Valuation report · Banking
BIDV
BID valuation is a bank peer-multiple exercise with a visible downside/base/upside band.
Fact file
- Price used
- VND 41.7k
- Price date
- 11 Jun 2026
- Model date
- 11 Jun 2026
- Methods
- Comparable Analysis
- Files
- 1 workbook
Dated figures This model was last updated on 11 Jun 2026, 121 days before this page was built. Prices, estimates and peer multiples have not been refreshed since, so the implied moves below compare against the 11 Jun 2026 price, not today's.
The 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?
Valuation range
Comparable
39.7k–44.3k
+0.8%
Comparable: 39.7k to 44.3k; +0.8% versus 41.7kBars are ranges; a heavy tick is a point estimate; a gap inside a bar marks the base case. Percentages compare each method's base case or midpoint with the 41.7k price the model used on 11 Jun 2026.
| Method | Value | vs price |
|---|---|---|
| Comparable Selected listed-bank P/E medians on LTM, 2026E and 2027E earnings | 39.7k–44.3k | +0.8% |
- Comparable output · VND 39.7k-44.3k/share
- The output brackets spot rather than matching it exactly. The lower end reflects a more cautious forward earnings read; the upper end reflects normalized/LTM support.
- Method spread · Approx. 12%
- The spread is acceptable for a bank comparable model because credit costs, funding costs, and earnings normalization can shift the correct P/E base quickly.
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.
Method 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.
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
- 1 Credit-cost normalization can make forward earnings too optimistic or too conservative.
- 2 State-linked bank valuation can be affected by policy lending, capital raising, and foreign ownership constraints.
- 3 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.
- 4 Funding-cost pressure or deposit competition would reduce the usefulness of simple P/E comparisons.
- 5 A capital raise, regulatory change, or foreign ownership limit change could move the appropriate trading multiple quickly.
Model files
-
One-page tear sheet
PDF · 197 KB · A4
Outputs against the price used, key assumptions, conclusion and risks on one page. Printable web version.
-
Bank Comparable Analysis
XLSX · 1.4 MB · 11 Jun 2026
Workbook benchmarking BID against listed Vietnam banks using P/E multiples and LTM/forward earnings bases.
Method pages
Next model upgrades
- P/B-ROE framework
- Residual Income model
- NIM assumptions
- Credit cost scenarios
- NPL and provisioning analysis
- CAR/capital adequacy tracking