Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
SAM · against 194 other Consumer Defensive companies of similar size
Ranked #152 of 195 · scores higher than 22% of peers · safety percentile 30
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the safety percentile (higher = safer; 67+ earns the lower-risk grade)16 peers with a safety percentile of 20–29, including SAM · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly because of its beta and current ratio, which are weaker than most Consumer Defensive peers.
Risk is relative to the sector, not a bankruptcy probability. Banks and brokers carry high leverage by design, and share buybacks can shrink equity and current assets, which raises debt/equity on paper.
| Metric | SAM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / equityLower is better · 189 reported | 0.04× | 0.35× | 80% | 33% | |
| BetaLower is better · 191 reported | 0.83 | 0.35 | 11% | 33% | |
| Current ratioHigher is better · 187 reported | 1.04× | 1.82× | 16% | 33% |
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Safety | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60.4B THB (≈$1.7B) | 100 | 65 | |
| 2 | 3.1B USD | 99 | 37 | |
| 3 | 2.74T KRW (≈$2.0B) | 99 | 49 | |
| 4 | 29.8B HKD (≈$3.8B) | 98 | 76 | |
| 5 | 176.3B JPY (≈$1.2B) | 98 | 75 | |
| 148 | 1.8B GBP (≈$2.3B) | 33 | 59 | |
| 149 | 402.0B JPY (≈$2.7B) | 32 | 42 | |
| 150 | 18.5B CNY (≈$2.6B) | 32 | 29 | |
| 151 | 11.2B CNY (≈$1.6B) | 31 | 19 | |
| 152 | 2.2B USD | 30 | 22 | |
| 153 | 4.1B USD | 29 | 63 | |
| 154 | 2.1B USD | 29 | 42 | |
| 155 | 35.1B MXN (≈$1.9B) | 29 | 50 | |
| 156 | 1.3B USD | 28 | 23 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score