stock exchange, market capitalization and total assets of POM, NKG, DTL, and TIS
(2020)

Stock exchange

POM

NKG

DTL

TIS

HOSE

HOSE

HOSE

UPCOM

Market
capitalization
(billion VND)

3,565

2,150

661

2,024

Total assets
(billion VND)

6,912

7,650

1,416

9,179

5


Table 3 illustrates the results of benchmark analysis of POM with NKG, DTL, and TIS in 2020.
Table 3. Benchmark analysis of POM (2020)

POM
Liquidity
Ratios

Current Ratio

Quick Ratio
Inventory
Turnover
Average Age of
Inventory
Average
Activity
Collection Period
Ratios
Average Payment
Period
Total Assets
Turnover
Debt Ratio
Financial
Times Interest
Leverage

Earned
Ratios
Gross Profit
Margin
Operating Profit
Profitability
Margin
Ratios
Net Profit Margin
ROA
ROE
EPS
P/E
Market
Ratios
BVPS
P/B

NKG

DTL

Average
of NKG,
TIS
DTL, and
TIS
0.46
0.99
0.23

0.43

0.87
0.38

1.11
0.56

1.41
0.52

2.64

4.58

1.20

10.14

5.30

138.21

79.73

304.30

36.01

140.01

110.15

43.72

48.92

28.19

40.27

41.96

49.68

70.62

31.66

50.65

0.59

1.46

0.29

1.45

1.07

0.52

0.59

0.28

0.80

0.56

1.21

2.26

2.86

1.34

2.15

3.23%

7.09%

6.70%

2.98%

5.59%

4.85%

4.29%

4.09%

0.99%

3.12%

0.79%
0.49%
1.04%
122.65
104.37
10,040.67
1.27

2.17%
3.23%
7.88%
1,437.38
8.70
10,581.40
1.18

2.63%
0.77%
1.07%

179.66
60.67
10,132.71
1.08

0.12%
0.18%
0.88%
89.54
122.85
10,000.60
1.10

1.64%
1.39%
3.28%
568.86
64.07
10,238.24
1.12

Regarding liquidity ratios, the average current ratio of competitors was 0.99, but the average
quick ratio was significantly lower (equaled to 0.43), suggesting that the competitors in steel
manufacturing industry relied heavily on inventory and might be sorely lacking other liquid
assets. The same could be said about POM where current ratio was much greater than quick
ratio. In addition, it can be seen that POM was less liquid than the three companies in
comparison, with current ratio and quick ratio both lower than the average of competitors. This
suggests that POM could face difficulty meeting current obligations.
In terms of activity ratios, inventory turnover of POM was significantly lower than the
average of competitors, but was still higher than DTL’s ratio. Consistent to this, average age

of inventory of POM was much higher than NKG and TIS, but was lower than DTL. Therefore,
while the issue was not as bad as DTL, POM could have inventory issues in 2020.
POM had a very high average collection period in 2020 (110.15 days) compared to its
competitors (average of 40.27 days with maximum of 48.92 days). This shows that POM was
inefficient in terms of collecting accounts receivable.
6


For average payment period, when compared to the average of competitors, POM’s ratio was
lower than by 23.66%. In trend analysis, this ratio of POM had been decreasing from 2018 to
2020, but in 2020 it was still more favorable than the average of its competitors. In other words,
while the difficulty of paying creditors had been rising for POM from 2018 to 2020, POM still
settled credit payments faster than its competitors on average and was likely to attract good
payment terms from the existing and new vendors.
POM’s considerably low assets turnover ratio of 0.59 (compared to average of competitors of
1.07) indicates that too much capital was tied up in the asset and that the assets was not being
used as effectively as the competitors on average to generate revenue.
In terms of financial leverage ratios, for debt ratio, there was not a big difference between the
average ratio (0.56), and POM’ ratio (0.52), in 2020, suggesting that POM’s financial leverage
was relatively normal. However, when compared separately to each competitor, significant
differences could be found. While POM and NKG financed its assets through liabilities and
through equity in a fairly balanced manner (0.52 and 0.59 respectively), DTL and TIS’s debt
ratios were on the two opposite extreme sides: DTL financed mainly through equity (0.28) and
TIS financed mostly through debts. Lower debt ratio is usually considered good, however, if it
is too low, the firm does not finance increased operations through borrowing enough, which
limits the total return that can be realized and passed on to shareholders. On the other hand, if
it is too high, there is a possibility that too much debt compromises the entire operation if cash
flow dries up. To wrap it up, POM’s debt ratio can be seen as good when compared to its
competitors.
For times interest earned, POM’s ratio was lower than all competitors, and far below the

average of its competitors by 77.8%. This means that POM’s times interest earned ratio was
not favorable because the lower the ratio, the higher risk the company presents to investors and
creditors in terms of solvency. Furthermore, from an investor or creditor's perspective, in
general, companies that have a times interest earned ratio of less than 2.5 are considered a much
higher risk for bankruptcy or default and, therefore, financially unstable (Horton, 2021).
Regarding profitability ratios, it can be seen that POM gross profit margin (3.23%) was
considerably lower than the average of mentioned competitors (5.59%). There was a huge gap
when comparing the firm’s ratio to its closest competitor in terms of size – NKG (7.09%).
Thus, POM' ability to generate revenue from the direct costs like direct labor and direct
materials was quite poor when compared to its competitors.
For operating profit margin, POM’s ratio was higher than all three competitors, and
significantly higher than TIS. The fact that gross profit margin was lower than average and
operating profit margin was higher than average could be because POM had relatively lower
operating expenses and therefore could more efficiently generate profit through its core
operations (extracting operating expenses).
For net profit margin, although POM’s ratio was much higher than TIS, it was also significantly
lower than NKG and DTL, thus lower than the average of three competitors. This is not in
accordance with POM’s low operating profit margin ratio compared to competitors. The main

7


reason could be interest expenses of POM was more unfavorable (tax expenses differences
were not significant).
For ROA and ROE, POM’s ratios were lower than the average of competitors: ROA equaled
to 0.49% lower than average of 1.39%, and ROE equaled to 1.04% lowered than 3.28%. This
indicated that POM’s management of capital and operations were ineffective, which made it
less attractive for investors to invest in.
With regard to market ratios, POM's EPS was also lower than the average its competitors
(around 104 VND per share vs 569 VND per share). In addition, investors expected a recovery

of POM and valued it the highest among the three competitors in 2020, reflected by its highest
market price among competitors (POM=12,800, NKG=12,500, DTL=10,900, TIS=11,000).
This led to a high P/E of 104.37 compared to the competitors average of 64.07, meaning POM’s
stock was already overvalued, or else that investors were expecting substantially high growth
rates in the future.
In 2020, POM's BVPS was slightly lower than the average of competitors (10,040 to 10,238).
The P/B ratios of all 4 companies in 2020 were greater than 1, showing the optimism of
investors for the steel industry in 2020. Moreover, because the market price of POM was higher
than its competitors, the P/B of POM was higher than the average of competitors (1.27 to 1.12),
suggesting the stock price could be overvalued.

8


2.3. Summary and investment recommendation
For trend analysis from 2018 to 2020, it can be seen that POM’s liquidity had been worsened,
and there is risk that the company can still struggle to pay its debts in the future, reflected by
declining current and quick ratios. Activity ratios in the given period show that POM had not
used its assets to generate revenue efficiently, with inventory turnover and total assets turnover
continuously decreased, and average age of inventory, average collection period, and average
payment period continuously increased. POM’s financial leverage had been balanced with debt
ratios very slightly fluctuated throughout the years and near 0.5, while times earned interest
significantly changed with a huge drop in 2019 and a considerable recovery in 2020, suggesting
the possibility that financial leverage can be better managed in the upcoming year. The
profitability of POM saw a similar trend, with a significant decrease in 2019 and a slight
increase in 2020, indicating potential for profitability recovery. Attached with this potential
was the increasing expectation of investors reflected by the surge of market stock price, when
it was even higher than 2018 – the best operating year from 2018 to 2020, which led to the high
value of P/E and P/B ratios.
For benchmark analysis, POM’s liquidity was not as good as its competitors. For activity ratios,

POM could have inventory issues, and it inefficiently collected accounts receivable and
ineffectively used capital to generate revenue, but it settled credit payments faster than its
competitors on average. For financial leverage ratios, POM’s debt ratio can be seen as good
when compared to its competitors, but times interest earned ratio was not favorable .
Profitability of POM was also unfavorable, where only operating profit margin was better but
gross profit margin, net profit margin, ROA and ROE were not good. Finally, market ratios
showed that POM’s stock value might be already overvalued.
From these two above analyses, our prediction was that while POM’s stock price could still go
up with the potential recovery and growth of steel manufacturing industry, investors’ profit
could be undesirable due to the fact that the stock price at the end of 2020 was already
overvalued. There could be risk that investors bear opportunity cost of not investing in other
stocks that could be more profitable. Therefore, based on our analyses, we recommend
investors not to invest in POM with high percentage of their capital, instead, they should keep
POM investment portfolio low, to say, maximum of 30%.
Note that our recommendation was based on the trend analysis and benchmark analysis of
financial ratios, and was not much affected by microeconomics or macroeconomics factors,
such as the effects of Covid-19 pandemics globally and nationally, or the changes of
Vietnamese stock market (more and more cash flow into the stock market since 2020). In
reality, on December 03, 2021, POM’s closing market price was 15,250 VND/share. Compared
to the market price of 12,800 at the end of 2020, it has increased 19.24% in about 11 months,
which is considered as a good number if compared to the average deposit interest rate at
commercial banks (around 6%/year). However, as mentioned, the rise of POM could be due to
other mentioned factors, such as when more cash flow has been attracted into the stock market,
the VN Index (VNI – represents all stocks listed on HOSE) rose from around 1,070 at the end
of 2020 to 1,443 on December 03, 2021, meaning that the stocks on HOSE overall have
increased substantially. In this circumstance, there are risk that some stocks will be highly

9

overvalued because of rising expectation of investors or the inexperience of new investors in
the market. POM, a stock listed on HOSE, could be that one stock. From mid-2020, the wave
of the steel manufacturing industry surged in the stock market as the industry entered its rarest
period of prosperity. On November 2021, the group of steel stocks suddenly dropped sharply
in the context of the global steel price decline and consumption demand slowing down (Chau,
2021). Now, we expect that the current stock price of POM will decline further to a certain
amount after being heated up for a long period of time.

10


REFERENCES
Chau, M. (2021). Cổ phiếu thép tiếp t ục giảm sâu, nhà đầu tư nên hành động ra sao?. Cafef.vn.
Retrieved 5 December 2021, from />Hayes, A. (2021). Trend analysis. Investopedia. Retrieved 29 November 2021, from
/>Horton, M. (2021). What does a high-times interest earned ratio signify for a company's
future?.
Investopedia.
Retrieved
4
December
2021,
from
/>POM: CTCP Thép Pomina - Công Ty Thép Pomina - Hồ sơ doanh nghiệp. Vietstock Finance.
(2021). Retrieved 1 December 2021, from />Pomina Introduction. Pomina Steel. (2021). Retrieved 2 December 2021, from
/>
11


APPENDICES
All calculations were computed in the EXCEL file attached in RAR file.

12