Investment Question
Is BID fairly valued inside the listed-bank peer range, or should asset quality, ROE, and provisioning risk shift the stock toward the low end?
Executive View
BID is valued using comparable-company analysis rather than a corporate DCF. For banks, FCFF and FCFE are less clean because debt is operating funding, capital regulation matters, and value is usually framed through earnings, book value, ROE, and credit-cycle quality.
The completed template uses P/E-style peer checks. Because BID is a bank, the useful output is not a false-precision DCF number; it is a band that shows how the valuation changes when the market uses LTM earnings versus forward earnings.
The selected median row is intentionally not flat. A bank can look cheap or expensive depending on credit-cost normalization, provisioning cycle, and how quickly earnings recover. The model therefore allows the range to move from high-30k to mid-40k.
The report should be read as a peer sanity check. It does not replace a full P/B-ROE bank valuation, but it is enough for a quick view of whether BID is trading far outside the listed-bank multiple framework.
Key Assumptions
Peer set
Vietnam listed banks
The model benchmarks BID against banks with comparable market liquidity and banking exposure.
Multiple framework
P/E medians
The output is based on listed-bank P/E multiples, not a corporate DCF.
LTM earnings
6.1x selected P/E
LTM earnings anchor the normalized-support case.
Forward earnings
9.4x 2026E; 9.1x 2027E
Forward periods show how valuation shifts with earnings normalization.
Output framing
Range, not point estimate
The model avoids false precision because bank valuation depends on asset quality, ROE, credit cost, and capital.
Current Results
Comparable Analysis
VND 39.7k-44.3k/share
The model creates a valuation band around spot: downside comes from the forward earnings base, while upside comes from normalized/LTM multiple support.
Bank Valuation Limitation
The current BID model is a peer sanity check. It is useful for seeing where BID sits versus listed banks, but it is not yet a full bank valuation model. A stronger version should connect P/B, ROE, credit cost, NPLs, provisioning, funding cost, and capital adequacy.
Downloadable Models
Bank Comparable Analysis
Comparable Analysis
Workbook benchmarking BID against listed Vietnam banks using P/E multiples and LTM/forward earnings bases.
Last updated
2026-06-11
File type
XLSX
Contains
Future Model Upgrade
P/B-ROE framework
Residual Income model
NIM assumptions
Credit cost scenarios
NPL and provisioning analysis
CAR/capital adequacy tracking
Bank-Specific Metrics Needed
Conclusion
BID should be read as a peer-based valuation range. The current model checks whether BID sits inside the listed-bank multiple frame; it does not yet replace a full bank valuation model.
BID screens broadly fair, but the method does not say the stock should equal spot. It says the current price is inside a reasonable bank peer-multiple band.
A value near the lower end would be justified if credit costs rise, ROE normalization disappoints, or investors demand a lower multiple for state-linked balance-sheet risk.
A value near the higher end would be justified if provisioning normalizes, earnings visibility improves, and the listed-bank peer set rerates.
Because only one method is used, the report must explain the internal range clearly. For BID, the scenario spread inside comparable analysis is the valuation story.
Risks And Checks
- Credit-cost normalization can make forward earnings too optimistic or too conservative.
- State-linked bank valuation can be affected by policy lending, capital raising, and foreign ownership constraints.
- A pure P/E framework is less complete than a full P/B-ROE bank valuation, so the result should be used as a peer check.
- Funding-cost pressure or deposit competition would reduce the usefulness of simple P/E comparisons.
- A capital raise, regulatory change, or foreign ownership limit change could move the appropriate trading multiple quickly.
Academic research / not investment advice
This website is for academic and portfolio demonstration purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell securities. Valuation outputs may be incomplete, stale, or based on simplified assumptions.