Coteccons Financial Analysis

Group 2
Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Hương
Nguyễn Ngọc Thanh Mai
Thái Trần Khánh Ngọc
Nguyễn Hồng Tiên
Đoàn Minh Thư
Trần Thị Cát Tường
UEH-International School of Business
CFDH49ISB-4
Mr. Ngoc Nguyen (Ruby)
August 23, 2024
 Table of contents
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................2
2. Analysis of Income Statement and Balance Sheet....................................... 3
2.1. Balance Sheet analysis..............................................................................3
2.1.1. Assets................................................................................................3
2.1.2. Liabilities.......................................................................................... 7
2.1.3. Stockholders’ equity....................................................................... 10
2.2. Income statement analysis...................................................................... 12
2.2.1. Revenues.........................................................................................12
2.2.2. Cost of goods sold.......................................................................... 13
2.2.3. Total expenses.................................................................................14
2.2.4. Earnings per common share........................................................... 17
2.3. Ratio Analysis.........................................................................................19
2.3.1. Profitability Ratios..........................................................................19
2.3.2. Liquidity ratio................................................................................. 24
2.3.3. Asset management ratios................................................................ 29
2.3.4. Long-term solvency ratios.............................................................. 32
3. References...................................................................................................... 43

1
1. Introduction
The Coteccons Construction Joint Stock Company (CTD), established on August 24,
2004, and listed on the Vietnam stock market in early 2010 under the trading name Shares of
Coteccons Construction Joint Stock Company with the ticker CTD, stands as a significant
entity in the Vietnamese construction industry. Headquartered on the 12th floor of the
Coteccons Building at 236/6 Dien Bien Phu, Ward 17, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh
City, Coteccons has cemented its reputation through diverse operations in civil, industrial,
and infrastructure construction, as well as architectural and engineering design consulting,
financial trading, investment, and real estate ventures, including notable projects like
Landmark 81 and Kingdom 101. Partnering with Ernst & Young Vietnam Ltd. as its
independent audit firm, Coteccons ensures a robust financial foundation and steadfast
accountability, delivering added value and insights to the Vietnamese market.

In 2022, the company demonstrated substantial growth with revenues reaching $621.3
million VND, a 60.1% increase compared to the previous two years, supported by a dedicated
workforce of 2,144 employees. The leadership team, comprising Mr. Bolat Duisenov
(Chairman), Mr. Vo Hoang Lam (CEO), and Deputy General Directors Mr. Pham Quan Luc
and Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Lan, guides the company's strategic direction. Coteccons' robust
portfolio is further bolstered by its wholly-owned subsidiaries: Unicons Investment
Construction, HEDI Company Limited, Covestcons Company Limited, and Coteccons Nest
Company Limited, which enhance its market presence and operational capabilities.

2
2. Analysis of Income Statement and Balance Sheet
2.1. Balance Sheet analysis
2.1.1. Assets
Table 1. Coteccons’s total assets

In the period of 2020 to 2021, the total assets decreased slightly from 14,157 billion VND
to 13,924 billion VND (-1.64%). In the period of 2021 to 2022, there was a significant
increase of about 36.11% in total assets, from 13,924 billion VND to 18,967 billion VND.

a. Current assets
Historical comparison
Table 2. Coteccons’s current assets

In general, Coteccons’s current assets experienced a similar trend to its total assets. In
2021, the current asset dropped slightly, about -0.91%, due to the decrease in cash and cash
equivalents from 9.87% to 6.35%. It suggested a shift in the distribution of assets, including
inventory and short-term investments. However, in 2022, the current assets increased
significantly, over 36%, due to the rise in inventory and other current assets. The rise in

3
current account receivable also contributed to the rise of current assets in 2022 dramatically
by the improvement of over 50%.

It is noteworthy that current accounts receivable account for over half of Coteccons’s total
assets, indicating a heavy reliance on credit sales during this period. While this reliance might
reflect strong sales, it also suggests that the company extended significant credit to its
customers and partners. This practice carries a high risk of bad debt if customers default on
their payments, leading to financial losses and the need for an allowance for doubtful
accounts. In addition, the heavy reliance on current account receivables could result in
suboptimal working capital, affecting Cotteccons’s ability to pay its current liabilities.

Industrial comparison
Table 3. Current Accounts Receivables Industrial Comparison

Current Accounts
2020 2021 2022
Receivable Proportion

Coteccons 54.02% 53.32% 59.24%

Hoa Binh 68.45% 69.60% 68.44%

Fecon 58.54% 37.64% 42.61%

Compared with enterprises in the same industry, Coteccons, Hoa Binh, and Fecon’s
current account receivable account for the largest proportion of total assets, with Hoa Binh
being the highest (over 68%) from 2020 to 2022.

Table 4. Short-term Investments Industrial Comparison

Short-term Investments
2020 2021 2022
Proportion

Coteccons 13.99% 17.24% 9.38%

Hoa Binh 0.09% 0.43% 0.28%

Fecon 0.52% 0.66% 0.38%

4
 Notably, Coteccons has invested significantly in short-term investments compared to the
other two companies over a 3-year period. This poses a high risk if the investments are not
aligned with the company's core industry, potentially affecting the company's profit.

b. Non-current assets
Historical comparison:
Table 5. Coteccons’s non-current assets

Coteccons’s non-current assets decreased slightly from 2020 to 2021, at -9%, followed by
a rise to over 27% in 2022. Fixed assets take the largest proportion of non-current assets, this
may be due to the characteristics of the industry, which require heavily investing in
machinery, vehicles and manufacturing facilities to support their operations.

It is noticeable that the presence of long-term receivables in 2022 reflected a strategic

decision to give customers more time to pay, aiming to foster business relationships and
secure significant projects. Although this could support growth, it requires careful
management of liquidity and credit risk to ensure the company's financial stability. This is
because the company might have made more provisions for bad debts, which affected its
profit.

5
 Industrial comparison:
Table 6. Fixed Assets Industrial Comparison

Fixed Assets Proportion 2020 2021 2022

Coteccons 4.27% 3.81% 2.95%

Hoa Binh 7.46% 5.82% 6.15%

Fecon 9.93% 25.17% 23.70%

Coteccons' lowest investment in fixed assets compared to Hoa Binh and Fecon indicates a
strategic focus on maintaining an efficient asset structure. This approach allows Coteccons to
minimise capital expenditures while still achieving high asset utilisation. The company may
prioritise flexibility and liquidity, investing more selectively in assets that directly contribute
to its core construction projects. This strategy can help Coteccons maintain a competitive
edge by reducing overhead costs and improving return on assets. However, it also means that
Coteccons must be diligent in managing its existing assets to ensure they are fully optimised
and not overburdened.

6
 2.1.2. Liabilities

Overall, the total liabilities of Coteccons exhibited notable changes from 2020 to 2022. In
2021, there was a slight decrease in total liabilities, from $5,758,744,202,842 in 2020 to
$5,677,051,643,717, representing a 0.23% decrease. However, in 2022, the total liabilities
surged dramatically to $10,753,109,689,422, marking an 89.41% increase from the previous
year. This significant rise in liabilities in 2022 contrasts sharply with the modest reduction
observed in 2021, indicating substantial financial adjustments or expansions undertaken by
Coteccons.
Table 7. Coteccons’s total liabilities

a. Current liabilities
Historical comparison:
The table shows that current liabilities for Coteccons increased significantly from 2020 to
2022. In 2020, current liabilities represented 41% of total liabilities. This increased to 41% in
2021 and then jumped to 54% in 2022. This indicates a significant increase in the company's
short-term debt obligations.

The change between 2020 and 2021 was a minimal 0.28%, suggesting that the company's
short-term debt levels remained relatively stable during this period. However, the change
between 2021 and 2022 was a substantial 80.22%, indicating a significant increase in current
liabilities. This could be due to several factors, such as increased borrowing, a decrease in
cash flow, or a combination of both.

It is important to note that the increase in current liabilities could have a negative impact
on Coteccons' financial health. A high level of current liabilities can put pressure on the
company's cash flow and make it more difficult to meet its short-term obligations. This could

7
lead to financial distress or even bankruptcy if the company is unable to manage its debt
effectively.

Industrial comparison:
Table 8. Current liabilities Industrial Comparison

Current liabilities 2020 2021 2022

Coteccons 41% 41% 54,00%

Hoa Binh 69,11% 70,25% 81,06%

Fecon 57,46% 44,90% 41,58%

Coteccons had a relatively stable level of current liabilities in 2020 and 2021, both at 41%.
However, there was a significant increase in 2022, reaching 54.00%. This suggests that the
company might have taken on more short-term debt or experienced a decrease in cash flow
during that year.

Hoa Binh consistently had the highest percentage of current liabilities among the three
companies. In 2020, it was 69.11%, followed by 70.25% in 2021, and finally 81.06% in 2022.
This indicates that Hoa Binh relies heavily on short-term financing and might have a higher
risk of financial distress if it faces difficulties in meeting its short-term obligations.

Fecon experienced a different trend compared to the other two companies. Its current
liabilities decreased from 57.46% in 2020 to 44.90% in 2021, indicating a successful effort in
managing short-term debt or improving cash flow. However, in 2022, the percentage
increased again to 41.58%, suggesting a potential shift in the company's financial strategy or
a change in its business operations.

Overall, the table highlights the different approaches to managing short-term debt among
these three construction companies. While Coteccons experienced a sudden increase in
current liabilities in 2022, Hoa Binh consistently relied heavily on short-term financing, and
Fecon showed a more fluctuating trend. Further analysis is needed to understand the specific

8
reasons behind these trends and their potential implications for the financial health of these
companies.

b. Non-current liabilities
Historical comparison
The table 7 reveals a significant change in the company's non-current liabilities. In 2020,
non-current liabilities represented 0% of total liabilities. This remained unchanged in 2021,
but increased to 3% in 2022. This indicates a shift in the company's financing strategy, with a
move towards longer-term debt.

The change between 2020 and 2021 was a substantial -74.61%, suggesting a significant
decrease in non-current liabilities. This could be attributed to the company paying off
long-term debt or restructuring its liabilities. However, the change between 2021 and 2022
was a massive 20598.59%, indicating a dramatic increase in non-current liabilities. This
suggests a significant shift in the company's financing strategy, with a move towards
longer-term debt.

While the increase in non-current liabilities might seem beneficial as it provides the
company with more time to repay its debts, it is important to consider the potential impact on
the company's financial health. A high level of non-current liabilities can increase the
company's financial risk, as it may become more difficult to manage its debt obligations in
the long term.

Industrial comparison
Table 9. Non-current liabilities Industrial Comparison

Non-current liabilities 2020 2021 2022

Coteccons 0% 0% 3,00%

Hoa Binh 4,22% 5,28% 11,13%

Fecon 5,62% 16,02% 12,47%

9
 Coteccons had no non-current liabilities in 2020 and 2021, indicating a reliance on
short-term financing. However, in 2022, they saw a significant increase to 3.00%, suggesting
a shift towards longer-term debt. This change could be driven by various factors such as
securing long-term loans for major projects or a strategic decision to reduce reliance on
short-term debt.

Hoa Binh consistently had a moderate level of non-current liabilities, starting at 4.22% in
2020, increasing slightly to 5.28% in 2021, and further increasing to 11.13% in 2022. This
suggests a gradual increase in long-term debt, potentially due to investments in long-term
assets or securing funding for larger projects.

Fecon exhibited a more dynamic trend in non-current liabilities. It started at 5.62% in

2020, jumped significantly to 16.02% in 2021, and then decreased to 12.47% in 2022. This
fluctuation suggests a more proactive approach to managing long-term debt, potentially
driven by factors like refinancing, project financing, or strategic adjustments to their financial
structure.

Overall, the table reveals diverse approaches to managing non-current liabilities among
these construction companies. While Coteccons saw a significant increase in 2022, Hoa Binh
maintained a gradual increase, and Fecon experienced a more volatile trend.

2.1.3. Stockholders’ equity

Historical comparison

Table 10. Coteccons’s total owner's equity

The table shows that the company's total owner's equity decreased from 2020 to 2022. In
2020, total owner's equity represented 59% of total liabilities and owner's equity. This
decreased to 59% in 2021 and then dropped again to 43% in 2022. This indicates a significant
decrease in the company's ownership stake in the company.

10
 The change between 2020 and 2021 was a minimal -0.16%, suggesting that the company's
ownership stake remained relatively stable during this period. However, the change between
2021 and 2022 was a substantial -0.41%, indicating a significant decrease in total owner's
equity. This could be due to several factors, such as the company issuing new shares,
repurchasing shares, or paying dividends.

It is important to note that the decrease in total owner's equity could have a negative
impact on the company's financial health. A low level of owner's equity can make the
company more vulnerable to financial distress, as it may have less capital to absorb losses or
to fund future growth.

Industrial comparison
Table 11. Total owner's equity Industrial Comparison

Total owner's
2020 2021 2022
equity

Coteccons 59% 59% 43%

Hoa Binh 26,67% 24,47% 7,81%

Fecon 36,92% 39,08% 7,81%

Coteccons had a stable level of total owner's equity in 2020 and 2021, both at 59%.
However, there was a significant decrease in 2022, reaching 43%. This suggests that the
company might have experienced a decline in retained earnings, issued new shares, or faced a
decrease in valuation.

Hoa Binh experienced a substantial decrease in total owner's equity from 2020 to 2022. In
2020, it was 26.67%, followed by 24.47% in 2021, and finally 7.81% in 2022. This indicates
a significant decline in the company's ownership stake, potentially due to factors like losses,
dividend payments, or a decrease in asset value.

Fecon also experienced a significant decline in total owner's equity, although it started at a
higher level than Hoa Binh. It decreased from 36.92% in 2020 to 39.08% in 2021, suggesting

11
a slight increase in ownership stake. However, in 2022, the percentage dropped to 7.81%,
indicating a substantial decrease in ownership. This could be attributed to factors similar to
those affecting Hoa Binh.

Overall, the table highlights a concerning trend of decreasing total owner's equity for all
three companies. This suggests potential challenges in maintaining financial stability and
growth.

2.2. Income statement analysis

2.2.1. Revenues
Figure 1. Coteccons’s total revenue

Table 12. Coteccons’s total revenue

Change between Change between

2020 2021 2022 2020 2021
and 2021 and 2022

Total
100% 100% 100% -37.78% 60.15%
revenue

Net revenue 99.99% 100% 99.99% -37.77% 60.14%

Overall, Coteccons' Revenue experienced significant fluctuations over the three years of
2020, 2021, and 2022. The Revenue decreased by 37.75% from 2020 to 2021 which led to a
35.75% decrease in gross profit from 2020 to 2021. However, Revenue increased by 60.15%
in 2022 compared to 2021, indicating a strong recovery for the company, and gross profit

12
increased by 59.61% during this period. The higher growth rate of gross profit compared to
revenue in 2022 indicates that the company's operational efficiency improved.

Contrary to CTD, HBC experienced revenue growth over the three years 2020, 2021, and
2022. CTD had higher revenue than HBC in 2020 and 2022 but lower revenue in 2021. This
led to CTD having a higher gross profit than HBC in 2020 and 2022 but a lower gross profit
in 2021.

While CTD's revenue fluctuated significantly over the three years 2020, 2021, and 2022,
FCN's revenue increased from 2020 to 2021 and then decreased back to the same level as
2020 in 2022, yet still remained stable at over VND 3 trillion during the same period. CTD
had higher revenue than FCN in all three years (2020, 2021, and 2022), resulting in a higher
gross profit for CTD compared to FCN during the same period.

2.2.2. Cost of goods sold

Table 13. Coteccons’s COGS

Change between Change between

2020 2021 2022
2020 and 2021 2021 and 2022

COGS 93.91% 96.97% 96.64% -35.75% 59.61%

Gross profit 5.87% 3.03% 3.35% -67.87% 76.87%

CTD's COGS followed a pattern similar to its revenue over the three-year period:
decreasing by 35.75% from 2020 to 2021 and increasing by 59.61% from 2021 to 2022. The
COGS/revenue ratio of CTD was always high, above 90%, indicating that COGS accounted
for a large proportion of total revenue.

Compared to CTD, HBC's COGS was always lower in all three years and did not fluctuate
during this period. CTD's COGS increased by 2.55% from 2020 to 2022, while HBC's COGS
increased by 30.29% over the same period, showing that HBC's COGS growth rate was much
higher than CTD's.

13
 CTD had higher COGS than FCN in 2020, 2021, and 2022. FCN's COGS increased from
2020 to 2021 but decreased in 2022. CTD's COGS increased by 2.55% from 2020 to 2022,
while FCN's COGS increased by 0.30% over the same period, indicating that CTD's COGS
growth rate was much higher than FCN's.

2.2.3. Total expenses

For the three years studied, total expenses were consistently higher than total revenue.
Specifically, the company's total expenses accounted for 99.76% in 2020. In 2021, it was
noteworthy to note that, despite an almost 36% decrease in total expenses from the previous
year, they still exceeded total revenue by over 4%. This was due to the impact of COVID-19,
which increased material and labour expenses. In 2022, total expenses increased by up to
59% while remaining 3% higher than total revenue.

Table 14: Coteccons’s Total Expense

CTD

Year Total expense % of total revenue

2020 14,554,066,047,403 99.75918668

2021 9,416,882,769,397 103.733978

2022 15,014,584,414,097 103.2733098

Figure 2: Coteccons’s Total Expense, 2020 - 2022

14
 Figure 3: Coteccons’s Expenses in Total Revenue, 2020 - 2022

Table 15: Coteccons’s Expenses

CTD

Expenses 2020 2021 2022

COGS 93.91659972 96.96849383 96.6401802

Financial
0.003170803016 0.1424127952 1.11871039
Expenses

General and
administrative 4.495518317 5.687407436 5.053813218
expense

Other expenses 0.08692607306 0.1343591993 0.03607853702

Current corporate
1.154224033 0.4780000675 0.2605271056
tax expense

Deferred income
0.1027477367 0.3233046465 0.1640003739
tax expense

When comparing other forms of expenses, COGS was the most significant, accounting for
more than 90% of total revenue. Furthermore, administrative expenses in 2022 increased by
218 billion VND, or 42.31%, compared to 2021. This was due to the Group's increased bad

15
debt provision by 221 billion VND compared to the previous year. Other expenses accounted
for only a modest fraction of overall revenue over the last three years, falling short of 10%.

Compare with competitors (HBC, FCN)

When compared to the other two rivals, HBC and FCN, CTD and FCN experienced
variations, however, HBC experienced an upward trend during the three years examined.
However, CTD is regarded as a stronger competitor to HBC than FCN. Furthermore, FCN's
overall expenses were consistently the lowest of the three competitors across the three years
studied. One possible explanation is that FECON specialises in foundations and underground
works and only entered the construction industry in 2020 (CÔNG TY CP FECON, n.d.). As a
result, it continues to face significant hurdles. Furthermore, the growth rates of HBC and
CTD were 47% and 59%, respectively, during the 2021-2022 period, whereas FCN had a
5.85% reduction during that time.

Table 16: Coteccons’s Total Expense Comparison

Total expense

Year CTD HBC FCN

2020 14,554,066,047,403 11,342,621,864,899 3,037,085,543,575

2021 9,416,882,769,397 11,388,197,876,751 3,439,092,528,140

2022 15,014,584,414,097 16,773,938,724,563 3,237,869,789,194

16
 Figure 4: Coteccons’s Expense Comparison from 2020 to 2022

2.2.4. Earnings per common share (EPS)

EPS (Earnings Per Share) is a financial indicator that indicates how much profit CTD
earns per share of outstanding stock. Overall, CTD's EPS has declined during the three years
evaluated, with the highest EPS recorded in 2020 at 4,164 VND. This was primarily due to
the company securing two new major projects that year, in addition to five other project wins
worth a total of 3,200 billion VND in July 2020 (CTD: Công Ty CP Xây Dựng Coteccons
(HOSE), n.d.). However, in 2021, CTD's earnings per share (EPS) fell by a record 92% from
4,164 VND to 323 VND, the steepest drop of the three years examined. Since the beginning
of the year, CTD's stock price has dropped by more than 30%. Since the leadership shift,
Coteccons (CTD) has continually demonstrated indicators of decreasing company
performance, with no signs of recovery yet (Miêu, 2021). This decreasing trend continued
into 2022, with EPS declining by 13% to 280 VND.

17
 Figure 5: Coteccons’s Earning Per Share (EPS) from 2020 to 2022

Table 17: Coteccons’s Earning Per Share (EPS)

CTD (VND)

Year EPS

2020 4164

2021 323

2022 280

Competitors
When compared to the other two rivals, HBC and FCN, CTD and FCN experienced
variations, however, HBC experienced an upward trend during the three years examined.
However, CTD is regarded as a stronger competitor to HBC than FCN. Furthermore, FCN's
overall expenses were consistently the lowest of the three competitors across the three years
studied. One possible explanation is that FECON specialises in foundations and underground
works and only entered the construction industry in 2020 (CÔNG TY CP FECON, n.d.). As a
result, it continues to face significant hurdles. Furthermore, the growth rates of HBC and
CTD were 47% and 59%, respectively, during the 2021-2022 period, whereas FCN had a
5.85% reduction during that time.

18
 Table 18: Coteccons’s EPS Comparison
CTD HBC FCN

2020 4,164 340 987

2021 323 383 534

2022 280 -9,698 252

Figure 6: Coteccons’s EPS Comparison, 2020 - 2022

2.3. Ratio Analysis

2.3.1. Profitability Ratios
a. Profit margin

In 2020, Coteccons retained 2.30% of its revenue as net income, which means for every
100 billion VNĐ in revenue, the company kept 2.3 billion VNĐ as net income after
deducting all expenses.

By 2022, Coteccons' profit margin decreased to 0.26% and further declined to 0.14% in
2023. This significant drop suggests that Coteccons managed to retain even less revenue as
profit.

The decrease in profit margin is because of a decrease in net income. Despite a slight
decrease in operating revenues from 14,558,086,434,968 VNĐ to 14,536,948,503,110 VNĐ,
net income saw a dramatic decline from 334,374,615,618 VNĐ in 2020 to 20,712,200,279

19
VNĐ in 2022. Combined with evidence from consolidated income statements, this indicates
challenges in cost management, higher expenses (especially interest and operating expenses)
and lower revenue.

Supporting this analysis, Coteccons faced substantial operational challenges during the
COVID-19 pandemic, with many projects nearly frozen. Additionally, in early 2022, despite
setting conservative business goals, the company could not predict the strong market
fluctuations. For instance, the price of raw materials, including steel and concrete, surged by
25%, severely impacting profit margins​(Coteccons, 2023)

A lower profit margin reflects less effective control over operating expenses, costs of
goods sold, and other expenditures. To address this, Coteccons may need to consider
strategies such as:

- Increase sales volume

- Increase prices
- Control cost
- Retain customer

Compare with industry benchmark

Figure 7: Coteccons’s Profit Margin Comparison, 2020 - 2022

20
 CTD's performance relative to the industry shows a declining trend in profit margin,
indicating increasing challenges for the company. Meanwhile, the industry showed significant
improvement in 2022, suggesting a better adaptation to market conditions that CTD did not
capitalize on to the same extent.

b. Return on assets
In 2020, Coteccons generated a return of 2.36% on its assets. This indicates that for every
100 billion VNĐ of assets, the company earned 2.36 billion VNĐ in profit. In 2022, the ROA
decreased to 0.17% and continued to decline in 2022 to 0.11%. This further decline suggests
a reduced efficiency in asset utilization.

The reason for the decrease in Coteccons' return on assets (ROA) can be attributed to an
increase in total assets while experiencing a significant decrease in net income. This trend is
evident from their financial statements.

The low ROA also indicates that Coteccons faced challenges in efficiently utilizing its
assets to generate profit. This inefficiency can be attributed to several factors, including high
operating costs, increased expenses (such as interest and operating expenses), and overall
financial challenges​.

Coteccons has faced several specific financial challenges that have impacted its
profitability and efficiency. One major issue has been the sharp increase in costs, particularly
due to the rising prices of raw materials such as steel and concrete. For instance, during early
2022, the cost of these materials surged by up to 25%, significantly affecting the company's
profit margins. This is corroborated by Coteccons' own statements highlighting the impact of
market fluctuations and the unexpected rise in material costs on their financial performance
(Coteccons, 2022).

Solution CTD has implemented:

- Diversified Short-Term Investment Portfolio: CTD diversified its short-term
investments into three types: bank deposits with terms of fewer than 3 months, bank
deposits with terms of 4-12 months, and a mixed bond portfolio with a term of 1-12
months. This strategy helped increase the average financial income margin.

21
 - Applying Pre-Cast Technology in Construction: This technology helped shorten
construction time, improve construction quality, and address labor force shortages at
project sites (Coteccons, 2022).

These solutions have proved to be positive as in recent data ROA increased to 0.93% (SSI,
2023), demonstrating improved financial performance and asset utilisation efficiency

Compare with industry benchmark

Figure 8: Coteccons’s ROA Comparison, 2020 - 2022

Overall, the industry has a higher ROA benchmark, which suggests that companies in the
industry are efficient in their asset utilization. They can generate higher profits relative to
their assets compared to CTD. Companies in the Industry with higher ROA benchmarks
might be more attractive to investors, as they indicate better potential for profit generation
relative to the assets invested.

c. Return on equity
In 2020, Coteccons generated a return of 3.98% on its shareholders' equity. This indicates
that for every 100 billion VNĐ of equity, the company earned 3.98 billion VNĐ in profit.
However, this performance was significantly lower than the industry average of 9.55%,
suggesting that Coteccons was less efficient in utilizing its equity to generate profits
compared to its peers.

22
 In 2021, Coteccons' ROE sharply declined to 0.29% and further decreased slightly to
0.25% in 2022. This continued decline suggests persistent inefficiency in generating profit
from shareholders' equity.

The significant drop in net income, relative to a smaller decrease in owner equity, explains
the sharp decline in ROE from 2020 to 2022.

Compare with industry benchmark

Figure 9: Coteccons’s ROE Comparison, 2020 - 2022

Throughout 2020 to 2022, Coteccons consistently underperformed relative to the industry

benchmark. The industry maintained a higher ROE, reflecting better overall efficiency in
utilizing shareholders' equity to generate profits.

While a high ROE is positive and can attract investment, it is crucial to consider the
impact of increasing debt levels. This is because increasing debt levels can cause ROE to
grow even when management is not necessarily getting better at generating profit.

23
 2.3.2. Liquidity ratio

Table 19: Coteccons’s Liquidity ratio Comparison

Changes 2020 & 2021 Changes 2021 & 2022

Ratio 2020 2021 2022
△ △% △ △%

Current
2.23 2.25 1.71 0.02 0.90 -0.54 -24
ratio

Quick ratio 1.59 1.46 1.23 -0.13 -8.81 -0.51 -15.75

Average days
191.76 298.52 282.10 106,76 55.67 -16.42 -5.50
receivable

Average days
39.75 70.17 73.72 30.42 76.53 3.55 5.06
inventory

a. Current ratio

In 2020, Coteccons had 2.23 billion VNĐ in current assets for every 1 billion VNĐ of
current liabilities, indicating a strong liquidity position and suggesting the company was
well-equipped to cover its short-term obligations. However, the current ratio decreased to
2.25 in 2021 and further to 1.71 in 2022.

Despite an increase in current assets, the decline in the current ratio occurred because
current liabilities grew at a faster rate. A significant factor contributing to the rise in current
liabilities was that Coteccons had not yet received payments from project investors for
completed work (VNExpress, 2024). Consequently, Coteccons struggled to secure enough
funds to pay its current liabilities.

This continued downward trend indicates a reduction in liquidity. While the company still
has more current assets than liabilities (current ratio >1), the cushion has become smaller,
signaling potential liquidity issues. This means Coteccons faces challenges in quickly
converting assets into cash to meet short-term obligations (VNExpress, 2024).

24
 Compare with industry benchmark

Figure 10: Coteccons’s Current ratio Comparison, 2020 - 2022

Compared to the industry average, CTD is still well-positioned to cover its short-term
liabilities with its current assets. Therefore, this was a difficult time for the industry.

b. Quick ratio

In 2020, Coteccons had approximately 1.91 billion VNĐ in liquid assets for every 1
billion VNĐ of current liabilities, indicating a strong liquidity position and suggesting the
company was well-equipped to cover its short-term obligations with its most liquid assets. In
2021, the quick ratio declined slightly to 1.89 and then witnessed a significant decrease of
26.98%, dropping to 1.38 in 2022.

This decline in the quick ratio occurred because the increase in current liabilities was even
larger relative to the increase in most liquid assets, leading to the decrease in the quick ratio.

This continued downward trend indicates a further reduction in liquidity. While the
company still has more liquid assets than liabilities, the cushion has become smaller,

25
signalling potential difficulties in meeting short-term obligations without relying on the sale
of inventory.

Compare with industry benchmark

Figure 11: Coteccons’s Quick ratio Comparison, 2020 - 2022

CTD's quick ratio of 1.23% suggests that the company is still able to cover its short-term
obligations with its most liquid assets, although at a lower rate compared to previous years.
However, CTD's quick ratio is lower than the industry benchmark of 1.28%, indicating a
lower liquidity position in 2022.

The stronger liquidity ratios of CTD suggest sufficient liquid and current assets to cover
liabilities. However, in recent years, the company has faced challenges in meeting its
short-term obligations without financial strain as current liabilities have increased.

c. Average days receivable

In 2021, it took Coteccons, on average, approximately 299 days to collect payment from
its customers after a sale was made. However, in 2023, the average days receivable increased
significantly to approximately 442 days. This dramatic increase indicates that it took even
longer for Coteccons to collect payments from its customers.

26
 The increase in average days receivable (ADR) is due to a small decrease in revenue and a
substantial increase in accounts receivables, which can be attributed to the economic
downturn caused by the aftermath of COVID-19 and real estate market crisis (Vietnam
Briefing, 2023). The substantial increase in accounts receivables likely occurred because
customers faced financial difficulties and delays in their own cash flows, making it harder for
them to pay Coteccons promptly. This strained payment cycle affected Coteccons' ability to
collect receivables in a timely manner.

Many problems can arise from higher ADR, which is delayed cash inflows that can impact
the company's ability to meet its own short-term obligations, such as paying suppliers,
employees, and other operating expenses. This is clearly the problem that CTD has been
suffering.

Solution: Lower accounts receivable by repeating sales. This has been also implemented
by CTD as “repeat sales” helps to mitigate the risk of bad debts because Coteccons is well
aware of these customers, understands their financial health, and their repayment ability
(VNExpress, 2023).
Figure 12: Coteccons’s ADR Comparison, 2020 - 2022

27
 d. Average days inventory

In 2020, the average days inventory for the company was 39.75 days, indicating that it
took approximately 40 days on average for the inventory to be sold.

In 2021, the average days inventory increased significantly to 70.17 days, an increase of
30.42 days or about 76.53%. This suggests a slower inventory turnover compared to 2020,
meaning the company held onto its inventory for almost twice as long.

In 2022, the average days inventory further increased slightly to 73.72 days, an increase of
3.55 days or about 5.06% from 2021. While the increase is not as significant as the previous
year, it still indicates a continued trend of slower inventory turnover.

The substantial increase in average days inventory from 2020 to 2022 was due to holding
more inventory, likely due to incorrect forecasts of inventory needs and problem with selling
inventory (as revenue saw a slight decrease). However, this could have implications for the
company's liquidity and storage costs, potentially limiting cash flow available for other
purposes such as operational expenses or investment opportunities. Moreover, increased
inventory levels may require additional storage space and associated costs, impacting overall
profitability

Table 20: Coteccons’s Profitability ratio Comparison

Changes 2020 & 2021 Changes 2021 & 2022

Ratio 2020 2021 2022
△ △% △ △%

Profit
2.30% 0.26% 0.14% -2.04% -88.70 -0.12% -46.15
margin

Return on
2.36% 0.17% 0.11% -2.19% -92.80 -0.06% -35.30
assets

Return on
3.98% 0.29% 0.25% -3.69% -92.71 -0.04 -13.79
equity

28
 2.3.3. Asset management ratios

a. Asset Turnover:

The asset turnover ratio measures the efficiency with which a company uses its assets to
produce sales.

Table 21: Coteccons’s Asset turnover ratio Comparison

From the table above, it can be evaluated that Coteccons' total assets were able to produce
enough revenue at the end of each year because the Asset Turnover Ratio in 2020 was higher
than 1. However, the asset turnover ratio decreased to 0.65 in 2021, resulting in a drop of
nearly VND 5.5 billion in revenue and a slight decrease in total assets. This means Coteccons
could only generate $0.65 in revenue per $1 of average total assets in 2021, a significant
decline from the previous year. The slight recovery in 2022 is a positive sign, but still lower
than the 2020 level as there was an increase in total assets without a corresponding increase
in sales. The overall trend could indicate that the company faced challenges in effectively
utilizing its assets to generate sales revenue during the period covered, potentially due to
changes in market conditions, operational efficiency, or strategic priorities.

29
 Comparison
Figure 13: Coteccons’s Asset Turnover Ratio Comparison, 2020 - 2022

Coteccons has consistently maintained a higher asset turnover ratio than the industry
average over the 3 years from 2020 to 2022. This indicates that Coteccons is efficient in
using its assets to generate revenue compared to its competitors in the same industry. The
decreasing trend in Coteccons' asset turnover ratio, however, may signal the need for the
company to optimize its asset management strategies to maintain its competitive edge within
the industry.

In 2020, Coteccons had the highest asset turnover ratio at 1.03, compared to 0.72 for Hoa
Binh and 0.47 for FECON. This indicates that Coteccons was able to generate more revenue
per VND of assets compared to its competitors in that year. In the next two years, Hoa Binh
outperformed both Coteccons and FECON in terms of asset turnover ratio. FECON'S asset
turnover ratio remained the lowest among the three companies throughout the 3-year period.

b. Fixed-Asset Turnover:

Fixed Asset Turnover is an efficiency ratio that indicates how well or efficiently a business
uses fixed assets to generate sales.

30
 Table 22: Coteccons’s Fixed-Asset turnover ratio Comparison

The fixed asset turnover ratio for Coteccons has steadily increased over the past three
years. The fixed asset turnover ratio declined from 24.11 in 2020 to 17.09 in 2021, as the
revenue dropped from VND 14,558 billion to VND 9,077 billion, indicating a decrease in the
company's efficiency in utilizing its fixed assets to generate revenue. The fixed asset turnover
ratio rebounded to 25.96 in 2022, suggesting the company was able to improve its efficiency
in using its fixed assets compared to the previous year. However, a higher fixed asset turnover
ratio is not always a positive sign. A high turnover ratio could indicate that Coteccons is
underinvesting in its fixed assets, which could lead to future problems.

Comparison
Figure 14: Coteccons’s Fixed-Asset Turnover Ratio Comparison, 2020 - 2022

Coteccons started with a significantly higher fixed asset turnover ratio than the industry in
2020 but then lagged behind the industry average in 2021. However, Coteccons was able to
improve its relative efficiency in 2022, outperforming the industry average, which means
Coteccons regained its efficiency advantage over its competitors. The fluctuations in

31
Coteccons' ratio compared to the industry average suggest the company experienced changes
in its asset management and operational efficiency over the three-year period.

Coteccons consistently maintained the highest fixed asset turnover ratio among the three
companies across the 3 years. In 2020, Coteccons had the highest fixed asset turnover ratio at
24.11, indicating it was the most efficient in utilizing its fixed assets to generate revenue. Hoa
Binh had a ratio of 9.67, while FECON had a ratio of 4.69, both significantly lower than
Coteccons. This shows that Coteccons had a clear efficiency advantage over its competitors
in 2020.

Coteccons' ratio dropped to 17.09 in 2021, still higher than the competitors, but the gap
narrowed. Hoa Binh's ratio increased to 14.10, while FECON's ratio declined to 1.85. The
competitive landscape shifted, with Coteccons maintaining its lead but Hoa Binh closing the
gap in terms of fixed asset efficiency. ​Coteccons' ratio rebounded to 25.96 in 2022, widening
the gap over its competitors once again.

Coteccons demonstrated better efficiency in utilizing fixed assets compared to its

competitors Hoa Binh and FECON in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Hoa Binh showed improvement
over the years but remained behind Coteccons in terms of fixed asset efficiency. FECON
consistently had the lowest fixed asset turnover ratio among the three companies, indicating it
was the least efficient in utilizing its fixed assets.

2.3.4. Long-term solvency ratios

a. Debt/Equity Ratio:

The debt-to-equity ratio measures your company’s total debt relative to the amount
originally invested by the owners and the earnings that have been retained over time. It is, in
short, the company's ability to use and manage debt.

Table 23: Coteccons’s D/E ratio Comparison

32
 In 2020 and 2021, Coteccons had a D/E of 0.69, which is relatively low. This indicates the
company was using a conservative, equity-focused approach to financing its operations
during those years. A D/E below 1.0 generally suggests the company is not overly leveraged
and has a stronger financial position. However, in 2022, the D/E of Coteccons increased
significantly to 1.31. This means the company's total liabilities were 1.31 times greater than
D/E above 1.0 is considered high, suggesting Coteccons has become more reliant on debt
financing compared to previous years. The increase in Coteccons' D/E from 2020/2021 to
2022 indicates the company has likely taken on more debt for working capital
supplementation and increasing the scale of operations. Here are some assumptions about the
observed significant increase in Coteccons' total liabilities in 2022:

According to Dan Tri, when Mr. Nguyen Ba Duong was the Chairman of the BOD,
Coteccons said "no" to debt, then from 2021, the story is different. Coteccons gradually use
financial leverage, expand debt, and incur interest costs. By the end of 2022, Coteccons has a
financial debt of more than VND 1,077 billion while last year it had almost none. That
pushed interest expense up from VND 1 billion to VND 79 billion, which will be analyzed
more in the next parts.

Stockbiz had the same opinion: “For Coteccons, although it still maintains its position as a
construction enterprise with a strong financial foundation, this foundation has declined
compared to the previous period. From not using debt, Coteccons will start using loans from
2022 and by the end of 2023, the loan balance will be VND 1,078 billion.”

Coteccons has undergone a significant shift in its financing strategy, transitioning from a
conservative, equity-focused approach to one that heavily utilizes debt financing. This shift
has led to a rapid expansion of the company's debt levels and a corresponding increase in
interest expenses, potentially impacting its overall financial strength and position within the
construction industry. A higher debt load also increases the company's financial risk and
vulnerability to economic downturns, rising interest rates, or other adverse events.

33
 Comparison
Figure 15: Coteccons’s D/E ratio Comparison

Coteccons was significantly less leveraged than the industry average in 2020 and 2021.
This suggests a conservative approach to financing, potentially prioritising equity over debt
for growth. However, the situation changed in 2022, when Coteccons' D/E increased to 1.31.
This was still lower than the industry benchmark of 2.30, but the significant jump from the
previous two years suggests Coteccons had started to rely more on debt financing to support
its operations and growth.

Coteccons has the lowest debt-to-equity ratio compared to its two competitors, indicating a
lower reliance on debt for financing. Its ratios remain below 2.0, which is generally
considered a healthy level of leverage. Hoa Binh has by far the highest debt-to-equity ratios,
suggesting that it is in a riskier financial position as it relies much more heavily on debt
financing. This can be a significant concern for investors and analysts. FECON's
debt-to-equity ratios are moderate, staying in the 1.2-1.6 range over the 3 years.

Coteccons’ once stated in their Annual Report: “Coteccons’ financial leverage was safely
utilised, at the lowest rate among the players in the construction industry”. By utilising a
low-leverage strategy, Coteccons has likely positioned itself in a safer and more financially
stable position, which could be advantageous in the volatile construction sector. This

34
conservative financial management approach may have contributed to the company's
competitiveness and resilience in the market.

To conclude, while Coteccons' ratios have been increasing over time, they are still
relatively moderate compared to those of Hoa Binh, indicating a healthier financial outlook
for Coteccons. FECON's ratio is more comparable to Coteccons, with a similar trend of
moderate debt financing.

b. Leverage Ratio:

The asset/equity ratio indicates the relationship of the total assets of the firm to the part
owned by shareholders (also known as owner’s equity). This ratio provides insight into how a
company is financing its operations and growth. Ideally, every company aims to keep this
ratio as low as possible, as it plays a critical indicator for investors to understand the
business’s financial health.

Table 24: Coteccons’s Leverage ratio Comparison

The leverage ratio of Coteccons remained stable in 2020 and 2021, with a ratio of 1.69 in
both years. This suggests that the company's capital structure and financing decisions
remained consistent during this period, with a moderate level of debt financing relative to
equity financing. However, in 2022, this ratio increased significantly to 2.31. This represents
a notable increase in financial leverage compared to the previous two years.

The increase in the Leverage ratio in 2022 is a cause for concern, as it may indicate a
higher risk profile for the company. A ratio above 2.0 can be a warning sign of higher
bankruptcy risk if the company is unable to generate sufficient income to service its debt.
This ratio kept increasing to 2.58 in 2023. And in July 2023, “Ricons, filed an application
with the court, requesting to open bankruptcy proceedings against Coteccons. The reason as
announced by Ricons is that Coteccons has a debt that is overdue and acknowledged but has
not been paid for many years.”, reported Dan Tri.

35
 Overall, the increase in Coteccons' leverage ratio suggests a shift towards a more
debt-heavy capital structure. While increased leverage can fuel growth, it also increases the
company's financial risk. Coteccons will need to generate sufficient revenue and profits to
service its debt obligations.

Comparison
Figure 16: Coteccons’s Leverage ratio Comparison

Compared to its competitors, Coteccons appears to have a more conservative and stable
financial structure, with a lower leverage ratio. This suggests that Coteccons may have a
stronger equity base and lower reliance on debt financing compared to Hoa Binh, which has
experienced a dramatic increase in its asset-to-equity ratio. Its extremely high ratio in 2022
raises concerns about its ability to manage debt obligations and its financial risk profile.
FECON demonstrates a more balanced approach to debt and equity financing. While their
ratio is higher than Coteccons, it has remained relatively stable, suggesting a more controlled
and sustainable approach to financial leverage.

c. Long-term Debt/Equity Ratio

The long-term debt-to-equity ratio shows how much of a business's assets are financed by
long-term financial obligations, such as loans.

36
 Table 25: Coteccons’s Long-term D/E ratio Comparison

In 2020, the Long-term Debt/Equity Ratio was 0.0000663709469, which is extremely low,
indicating that the company had very little long-term debt compared to its equity. This ratio
decreased further to 0.0003084270469 in 2021, suggesting a continued reduction in debt
reliance. In 2022, the Long-term Debt/Equity Ratio increased to 0.06, which is a substantial
increase compared to the previous two years. This indicates that Coteccons has taken on more
debt financing (the amount of non-current liabilities increased by 20598.59% compared to
2021).

From this observation, Coteccons has maintained a very conservative capital structure,
with a minimal reliance on long-term debt financing compared to equity. The company's
Long-term Debt/Equity Ratio has remained under 0.1 throughout the three years, suggesting a
strong financial position and low financial risk. The slight increase in the ratio in 2022 may
indicate that the company is taking on a bit more long-term debt, potentially to finance
growth or investments, but it is still operating with a strong equity base.

37
 Comparison
Figure 17: Coteccons’s Long-term D/E ratio Comparison

Coteccons has maintained the lowest and most conservative long-term D/E ratio among
the three companies throughout the three years, having a stronger equity base and lower
financial leverage compared to its competitors, providing it with more financial flexibility
and stability. Hoa Binh had a significantly higher long-term D/E Ratio in 2020 (0.16), which
decreased in 2021 (0.15) before increasing dramatically in 2022 (1.42). This suggests a
higher financial risk and vulnerability to economic downturns or interest rate fluctuations for
Hoa Binh compared to Coteccons. FECON also had a moderate long-term D/E Ratio in 2020
(0.15), which decreased in 2021 (0.41) and then increased slightly in 2022 (0.27). FECON's
ratio remains lower than Hoa Binh but higher than Coteccons', indicating a middle-ground
approach to long-term debt financing.

The comparison reveals different approaches to capital structure among the three
companies. Coteccons’ conservative approach focuses on stability and low risk, while Hoa
Binh's higher leverage suggests a more aggressive growth strategy. FECON falls somewhere
in between, demonstrating a balanced approach to leverage.

38
 d. Debt-service coverage ratio
The debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) measures the ability of a borrower to repay its
debt. A debt service coverage ratio of 1.0 means that the system has exactly enough money
from its operating revenues to pay off its annual debt service once it has paid all of its
operating expenses.
Table 26: Coteccons’s DSCR ratio Comparison

There is no DSCR value provided for the year 2020. This suggests that Coteccons did not
have any debt obligations that required a DSCR calculation during that year.

“By the end of 2020, Coteccons recorded more than VND 3,000 billion of cash and
short-term deposits and was completely debt-free. Talking about this, Mr. Bolat Duisenov
said that Coteccons has been called the company with the most money in the market for many
years. Currently, the company does not need money, but in the near future, expanding into
fields with high intelligence and technology content such as EPC and infrastructure projects
will require large capital resources.”, CafeLand reported.

The DSCR value for 2021 is 0.26. A DSCR below 1.0 indicates that the company's net
operating income was not sufficient to cover its total debt service (principal and interest
payments) during that year. This suggests Coteccons may have had difficulties meeting its
debt obligations from its operating cash flow alone in 2021. In 2022, the DSCR further
decreased to 0.18. This indicates that Coteccons' ability to service its debt obligations from its
net operating income has deteriorated compared to 2021.

This decline in DSCR can be attributed to Decreasing net income and Increasing debt
service. Net income for the whole year 2021 reached VND 38.1 billion, down 91.08%
compared to 2020. This is an unprecedentedly low-profit level since the company was listed
from 2009 to the present. This 2021 profit of Coteccons is not equal to the average weekly

39
profit of the peak period of 2016-2018 with after-tax profit reaching VND 1,400-1,600
billion/year. Moreover, the debt service, including (re)payment of borrowings and payment of
finance lease liabilities, kept increasing sharply. According to Lao Dong, the reasons that led
to this problem are around new strategies and policies as 2021 is also the first year that
Coteccons operates fully under the direction of the new board of directors led by Mr. Bolat
Duisenov. In addition, the evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic became more complicated,
seriously affecting the economy in general, especially the tourism, real estate, and business
sectors of the majority of Coteccons’ customers.

This trend in the DSCR over the three years implies that Coteccons may need to explore
options to improve its debt servicing capacity, such as renegotiating loan terms, seeking
additional equity funding, or implementing measures to increase its net operating income.

Comparison
Figure 18: Coteccons’s DSCR ratio Comparison

The DSCR analysis suggests Coteccons, Hoa Binh, and FECON were all experiencing
financial difficulties in servicing their debt obligations from their operating incomes during
the 2020-2022 period. In 2020, Coteccons had no debt obligations, while Hoa Binh and
FECON had low to moderate debt servicing capacities. By 2022, Hoa Binh showed a
troubling trend with a constant low DSCR followed by a negative ratio, indicating severe

40
financial challenges and an inability to meet debt obligations. This was due to their net loss,
the doubled interest payments, and very slightly decreased principal payments. FECON
maintained a relatively stable DSCR, although it remained below 1. This indicates some level
of operational cash flow management compared to its competitors, suggesting it may be
better positioned to address its debt challenges.

Overall, Coteccons and FECON are in precarious positions, with Coteccons slightly better
off than FECON in terms of DSCR in 2021 and 2022. Hoa Binh's situation is the most
concerning, as indicated by its negative DSCR in 2022, which could threaten its financial
viability. Continuous monitoring and strategic financial management will be critical for all
three companies to enhance their debt servicing capabilities.

e. Times-interest-earned
The times-interest-earned (TIE) ratio, also known as the interest coverage ratio, is a
financial metric used to measure a company's ability to pay the interest on its outstanding
debt. It is calculated by dividing a company's earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) by its
interest expenses for a given period.
Table 27: Coteccons’s TIE ratio Comparison

In 2020, the TIE of Coteccons was equal to 0. This indicates that Coteccons had no
interest payments. The absence of interest payments leads to a TIE of zero. However, the TIE
ratio improved significantly in 2021, rising to 35.35. This indicates that the company
generated enough earnings to cover its interest payments comfortably. The ratio suggests a
healthy ability to meet interest obligations, as its Net Income was over 35 times greater than
its interest expenses. In 2022, The TIE ratio has dropped sharply from 35.35 to 1.44,
indicating a potential concern. The company’s net income has decreased slightly, while
interest payments have increased significantly, suggesting higher leverage and potential
difficulty in covering interest expenses.

41
 Comparison
Figure 19: Coteccons’s TIE ratio Comparison

Coteccons experienced a significant shift in its TIE ratio from 2020 to 2022. The company
went from having no interest payments in 2020 to a strong financial position in 2021 but then
experienced a decline in its ability to cover interest expenses in 2022. Hoa Binh had a
consistently weaker TIE ratio compared to Coteccons and FECON, suggesting a less stable
financial position. The company's negative TIE ratio in 2022 is a major concern, highlighting
severe financial difficulties. FECON maintained a moderate TIE ratio throughout the three
years, indicating a consistent ability to cover interest expenses, but not as strong as Coteccons
in 2021.

This comparison suggests that while Coteccons had a strong year in 2021, its financial
position weakened by 2022, making it crucial for the company to address its debt
management strategies moving forward.

42
3. References
Annual report for fiscal year 2023. (2021, April 20). COTECCONS.

https://www.coteccons.vn/en/investor/annual-report-for-fiscal-year-2023/

Cafeland.vn. (2021, August 7). Coteccons: Từ Khong vay no dưới thời ông Nguyen BA

Duong đến huy động 500 Ty Thong qua trái phiếu - CafeLand.V... Tin nhanh bất động sản

CafeLand.

https://cafeland.vn/tin-tuc/coteccons-tu-khong-vay-no-duoi-thoi-ong-nguyen-ba-duong-den-

huy-dong-500-ty-thong-qua-trai-phieu-100525.html#:~:text=T%C3%ADnh%20t%E1%BB

%9Bi%20cu%E1%BB%91i%20n%C4%83m%202020,nhi%E1%BB%81u%20ti%E1%BB

%81n%20nh%E1%BA%A5t%20th%E1%BB%8B%20tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng

Coteccons chưa the vượt qua khó Khan sau cuộc Chien quyền lực. (2021, May 23). Tin tức

mới nhất 24h - Đọc Báo Lao Động online - Laodong.vn.

https://laodong.vn/kinh-doanh/coteccons-chua-the-vuot-qua-kho-khan-sau-cuoc-chien-quyen

-luc-912408.ldo

Coteccons VA Unicons trúng thầu them 2 du an moi - Coteccons VA Unicons trung thau

them 2 du an moi | Tin TUC doanh nghiệp niêm yet | | CafeF.vn. (n.d.). CafeF.vn.

https://s.cafef.vn/ctd-1652161/coteccons-va-unicons-trung-thau-them-2-du-an-moi.chn

CÔng Ty CP fecon. (2021, December 5). VNR500 - Bảng xếp hạng Top 500 Doanh nghiệp

lớn nhất Việt Nam.

43
https://www.vnr500.com.vn/Thong-tin-doanh-nghiep/CONG-TY-CP-FECON-Chart--1471-2

022.html

Hòa Bình - Coteccons: Sao đổi ngôi. (n.d.). HOA BINH CONSTRUCTION GROUP.

https://hbcg.vn/news/10329-hoabinh-cotecconssaodoingoi.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0C

MTEAAR2gwmoElwmyCagEKQN53gS-lpIZjuUgv9CD3x1SDpUEGUSCd4V8OVUFT1I_

aem_k4XqSeIPEU0TApyB-1Y7zA

Oanh Nguyễn Thị Hoàng. (2024, June 5). We prefer to call ourselves a humble giant.

COTECCONS. https://coteccons.vn/en/we-prefer-to-call-ourselves-a-humble-giant/

Phan Thị Diễm My. (2024, July 17). Press release Bussiness activities Q2/2022.

COTECCONS. https://coteccons.vn/en/press-release-bussiness-activities-q2-2022/

Sức khỏe Tai chính CUA nhiều nhà thầu xây dung suy giảm. (n.d.). stockbiz.vn.

https://stockbiz.vn/tin-tuc/suc-khoe-tai-chinh-cua-nhieu-nha-thau-xay-dung-suy-giam/23683

996

Trí, D. (2023, June 13). Coteccons Ra Sao tu khi Co Chu tich HĐQT moi? Báo điện tử Dân

Trí.

https://dantri.com.vn/kinh-doanh/coteccons-ra-sao-tu-khi-co-chu-tich-hdqt-moi-2023061206

5835143.htm

44
Trí, D. (2023, July 30). Bi Ricons yêu cầu Mo thủ TUC Pha San, Coteccons van Bao Lai

CAO nhất 2 Nam. Báo điện tử Dân Trí.

https://dantri.com.vn/kinh-doanh/bi-ricons-yeu-cau-mo-thu-tuc-pha-san-coteccons-van-bao-l

ai-cao-nhat-2-nam-20230729223841038.htm

Vietnam’s real estate market turmoil explained. (2023, May 11). Vietnam Briefing News.

https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-real-estate-market-2023.html/

Vietstock. (2023, February 8). CTD Bao Lai 2022 đi lui 14%, no vay Tang Manh.

https://vietstock.vn/2023/02/ctd-bao-lai-2022-di-lui-14-no-vay-tang-manh-737-1038027.htm

VnExpress. (2023, February 16). 'Bi Kip' giúp Coteccons Thang thầu những du an Lon.

vnexpress.net.

https://vnexpress.net/bi-kip-giup-coteccons-thang-thau-nhung-du-an-lon-4571268.html

VnExpress. (2024, February 15). Ricons xác định khó thu hang tram Ty đồng no tu

Coteccons. vnexpress.net.

https://vnexpress.net/ricons-xac-dinh-kho-thu-hag-tram-ty-dong-no-tu-coteccons-4711696.ht

ml#:~:text=L%E1%BA%A7n%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A7u%20ti%C3%AAn%20Ricons%

20tr%C3%ADch,so%20v%E1%BB%9Bi%20cu%E1%BB%91i%20n%C4%83m%202022

45