BI Group · Kazakhstan · Principles of Management midterm

Bigger every year.Earning less per tenge.

In 2025 BI Group’s developer almost doubled its revenue to KZT 1.06 trillion, yet kept less profit from every tenge it sold. This lab lets you test our SWOT, Porter and BCG analysis yourself, and stress-test the one action we recommend.

BI Development, change 2025 vs 2024

Cost of sales
+87.8%
Admin costs
+82.3%
Revenue
+81.9%
Net profit
+61.6%

Costs grew faster than sales. Source: BI Development Ltd. (2026), KPMG-audited statements on KASE.

1995founded in Astana by Aidyn Rakhimbaev
250+projects completed
2.4M m²housing commissioned in 2025
6countries, 5 business divisions
“By square metres we have overtaken many developers, but we still trail them in profitability.”Aidyn Rakhimbaev, founder & CEO, interviewed by Forbes Kazakhstan (Reznik, 2026)

The numbers

Audited IFRS figures for BI Development Ltd., the only part of BI Group that publishes audited statements. KZT billion.

Drawing Financial analysis
Data 2023–2025, KASE
Presented by Assan

SWOT: strong builder, weaker economics

Click any factor to see the evidence and where it comes from. Framework: Daft (2022), Chapter 8.

Drawing SWOT + TOWS
Factors 16, all sourced
Presented by Nurida
SOSell a verified quality package using BI Service data and BIM.
WOApprove only projects with proven demand; diversify step by step.
STPublish warranty response times; audit supplier quality.
WT · most urgentStress-test every launch for lower prices, higher costs and late payments.

Porter’s Five Forces

New apartments in Kazakhstan’s major cities. Our ratings are marked with a dot; change any rating to see how industry pressure moves.

Drawing Industry analysis
Framework Porter (2008)
Presented by Alan
Pressure on margins
Elevated

Why is rivalry “high” if BI Group leads? BI has 134 completed complexes against 62 for BAZIS-A (Rakhimova, 2026), but still builds only about one in eight new square metres nationally, and buyers compare projects district by district. The proof is BI’s own mark-up of 11–13%, against 30%+ at peers (Reznik, 2026).

BCG matrix: who funds whom

Daft (2022, pp. 262–264) calls the four cells stars, cash cows, bright prospects and dogs. Move the growth line and watch the portfolio re-classify.

Drawing Portfolio analysis
Units 5 divisions
Presented by Maleka
10% is the common teaching convention. Try 5%: BI Development turns into a star.

So what? A cash cow is supposed to fund stars and bright prospects. If BI Development’s margins keep falling, engineering, schools and international growth lose their funding.

Data: Bureau of National Statistics (2026a): housing +6.2%, construction +17.5% in 2025; Rakhimova (2026): 134 vs 62 completed complexes. Positions of Education, Service and Property are team estimates.

Our recommendation: the Profit & Trust Gate

No project launches, and no building is handed over, until it passes three checks. Try it on an illustrative 50,000 m² comfort-class complex priced to match BI Development’s 2025 margin.

Drawing Stress-test simulator
Basis Daft Ch. 7; Cooper (1990)
Presented by Adelya & Sabina
Base price KZT 450,000 per m²
60% of the KZT 340,000 per m² cost is still to be spent
Late money is replaced by borrowing at 18% a year
Must cover remaining spend not paid by buyers
Illustrative; finance would set it from real project data
Trust check evidence
Gate decision
PASS
1 Profit check
2 Cash check
3 Trust check

Illustrative model built by the team. Base economics: price KZT 450,000/m², cost KZT 340,000/m², giving a 24.4% margin before warranty, close to BI Development’s 2025 gross margin of 24.1% (BI Development Ltd., 2026). Buyers prepay 30% of revenue during construction.

Where does this project stop passing the gate?

Contribution margin at every possible selling-price change, keeping your other settings. Where the blue line crosses the orange hurdle is the project’s gate break-even point: below it, the gate says stop.

Price safety marginhow far prices can fall before the gate stops the project
Cost overrun allowedextra remaining cost the project can absorb
Contributionprofit after land, build, warranty and interest
Funding headroomcommitted funding minus the completion gap
Profit checkContribution = Sales − Land & build − Warranty (1% of sales) − Interest on late payments
Pass if Contribution ÷ Sales ≥ board hurdle
Cash check and decisionCompletion gap = Remaining spend − Buyer prepayments received
Gate = Profit ✓ and Cash ✓ and Trust ✓
Plan · days 1–30CEO sponsors; CFO & COO set hurdles and the stress test.
Organize · days 30–90One committee; one owner per project dossier.
Lead · months 3–12Delivery and repair results in managers’ bonuses.
Control · month 12Monthly reviews, 5-day decisions, published results.

Targets after the 12-month pilot on 8–10 projects in Astana and Almaty: gross margin back to 25.1% within 24 months, 20% fewer defects per 100 apartments, 95% of homes handed over on the contract date, 90% of repairs closed on time (balanced scorecard, Kaplan & Norton, 1992).

Limits of our analysis

What a manager should keep in mind before acting on these numbers.

Drawing Assumptions
Status Read before deciding
What the model assumes

One illustrative 50,000 m² project with BI Development’s 2025 margin; prices and costs change evenly; 30% of revenue is prepaid during construction; late money is borrowed at 18% a year. The stress-test sizes (−5% price, +10% cost, 3 months late) are teaching assumptions.

What the analysis cannot see

Project-level margins, contracts and defect rates are not public. Audited figures cover only BI Development Ltd., not the whole group. Four BCG positions are team estimates, and one news complaint is not a defect rate.

A common mistake

Treating KZT 1.28 trillion of contract liabilities as bank debt. Most of it is buyers’ prepayments: cheap funding, but also a promise to deliver thousands of homes. Another mistake is reading company revenue growth (+81.9%) as market growth (+6.2%).

Check yourself

Four questions on what the analysis found.

Drawing Quiz
Questions 4