In the earlier parts of this series, I was focused primarily on investors.
But the issue of comparability in ASEAN is not only an investor problem.
It is just as relevant for listed companies, CFOs, and IR teams who engage with capital markets every day.
The difficulty is not that valuation or asset allocation “doesn’t work” in ASEAN.
The real issue is more subtle — it often works on fragile foundations.
The illusion of comparability
On the surface, comparing ASEAN listed companies looks straightforward.
Financial statements are published.
Valuation multiples are available.
Peer tables can be built in minutes.
But beneath that surface lie fundamental inconsistencies.
Across ASEAN, company-level financials are shaped by differences in:
accounting definitions
cash flow visibility
CAPEX assumptions
funding cost treatment
disclosure depth
As a result, financials that appear comparable often are not comparable in economic terms.
This does not invalidate valuation.
But it does change what valuation numbers actually represent.
What this means for investors
For investors, the impact is rarely dramatic.
There is no obvious “error message.” Models still run.
Portfolios still rebalance.
But inconsistencies at the company level quietly propagate upward.
Country risk and company-specific risk begin to blur.
Volatility reflects definitional differences rather than fundamentals.
Low correlations sometimes reflect measurement gaps — not diversification.
Over time, portfolio decisions can be influenced by noise that looks like signal.
What this means for CFOs and IR teams
For CFOs and IR teams, the challenge is more direct.
External valuation models — including investment banking pitches — often rely on peer benchmarks that look precise and quantitative.
But precision can be misleading when the underlying inputs are fragile.
This raises uncomfortable but necessary questions:
Can your company truly be compared with ASEAN peers?
Do you have a clear internal view of your own valuation?
Does today’s share price reflect business fundamentals — or external assumptions embedded in market models?
If management does not understand the assumptions behind peer comparison,
valuation discussions risk becoming reactive rather than strategic.
Why this is not just a technical issue
Comparability problems are often described as accounting or data issues.
In reality, they frequently reflect deeper organizational factors:
finance team capability
audit rigor
governance and disclosure practices
consistency in internal financial discipline
These elements quietly shape how financial information is produced —
and how investable a company appears to the market.
This is why comparability cannot be “fixed” by changing a data vendor or adjusting a spreadsheet.
Why higher-level ASEAN financial intelligence is required
When raw financial data is not naturally comparable,
what both investors and companies need is not more complex models.
They need: