This is not a fringe bet. It is a deliberate effort to reduce reliance on lithium (China still imports a large share of the lithium it processes) while leveraging abundant domestic sodium resources, existing manufacturing know-how, and cost advantages that scale with volume.

Why This Matters for Indian Companies Betting Big on Lithium-Ion

Indian firms—Reliance, Tata Group, JSW, Amara Raja, Exide, Ola Electric and others—have committed significant capital to lithium-ion (especially LFP) cell and pack manufacturing under the PLI scheme and related incentives. Much of this capacity is still ramping or in the pipeline. A rapid Chinese sodium-ion ramp creates several pressure points:

• Cost competition in volume segments. Sodium-ion’s long-term bill-of-materials advantage (no lithium, aluminum current collectors possible on the anode side, abundant sodium) could undercut LFP on a $/kWh basis once scale is achieved, particularly in stationary storage, two- and three-wheelers, and entry-level or cost-sensitive EVs. Chinese overcapacity has already driven lithium-ion prices sharply lower; sodium-ion adds another lever.

• Segment capture. China is already deploying sodium-ion in energy storage projects and two-wheelers. These are high-volume, price-sensitive markets that matter a lot in India. If Chinese sodium-ion packs arrive at competitive prices with better cold-weather performance and solid safety credentials, they could capture share before Indian lithium-ion plants fully mature.

• Supply-chain and policy risk. Continued heavy reliance on imported lithium-ion cells or materials leaves India exposed. A successful Chinese sodium-ion ecosystem strengthens Beijing’s position across battery chemistries and gives Chinese exporters more options to compete on price and performance.

In short, pure lithium-ion pure-plays face the risk of technology bifurcation: premium/high-density applications stay with advanced lithium-ion, while cost-sensitive and stationary applications increasingly tilt toward sodium-ion (or hybrid approaches).

LFP vs Sodium-Ion: Clear Trade-offs

LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) advantages

• Mature technology with extensive field data and bankability.

• Higher practical energy density today (typically ~160–210 Wh/kg at cell level for commercial cells; leading designs push higher). Better volumetric density in many pack designs.

• Proven long cycle life (commonly 4,000–10,000+ cycles to 80% capacity for storage-grade cells).

• Excellent safety and thermal stability relative to nickel-rich chemistries.

• Established global supply chains and manufacturing ecosystem; costs have fallen dramatically with Chinese scale.

LFP disadvantages

• Still depends on lithium (price volatility and geopolitical concentration risk).

• Weaker low-temperature performance; often needs heating for charging in cold conditions.

• Energy density ceiling is lower than high-nickel NMC/NCA, limiting range in space- or weight-constrained vehicles without clever pack engineering.

Sodium-ion advantages

• Abundant, low-cost, geographically diversified raw materials (sodium from salt; hard carbon anodes can use various precursors, including biomass). No lithium, cobalt, or nickel dependency in core chemistries.

• Strong low-temperature performance (many designs retain high capacity down to –20°C or even –40°C).

• Good safety profile and high cycle-life claims (often 4,000–10,000+ or higher for storage-oriented chemistries such as certain polyanionic or Prussian-blue systems).

• Potential for lower long-term costs at scale; manufacturing can leverage some existing lithium-ion equipment with modifications. Aluminum current collectors reduce material cost and weight.

• Suited to stationary storage, two-wheelers, light commercial vehicles, and applications where energy density is secondary to cost, safety, and temperature tolerance.

Sodium-ion disadvantages

• Lower energy density today (roughly 100–175 Wh/kg depending on chemistry and generation; volumetric density is often the bigger practical gap).

• Less mature manufacturing and far less real-world fleet data outside China. Bankability and long-term degradation still being proven at scale.

• Current costs are often comparable to or only modestly better than LFP; the full cost advantage appears mainly after significant volume ramp.

• Some chemistries still face challenges in hard-carbon anode consistency, initial coulombic efficiency, and supply-chain development outside China.

In practice, the two chemistries are complementary more than purely substitutive. LFP remains the default for many storage and standard-range EV applications today. Sodium-ion wins on material security, extreme-temperature performance, and eventual cost in less density-critical uses.

FREE TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Why Indian Companies Can Still Worry Less—or Even Turn This into an Advantage

The threat is real, but it is not existential, and several structural factors work in India’s favor:

1. Domestic resource fit. India has abundant sodium (salt) and agricultural/biomass waste that can be turned into hard-carbon anodes. Several Indian efforts (Indi Energy’s bio-derived hard carbon, Naxion Energy’s commercial sodium-ion storage systems, pilot work by Rechargion and others, and Reliance’s Faradion acquisition) are already targeting these strengths. This is a natural materials advantage that lithium does not offer.

2. Market structure matches sodium-ion strengths. India’s battery demand will be heavily weighted toward energy storage (to support high renewable penetration), two- and three-wheelers, and cost-sensitive four-wheelers. These are precisely the segments where sodium-ion’s cost, temperature tolerance, and safety profile are most attractive. Premium long-range passenger EVs will still need higher-density lithium chemistries for the foreseeable future.

3. Policy is chemistry-agnostic. The PLI scheme for advanced chemistry cells does not lock companies into lithium-ion. Sodium-ion projects can qualify. Government statements have also noted progress toward commercial readiness (TRL 7+), with commercial-scale deployment potentially within a few years if execution accelerates.

4. Diversification opportunity, not pure disruption. Smart Indian players can pursue a dual-track strategy: continue building lithium-ion (especially LFP) capacity for near-term demand and proven applications while investing selectively in sodium-ion for storage, two-wheelers, and material-secure supply chains. Reliance’s Faradion move and the emergence of dedicated sodium-ion startups show this is already happening. Existing lithium-ion lines can often be adapted with relatively modest changes.

5. Time window still exists. China is far ahead on scale, but global sodium-ion volumes remain modest compared with lithium-ion. India does not need to “beat China at China’s game” of massive GWh factories overnight. It can focus on cost-competitive domestic solutions for its own large, growing market, leverage local materials, and build intellectual property and supply chains in parallel.

The bigger risk for Indian companies is not sodium-ion itself—it is remaining locked into a single chemistry while the rest of the world develops options. Lithium-ion (particularly LFP) will remain central for years. Sodium-ion is the clearest near-term alternative that reduces critical-mineral exposure and plays to India’s resource and market realities. The companies that treat this as a portfolio decision rather than a binary threat will be better positioned.

China is not waiting. Neither should India

.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

On paper, it was a success story.

In reality, the company was three weeks away from missing salaries and subcontractor payments.

This is not a rare case. This is the silent epidemic in India’s EPC (Engineering, Procurement & Construction) sector.

The Story of Horizon EPC

Arjun Mehta had built Horizon EPC into a respected mid-sized player in industrial and infrastructure projects. The order book was strong. Margins looked healthy. Bankers were happy to lend. Everything looked fine — until the day the CFO walked into his office and said:

“Sir, we have only ₹2.8 crore in the bank. Next month’s commitments are nearly ₹18 crore.”

Arjun was stunned. How could a company making ₹48 crore profit be this cash-starved?

The answer lay in something most promoters and even many investors overlook: the working capital cycle.

Why EPC Companies Bleed Cash Despite Showing Profit

EPC businesses have one of the longest and most brutal working capital cycles in Indian industry. Here’s how the trap works:

1. Revenue is recognized early
   Under Ind AS, companies book revenue based on percentage of completion. Profit appears on the P&L long before the money actually arrives.

2. Payments come late (or very late)
   Clients — especially government departments and large PSUs — pay only after milestones. Even then, delays of 60–120 days are common.

3. Retention money gets locked for years
   5–10% of the contract value is held back until the defect liability period ends (often 12–24 months after project completion). This cash is frozen.

4. Cash goes out first
   The contractor has to pay for steel, cement, equipment, subcontractors, and site expenses much earlier. Mobilization advances and bank guarantees further lock up liquidity.

In Horizon’s case, the numbers looked like this at the peak of the crisis:

• Accounts Receivable + Retention: ₹92 crore

• Inventory + Work-in-Progress: ₹38 crore

• Net Working Capital locked: Over ₹90 crore

• Operating Cash Flow for the year: Negative ₹27 crore

Profit & Loss Statement: Healthy.

Cash Flow Statement: Bleeding.

Bank Balance: Almost empty.

This is the classic EPC paradox — you can be profitable and still go bankrupt.

The Real Cost of Ignoring Cash Flow

When cash dries up, companies are forced into expensive short-term borrowing, aggressive invoice discounting, or delayed payments to subcontractors (which damages reputation and execution quality). In extreme cases, they start taking new projects just to get mobilization advances — creating a dangerous spiral.

Many EPC companies that looked strong on paper in the last decade quietly collapsed or went into restructuring for exactly this reason.

What Every Business Owner (Especially in Project Businesses) Must Do

1. Treat the 13-week cash flow forecast as more important than the annual budget.

2. Negotiate better payment terms aggressively — higher advances, front-loaded milestones, and lower retention.

3. Prefer bank guarantees over cash retention wherever possible.

4. Never confuse percentage-of-completion profit with actual cash generation.

5. Build a cash buffer. In EPC, “just-in-time” cash management is a recipe for disaster.

   FREE TELEGRAM CHANNEL

For Investors: What to Look for Before Investing in EPC Companies

If you are evaluating listed or unlisted EPC companies, do not stop at revenue growth and profit margins. Dig deeper into these critical areas:

1. Operating Cash Flow vs Net Profit

Consistently negative or weak operating cash flow despite reported profits is a major red flag.

2. Working Capital Cycle & Cash Conversion Cycle

How many days does it take to convert work into actual cash? Rising receivable days + rising inventory/WIP days is dangerous.

3. Quality of Order Book

• Who are the clients? (Private vs Government)

• What are the payment terms?

• How much is the average retention percentage?

• Is there heavy dependence on a few large projects?

4. Retention Money & Unbilled Revenue

High and rising retention + unbilled revenue on the balance sheet means cash is locked for a long time.

5. Debt Profile & Interest Coverage

Many EPC companies survive on short-term debt and bill discounting. Check the interest cost and how dependent they are on continuous refinancing.

6. Bank Guarantees & Contingent Liabilities

Large outstanding bank guarantees can suddenly crystallize into real liability.

7. Promoter Behaviour

Are promoters taking aggressive new orders just to generate advances? Or are they selectively bidding for better cash-flow projects?

8. Consistency of Cash Flow over 3–5 years

One good year means nothing. Look for companies that have demonstrated the ability to convert profits into cash across cycles.

Final Thought

In most businesses, profit is important.

In EPC, cash flow is survival.

You can show impressive profits for several years and still face a liquidity crisis that destroys the company. The market has repeatedly punished EPC companies that grew revenue aggressively while ignoring the working capital cycle.

Next time you look at an EPC company — whether as a business owner, lender, or investor — ask the only question that truly matters:

“Is this profit turning into cash… or is it just stuck on the balance sheet?”

Because in the end, profit is an opinion.

Cash is a fact.

PS:- “Look for listed companies that derives major revenue from EPC segment and you will find them trading at low PE multiples”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Newer hospitals (Greater Faridabad, New Delhi, Faridabad Sector 20 and Agra) contributed 27% of group revenue. Faridabad Sector 20 achieved EBITDA breakeven in just nine months and is already running at a monthly revenue run-rate of ₹12–13 crore with ARPOB near ₹40,000 (management sees potential of ₹45,000–50,000). New Delhi is at ~₹8 crore monthly with ARPOB approaching ₹50,000 and a 90%+ cash/insurance mix. Agra delivered a 20%+ EBITDA margin in its first full quarter of integration at a ₹9–10 crore monthly run-rate.

Existing hospitals (Noida, Greater Noida, Noida Extension and Jhansi-Orchha) still grew a solid 22% YoY, with occupancy at ~75% overall and 90%+ at the mature Noida and Jhansi-Orchha units.

Growth Triggers

1. Rapid integration of acquired assets – The playbook of acquiring and turning around hospitals is working: Faridabad Sector 20 broke even well ahead of the original 12–14 month expectation, and both new NCR hospitals maintain a high-quality payer mix (90%+ cash and private insurance).

2. Improving case mix and ARPOB – Specialty investments (especially oncology, which already contributes ~10% of revenue from a single LINAC) and a deliberate shift away from government business at key facilities are lifting realisations. Management expects group ARPOB growth of 9–10% for the full year.

3. Operating leverage from newer capacity – As New Delhi, Faridabad Sector 20 and Agra continue to scale occupancy and census beds, the drag on consolidated margins should ease and blended EBITDA margin is guided to move above 24% for full-year FY27.

4. International outreach – A new information centre in Uzbekistan and planned OPD/information centres across CIS and African markets, supported by senior marketing presence, are expected to support higher-value international patients and further improve the payer mix.

5. Shareholder-friendly actions – The Board approved a maiden interim dividend of 5% of face value and launched the first ESOP scheme (2026) to retain talent, signalling confidence in the growth trajectory.

Future Roadmap

Current bed capacity stands at 2,555. Announced capacity already exceeds 3,200 beds once the 250-bed Gurugram facility goes live in Q1 of the next fiscal year and brownfield expansions (~450 beds) at the Noida-cluster hospitals are completed over the next 15–19 months. Management remains committed to doubling capacity to 5,000 beds over the next few years and believes the target could be reached earlier than the original three-year horizon. Expansion will remain focused on North India / Delhi-NCR clusters (including further opportunities in Gurugram and select UP cities) rather than distant geographies, allowing the group to leverage existing brand strength and operational know-how. New hospitals are expected to target ARPOB levels around ₹50,000.

The immediate priority is to fill the substantial installed capacity already created, improve utilisation, and let earnings catch up with the infrastructure build-out. Oncology capability will be strengthened with additional LINACs at Faridabad Sector 20 and New Delhi.

Revenue and PAT Projections

These are illustrative forward estimates based on management commentary on volume ramp-up, ARPOB growth of 9–10%, EBITDA margin trajectory above 24%, and the contribution from newer hospitals. Actual outcomes will depend on occupancy ramp, case-mix shifts, and execution on the Gurugram and brownfield projects.

For FY27, management has indicated the company is on track to surpass last year’s 37% revenue growth and is targeting full-year EBITDA margins upwards of 24%. On that basis, revenue is expected in the range of approximately 1,700 to 1,900 crore rupees, with PAT likely in the 220 to 260 crore rupees range as operating leverage improves and newer hospitals move further up the profitability curve.

In FY28, with the 250-bed Gurugram facility contributing for most of the year, continued ramp-up of the recently acquired hospitals, and progressive addition of brownfield beds, revenue could move into the 2,200 to 2,500 crore rupees range. PAT is projected between 300 and 360 crore rupees as the higher-ARPOB assets gain share and consolidated margins expand further.

By FY29, as the network approaches or exceeds 4,000 beds on the way to the 5,000-bed ambition and utilisation across the expanded base improves, revenue is anticipated in the 2,800 to 3,200 crore rupees zone, with PAT potentially reaching 400 to 480 crore rupees, supported by a richer specialty and payer mix.

FREE TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Valuation Snapshot and Price Scenarios

As of late August 2026 the stock was trading in the ₹960–990 zone with a market capitalisation of roughly ₹9,200–9,500 crore. Trailing twelve-month earnings are around ₹180 crore (EPS ~₹18.7), implying a trailing P/E in the low-to-mid 50s. Forward multiples are lower given the expected earnings ramp.

Applying a range of forward P/E multiples to the illustrative PAT estimates:

• On FY27E mid-point PAT of ~₹240 crore (EPS ~₹25): 30x implies ~₹750; 40x implies ~₹1,000; 45x implies ~₹1,125.

• On FY28E mid-point PAT of ~₹330 crore (EPS ~₹34): 30x implies ~₹1,020; 40x implies ~₹1,360; 45x implies ~₹1,530.

• On FY29E mid-point PAT of ~₹440 crore (EPS ~₹46): 30x implies ~₹1,380; 40x implies ~₹1,840; 45x implies ~₹2,070.

Given the strong growth profile, successful early integration of new assets, and clear capacity runway, a growth-oriented multiple in the mid-to-high 30s to low 40s on FY28 earnings would still leave room for upside from current levels if the occupancy and margin trajectory materialise as guided. Key risks include slower-than-expected ramp-up of new hospitals, higher-than-anticipated depreciation/finance costs during the expansion phase, and any sustained pressure on the government-payer mix at mature facilities.

Bottom line: Yatharth is in the middle of a deliberate capacity and quality upgrade cycle. The early breakeven at Faridabad Sector 20, rising ARPOB at premium NCR hospitals, and a clear path beyond 3,200 beds provide tangible evidence that the growth strategy is working. Filling the beds already built and letting the newer high-ARPOB assets scale will be the key drivers of earnings catch-up over the next 18–24 months.

This is not investment advice. Figures are based on the Q1 FY27 earnings call transcript and publicly available data as of late August 2026. Always conduct your own due diligence.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

This is no longer a small-capacity story. Total installed capacity stands at 11,000 MT after the brownfield addition of 4,500 MT (commissioned March 2026 and fully operational in Q1). Management guided to ~95% utilisation for FY27 (~10,500 MT), funded entirely by internal accruals. The next major step is a 5,500 MT freeze-dried coffee (FDC) plant.

Growth Triggers

1. Volume ramp from existing capacity: Q1 is seasonally lean (summer). Management expects sequential improvement from Q2 and full-year volumes near 10,500 MT. Revenue guidance at current realisations sits at ₹850–900 crore for FY27.

2. Product mix and packaging: Higher consumer packs and agglomerated products support better realisations and EBITDA/kg. Packed mix has been rising; Q1 was roughly 45% bulk / 55% consumer packs. FDC will add a further premium layer (management indicated 28–32% higher EBITDA/kg versus spray-dried).

3. Customer visibility and geography: Volume commitments exist for the bulk of FY27 output (prices reset quarterly). For the new FDC capacity, LOIs cover 70–80% of the 5,500 MT. Geography is diversified: West Africa ~30%, Russia/CIS ~22%, Southeast Asia ~20%, Central America ~15%, Europe ~10%, India ~5%. ~90% of sales go directly to brand owners. Customer retention is described as very high (~98%).

4. Corporate simplification: NCLT-approved amalgamation of wholly-owned subsidiaries (Vintage Coffee Pvt Ltd and Delecto Foods Pvt Ltd) effective July 2026 should improve operational efficiency and reduce administrative costs. Delecto (chicory, ~2,000 MT capacity) contributes ₹40–45 crore revenue annually and is profitable.

5. Stable input environment: Green coffee prices have stabilised in the ₹3,500–3,800/MT range. Logistics disruptions from Middle East tensions had limited impact given modest exposure.

Future Roadmap

• Near term (FY27): Run 11,000 MT spray/agglomerated capacity at high utilisation. Positive operating cash flow expected; working-capital days targeted around 120–130 (or slightly better). Packaging capacity is already adequate for the targeted mix.

• FY28: Commercial production of the 5,500 MT FDC plant from Q2 (trials targeted by June, commercial start thereafter). Partial-year contribution expected at 60–65% utilisation → roughly 2,300–2,400 MT of FDC. Total volumes could approach ~13,000 MT. Capex for the FDC project is ~₹550 crore (substantial advances already paid; land secured in Telangana Food Processing Zone). Peak debt guided around ₹400–450 crore.

• FY29 and beyond: Full-year FDC contribution plus the existing 11,000 MT base takes total capacity to 16,500 MT. Management has indicated a possible second FDC line thereafter. Consolidated EBITDA margins are expected to move toward 23–24% as the premium mix scales. Debt is expected to peak and then be managed via operating cash flows; further equity dilution is not currently planned as the base case.

The model remains cost-plus with fixed per-kg margins that vary by pack form and blend complexity. Competitive edge is cited as proprietary blends developed in-house (not shared with customers) and long-standing relationships.

FREE TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Revenue and PAT Projections (Illustrative)

For FY27, revenue is expected in the range of 850 to 900 crore rupees, with PAT projected between 110 and 125 crore rupees. This is driven primarily by high utilization (around 95%) of the recently expanded 11,000 MT spray-dried and agglomerated capacity.

In FY28, as the 5,500 MT freeze-dried coffee plant begins commercial production from the second quarter and contributes roughly 2,300–2,400 MT at higher realizations and margins, revenue is projected between 1,150 and 1,300 crore rupees, with PAT in the range of 155 to 185 crore rupees.

By FY29, with full-year contribution from the freeze-dried capacity taking total volumes toward 15,500–16,000 MT and improved product mix supporting EBITDA margins of around 23–24%, revenue is anticipated in the 1,450 to 1,650 crore rupees range and PAT between 210 and 260 crore rupees.

These are illustrative forward estimates based on management commentary from the Q1 FY27 earnings call regarding volumes, utilization, LOIs, and margin trajectory. Actual results will depend on execution, realization trends, and market condition

Valuation Snapshot and Price Scenarios

As of late August 2026 the stock trades around ₹178 with a market capitalisation of roughly ₹2,590–2,600 crore and a trailing P/E in the low-to-mid 30s (TTM earnings ~₹79 crore range, EPS ~₹5.3–5.4).

Applying a range of forward P/E multiples to the illustrative PAT estimates:

• FY27E (PAT mid ~₹115–120 Cr → EPS ~₹7.9–8.2):
  25x → ~₹200 | 30x → ~₹240 | 35x → ~₹280

• FY28E (PAT mid ~₹170 Cr → EPS ~₹11.7):
  25x → ~₹290 | 30x → ~₹350 | 35x → ~₹410

• FY29E (PAT mid ~₹230–240 Cr → EPS ~₹16):
  25x → ~₹400 | 30x → ~₹480 | 35x → ~₹560

A growth-oriented multiple in the 28–35x range on FY28 earnings would imply meaningful upside from current levels if the FDC ramp and margin expansion materialise as guided. Risks include delays in the FDC project, weaker-than-expected utilisation or mix, working-capital intensity during growth, and any sharp moves in green coffee or packaging costs that cannot be fully passed through.

Bottom line: Vintage is transitioning from a capacity-constrained soluble-coffee player into a multi-technology producer with a clearer path to higher-margin freeze-dried volumes. Execution on the 11,000 MT base in FY27 and on-time commercialisation of FDC in FY28 are the key near-term checkpoints. The combination of volume visibility, product upgrade, and internal-accruals funding of past expansion is the core of the growth story.

This is not investment advice. Numbers are based on the Q1 FY27 earnings call transcript and publicly available data as of late August 2026. Always do your own due diligence.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

What is ROE?

ROE measures how much profit a company generates on the money belonging to its shareholders.

Formula (simplified):

ROE = Net Profit ÷ Shareholders’ Equity

It answers the question: “For every rupee of equity capital, how much profit did the company make?”

A high ROE looks impressive. But ROE can be boosted simply by taking on more debt. When a company borrows heavily, equity becomes a smaller part of the total capital, so the same profit produces a higher ROE. That is why a company can show excellent ROE while actually running a mediocre or risky business.

What is ROCE?

ROCE looks at the return generated on all the capital the business uses — both equity and debt.

Common formula:

ROCE = EBIT (or Operating Profit) ÷ Capital Employed

Capital Employed is typically Equity + Debt – Cash (or Total Assets – Current Liabilities).

It answers a broader question: “How efficiently is the company using every rupee of capital that has been put into the business, regardless of whether it came from shareholders or lenders?”

Because ROCE includes debt in the denominator, it is harder to manipulate through leverage. It gives a cleaner picture of the underlying operational strength of the business.

Key Differences at a Glance

Aspect ROE ROCE

Focus Return on shareholders’ money Return on total capital used

Includes debt? No Yes

Sensitive to leverage Highly sensitive Much less sensitive

Best for Understanding Equity returns Judging operational

Efficiency Can be inflated by High debt Harder to inflate artificially

A company with high ROE but low ROCE is often running on leverage. A company with healthy ROCE and decent ROE is usually generating genuine economic value.

Why Retail Investors Should Care

Many retail investors chase high-ROE stocks without checking the quality of that ROE. This leads to two common mistakes:

1. Buying highly leveraged businesses that look profitable on equity but struggle when interest rates rise or cash flows tighten.

2. Ignoring capital-intensive businesses that may have moderate ROE but excellent ROCE and strong reinvestment opportunities.

In capital-heavy sectors (manufacturing, hospitals, infrastructure, chemicals), ROCE is often more revealing than ROE. In asset-light businesses (software, brands, financial services), both metrics matter, but the gap between them still tells you about leverage.

What Retail Investors Should Actually Focus On

Here is a practical checklist:

1. Look at both numbers together

Prefer businesses where ROCE is healthy (ideally comfortably above the company’s cost of capital) and ROE is also good. A large gap (very high ROE + mediocre ROCE) is a red flag for excessive leverage.

2. Check consistency, not just one year

One strong year of ROE or ROCE means little. Look at the five-year or ten-year average and the trend. Is it stable, improving, or declining?

3. Compare with the cost of capital

ROCE only creates value if it is higher than the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Rough rule of thumb for many Indian businesses: ROCE consistently above 15–18% is attractive; below 10–12% is often value-destructive.

4. Examine incremental ROCE

When a company reinvests profits or raises fresh capital, what return is it earning on the new capital? High historical ROCE is less useful if the incremental returns are poor.

5. Pair it with other quality checks

• Debt levels and interest coverage

• Free cash flow generation

• Working capital trends

• Margin stability

• Growth rate relative to the returns being earned

6. Industry context matters

A 12% ROCE in a capital-intensive industry may be excellent. The same number in an asset-light software business may be average. Always compare with peers.

7. Avoid the “high ROE trap”

Some of the biggest wealth destroyers in the past looked great on ROE because they were loaded with debt. ROCE would have shown the true picture earlier.

A Simple Mental Model

Think of ROE as the return the shareholder is currently receiving.

Think of ROCE as the return the business itself is capable of generating on the capital it uses.

You want both to be strong. When they diverge sharply, dig deeper.

Final Thought

ROE is popular because it is easy to calculate and widely reported. ROCE is more useful because it is harder to game and closer to the economic reality of the business. Retail investors who train themselves to look at both — and especially at the relationship between them — develop a meaningful edge over those who only glance at the ROE number.

High returns on capital, sustained over time and earned without excessive leverage, remain one of the most reliable markers of a high-quality business.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

FREE TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Why Is Equity Dilution Required?

Companies issue new equity for practical reasons:

• Raise capital without debt — Fund growth, R&D, expansion, acquisitions, or working capital when debt is expensive, restricted by covenants, or undesirable.

• Employee compensation — Stock options, RSUs, and equity grants attract and retain talent. When employees exercise options, new shares are issued.

• Strategic flexibility — Convertible bonds, warrants, or preferred stock that later convert into common shares.

• Avoid over-leveraging — Equity financing strengthens the balance sheet compared with adding more debt.

Dilution is often the price of growth capital. The key question is whether the capital creates enough value to offset the ownership reduction.

Equity Dilution – EPS Impact Example (in ₹)

Before issuing new shares

Shares outstanding = 1 crore (1,00,00,000)

Net Profit = ₹2 crore (₹2,00,00,000)

EPS = ₹2.00

(₹2,00,00,000 ÷ 1,00,00,000)

Company issues 50 lakh new shares to raise capital.

New shares outstanding = 1.5 crore (1,50,00,000)

Net Profit remains the same initially = ₹2 crore

New EPS = ₹1.33

(₹2,00,00,000 ÷ 1,50,00,000)

Result

EPS falls from ₹2.00 to ₹1.33 — a drop of about 33.5%, even though total profit has not changed.

This lower EPS can make growth look weaker and may pressure the stock price until the new capital starts generating higher profits.

Growth impact:

Investors and analysts watch EPS growth closely. A sudden drop (or slower growth) can pressure the stock price, lower valuation multiples (P/E), and make the company look like it is underperforming—even if the capital is being put to productive use.

If the new capital generates returns lower than the company’s earnings yield (roughly 1/P/E), the dilution remains permanent or worsens. Only if the invested capital produces higher returns does EPS eventually recover or grow faster.

Fully diluted EPS (which includes options, convertibles, etc.) is even lower, giving a more conservative picture of per-share earnings power.

In short: dilution increases the denominator in the EPS formula. Unless the numerator (earnings) rises fast enough, per-share metrics and perceived growth suffer.

What Investors Need to Check

• Share count trends — Basic shares outstanding vs. fully diluted shares. Watch for steady increases from secondary offerings, employee equity, or convertibles.

• Use of proceeds — Is the capital funding high-return projects, debt repayment, or just covering losses? Productive use can make dilution temporary or value-accretive.

• Dilution percentage and ownership impact — How much is your stake reduced? Look at the size of the issuance relative to existing shares.

• Employee stock-based compensation (SBC) — High ongoing SBC as a % of revenue or free cash flow signals continuous dilution.

• Convertible securities and options — Review the footnotes for outstanding options, warrants, convertibles, and the treasury-stock or if-converted method impact on diluted EPS.

• Preemptive rights / rights issues — Do existing shareholders get the chance to maintain their percentage?

• Accretion/dilution analysis — Compare the expected return on new capital against the company’s earnings yield. High-P/E companies can more easily make equity issuances EPS-accretive.

• Cap table / fully diluted ownership (especially relevant for private or growth companies) — Understand liquidation preferences, option pools, and potential future dilution.

Bottom line for investors:

Dilution is not automatically bad. Value is destroyed only when the capital raised fails to generate sufficient returns. Focus on why the shares were issued and whether management is creating more economic value than the ownership it is giving away.

Subscribe

Share

Comment

Quality Power Electrical Equipments Limited (CMP 1363)is positioning itself as a specialised high-voltage technology platform focused on HVDC, FACTS, power quality, and now energy storage. The Q1 FY27 earnings call (held 10 August 2026) highlighted an operationally intense period of customer qualifications, capacity build-out, and acquisition progress, alongside solid financial delivery.

In the quarter, consolidated revenue stood at ₹256.4 crore. Gross margin improved to 47.2 percent. Reported EBITDA was ₹64.7 crore (25.2 percent margin). After adjusting for a non-cash Ind AS 29 hyperinflation monetary loss of ₹7.82 crore from Turkish operations, underlying EBITDA was about ₹72.5 crore (28.3 percent). Profit after tax came in at ₹46.7 crore, with EPS of ₹4.66. Finance costs remained low and the order book closed at ₹1,945 crore — roughly 1.9 times the previous year’s full revenue. Endoks contributed the largest share of the book, followed by Mehru and the standalone Quality Power business.

Management retained a cautious revenue growth guidance of around 20 percent for FY27 while signalling 50 percent growth potential for FY28 as new capacities come online. They continue to model EBITDA in the high teens to 20 percent range and emphasised pricing discipline — every executable order currently in the book sits above earlier margin guidance.

Key Growth Triggers

The most immediate trigger is the new Sangli manufacturing facility. Machinery installation is advanced. Trial production is targeted for the current month subject to remaining statutory clearances. Full commercial ramp will take time because high-voltage products require extensive customer audits (management referenced around 60 audits). Once stabilised, the facility is expected to support peak revenue potential of ₹1,500–1,800 crore. Parallel installation of the High Voltage CTC Magnet Wire line is also underway, with full production targeted by Q4 FY27. These are classic capacity-expansion plays: fixed costs (depreciation, manpower, overheads) will hit the P&L ahead of full utilisation, so temporary margin moderation on the standalone business is likely in the near term, particularly around Q3, before absorption improves over the following 12–15 months.

At Endoks in Turkey, civil construction of the power-conversion-system (PCS) facility for battery energy storage systems is complete, with operations expected in Q3 FY27. Inquiry levels for energy storage have exceeded earlier expectations. The current PCS order pipeline is around USD 60 million, with another USD 40 million anticipated over the next 12 months. Management sees the facility itself capable of supporting peak revenues in the USD 70–80 million range. Execution cycles for BESS are shorter (six to nine months) than traditional high-voltage equipment, which should help working-capital turns once production begins. Longer term, the company intends to bring BESS capability into India as well.

The proposed acquisition of Winwin Speciality Insulators (enterprise value approximately ₹315 crore) is another structural trigger. Confirmatory due diligence is complete with no adverse findings and definitive agreements are progressing. Consolidation is expected only in Q4 FY27 because of SEZ-related approvals. The plant brings porcelain and composite insulator capability up to very high voltages, along with a large land parcel that can support further expansion. Internal demand alone is estimated at ₹40–45 crore annually, while the team is targeting ₹200 crore of external orders in the near term. Peak revenue potential is seen at ₹250–300 crore without additional capex and ₹450–500 crore after planned investment. The strategic rationale is clear: insulators are a scarce, high-barrier product that currently constrain throughput for many grid equipment manufacturers. Owning capacity provides both internal security and commercial leverage.

Beyond pure capacity, the group is building operating leverage through shared management talent, a newly appointed Group Chief Technology Officer with deep HVDC and FACTS experience from Hitachi/ABB, and a Chief Procurement Officer tasked with consolidating volumes across entities. These steps should improve cost efficiency and supply-chain resilience as scale increases.

Demand drivers remain supportive: transmission expansion, renewable integration, HVDC and FACTS programmes, grid modernisation, data-centre power infrastructure, and accelerating utility-scale storage. The company continues to win qualification audits with global OEMs and utilities, which expands the addressable market over time.

Quality Power (QPOWER) – Forward Revenue, PAT & PE-Based Price Estimates

Based on the Q1 FY27 conference call, management guidance, order-book visibility of ₹1,945 crore, and the progressive commissioning of Sangli, the CTC magnet-wire line, Endoks PCS facility and the Winwin insulator acquisition, here is a reasoned set of estimates for the next three years. These are illustrative projections only and not company guidance or broker consensus.

FY27 (year ending March 2027)

Management has retained a conservative 20 percent revenue growth target. Taking the approximate FY26 base of around ₹1,000 crore, this points to consolidated revenue in the ₹1,200–1,300 crore range.

Profitability will be influenced by the temporary fixed-cost drag (depreciation, manpower and overheads) as Sangli begins trial and commercial production, plus any residual non-cash Turkish hyperinflation adjustments. A realistic PAT range is ₹180–230 crore, implying a net margin in the mid-teens.

FY28 (year ending March 2028)

Management has indicated 50 percent growth potential once the new capacities stabilise. This would take revenue to approximately ₹1,800–2,000 crore.

With higher utilisation at Sangli, contribution from the Endoks PCS/BESS line and initial consolidation of Winwin, operating leverage should improve. PAT could move into the ₹300–400 crore zone, assuming net margins expand modestly toward the mid-to-high teens as fixed costs are absorbed.

FY29 (year ending March 2029)

By this stage the major facilities should be largely ramped and Winwin fully integrated. A further 30–40 percent growth appears reasonable on the back of the enlarged capacity base and continued demand in HVDC, FACTS, storage and data-centre power infrastructure. This suggests revenue in the ₹2,400–2,800 crore range.

PAT could reach ₹400–550 crore if the company sustains pricing discipline and converts the order pipeline efficiently.

Price Estimate Using PE Multiples

Current shares outstanding are approximately 77.4 million. At the mid-point of the FY28 PAT estimate (say ₹350 crore), EPS would be roughly ₹45. Applying a 40–50 times forward PE multiple — still elevated relative to traditional electrical-equipment peers but more moderate than the present trailing multiple given the multi-year capacity story — produces an implied fair-value range of approximately ₹1,800–2,250.

If FY29 PAT reaches the mid-point of ₹475 crore, EPS would be around ₹61. The same 40–50 times multiple would imply a price range of roughly ₹2,450–3,050.

These PE assumptions assume successful execution of the capacity ramp, timely closure of the Winwin deal without excessive dilution, and no major adverse commodity or geopolitical shocks. Any equity raise below ₹500 crore (as indicated by management) would increase the share count and modestly reduce EPS. Conversely, faster-than-expected utilisation or stronger BESS traction could support higher multiples.

Bottom Line

Quality Power is investing ahead of demand across three complementary vectors: large-scale coil and magnet-wire capacity at Sangli, power-electronics/storage capability at Endoks, and critical insulator manufacturing via Winwin. The order book already provides visibility, pricing discipline has been maintained, and group-level operating synergies are being built. The near-term watch-points are the pace of statutory clearances and customer audits at Sangli, the ramp of the Turkish PCS line, successful closure and turnaround of Winwin, and any dilution from the planned capital raise. If execution stays disciplined, the combination of capacity, technology depth and scarce-product ownership can support multi-year growth. As always, this is not investment advice — high-voltage equipment involves long qualification cycles, commodity exposure and execution risk. Independent analysis of the latest filings and facility progress remains essential.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Related party transactions are dealings between a company and parties that have a pre-existing relationship with it — promoters, directors, key management personnel, their relatives, subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures, or entities controlled by any of these people. Because the parties are not fully independent, the terms of these transactions may not reflect true arm’s-length market conditions.

This single feature makes RPTs one of the highest-priority items in any serious fundamental analysis.

What Exactly Counts as a Related Party Transaction?

Under major accounting frameworks (IAS 24 under IFRS and ASC 850 under US GAAP), a related party is broadly defined as:

• A person (or close family member) who has control, joint control, or significant influence over the company, or is a member of key management.

• An entity that is a parent, subsidiary, fellow subsidiary, associate, or joint venture.

• Entities controlled or significantly influenced by the same people who control or influence the reporting company.

A related party transaction is any transfer of resources, services, or obligations between the company and such a party — whether or not a price is charged. Common examples include:

• Sales or purchases of goods and services

• Loans, advances, and guarantees

• Leases of property or equipment

• Management or technical service fees

• Asset transfers or royalty arrangements

• Equity contributions or share-based payments

These transactions are not inherently illegal or even necessarily problematic. Many legitimate business groups have extensive internal dealings for operational efficiency. The danger arises when the pricing, terms, or purpose deviate from what independent parties would agree to.

Why RPTs Matter So Much in Company Analysis

1. They can distort the true economics of the business
   Revenue booked from a related party may not be sustainable if ownership changes. Costs paid to related parties (rent, interest, management fees) may be inflated or understated relative to market rates. This directly affects reported profitability, margins, and cash flows — the numbers investors rely on.

2. They create opportunities for value extraction (“tunneling”)
   Controlling shareholders or management can transfer wealth out of the listed company to entities they own privately. Classic methods include overpaying for goods/services from related parties, selling assets cheaply to them, or providing soft loans that are never properly recovered.

3. They affect earnings quality and sustainability
   High dependence on related parties for revenue or key inputs increases risk. A buyer or lender will often discount such numbers because the economics may change under new ownership or tighter scrutiny.

4. They are a leading indicator of governance quality
   Companies that treat minority shareholders fairly tend to keep RPTs transparent, properly approved, and reasonably priced. Persistent large, poorly disclosed, or unusually structured RPTs often correlate with weaker boards, passive audit committees, and higher risk of future restatements or scandals.

5. They influence valuation and risk premiums
   Sophisticated investors and credit analysts routinely adjust multiples or required returns when material RPTs exist. Opaque or aggressive related-party activity can justify a permanent valuation discount.

How to Analyze Related Party Transactions Properly

When reading annual reports, focus on the notes to the financial statements (usually titled “Related Party Disclosures”).

Key questions to ask:

• Scale: What is the absolute and relative size of RPTs versus revenue, expenses, assets, or equity? Transactions exceeding roughly 10–15% of revenue often warrant deeper scrutiny.

• Nature and direction: Are the company selling to related parties (possible revenue inflation) or buying from them (possible cost inflation or value leakage)?

• Pricing and terms: Does the company claim arm’s-length terms? Is there independent benchmarking or valuation support? Interest-free or soft loans, extended credit periods, or non-monetary exchanges without clear commercial substance are red flags.

• Outstanding balances: Large receivables from related parties that keep growing, or guarantees given on behalf of related entities, increase credit and liquidity risk.

• Approval and governance process: Were material transactions approved by the audit committee and (where required) independent shareholders? Are interested directors properly excluded?

• Trend: Are RPTs growing faster than the core business? Sudden spikes near period-end are particularly suspicious.

• Consistency: Do the disclosures match information in other filings (proxy statements, related-party policies, etc.)?

Also examine the list of related parties itself. Complex webs of entities, frequent changes in structure, or parties based in low-transparency jurisdictions raise the difficulty of verification.

Common Red Flags

• Transactions at prices significantly above or below market without clear justification

• Interest-free or unsecured loans/advances to related parties with weak repayment capacity

• Large management or consultancy fees paid to promoter-linked entities

• Asset sales or purchases that lack independent valuation

• Round-tripping or circular transactions

• Heavy reliance on related parties for a large portion of revenue or key inputs

• Weak or boilerplate disclosures (“transactions are at arm’s length”) without supporting evidence

• Related-party balances that are repeatedly written off or restructured

Not every flag means fraud. Some groups genuinely need internal transactions for operational reasons. The combination of size, opacity, weak governance process, and lack of independent pricing support is what elevates risk.

One of the clearest and most disastrous Indian examples is Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL).

The Case of DHFL

DHFL was once a prominent housing finance company. Between roughly 2006 and 2019, its promoters (primarily Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan) used a large network of related-party entities to systematically divert funds.

Key related-party issues:

• The company disbursed thousands of crores as “loans” to around 87 entities (often called the “Bandra Book Entities” in investigation reports).

• These entities were controlled by or closely linked to the promoters and their relatives.

• Most of these entities had weak or negligible operations, little or no assets, and were essentially shell companies.

• The loans were deliberately disguised as retail home loans given to individual borrowers through a fictitious “Bandra branch.” This was done using multiple accounting software systems so that the true nature of the transactions remained hidden from lenders, auditors, and investors for years.

• None of these 87 entities were properly disclosed as related parties in the company’s financial statements, violating Companies Act, Accounting Standards (AS 18 / Ind AS 24), and SEBI LODR requirements.

• A significant portion of the money was further routed to other promoter-linked entities for personal use, real estate, investments, and other purposes.

Scale of the damage:

• Forensic investigations and regulatory findings put the fraud at over ₹34,000–35,000 crore.

• Banks and financial institutions that had lent to DHFL suffered massive losses.

• The company eventually defaulted, was taken over by the RBI, and went into insolvency under the IBC.

• Promoters faced criminal proceedings, SEBI bans, and large penalties. Shareholders saw almost complete destruction of value.

This is a textbook case of related-party transactions being used as a conduit for fund diversion and tunneling. The lack of transparency, absence of arm’s-length pricing, and deliberate concealment of the related-party nature of the loans allowed the problem to grow for more than a decade before collapsing.

Another Classic Example: Satyam Computers (2009)

In December 2008, Satyam’s board approved the acquisition of two promoter-family companies — Maytas Infrastructure and Maytas Properties — for about $1.6 billion using Satyam’s cash.

This was a blatant related-party transaction. Institutional investors strongly opposed it, forcing the deal to be withdrawn within hours. The failed attempt triggered the unravelling of the much larger accounting fraud (fictitious cash and revenues of several thousand crores). Ramalinga Raju later admitted that the Maytas deal was an attempt to replace fictitious assets on Satyam’s books with real ones.

Key Lesson

Both cases show why high or opaque related-party transactions are such a serious red flag:

• They can be used to extract value from the listed company for the benefit of promoters.

• When combined with weak disclosure and poor governance, they can hide problems for years.

• Once the truth emerges, the damage to minority shareholders, lenders, and the company’s survival is often irreversible.

This is exactly why investors are advised to carefully examine the Related Party Transactions note in annual reports, look at the scale, pricing, outstanding balances, and the quality of approval

Regulatory Context (Brief Overview)

Most jurisdictions require disclosure of material related party transactions. Under IFRS (IAS 24), companies must disclose the nature of relationships and details of transactions and balances so users can assess potential effects.In India, SEBI’s LODR regulations and the Companies Act impose approval requirements by the audit committee and, for material transactions, by shareholders, along with detailed disclosure norms.

Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient. Investors still need to exercise judgment about substance over form.

Practical Takeaway for Investors and Analysts

Related party transactions should sit near the top of any analytical checklist, alongside debt quality, cash conversion, and capital allocation. They reveal how management and controlling shareholders treat the company and its minority owners.

A clean RPT profile with transparent disclosures, independent pricing, and proper approvals is a positive governance signal. Large, opaque, or poorly justified related-party activity is a reason to demand a higher margin of safety — or to walk away.

In short: the numbers in the income statement and balance sheet only tell part of the story. Related party transactions often tell you whether those numbers can be trusted, and whether the people running the company are aligned with outside shareholders.

When you next open an annual report, go straight to the related party note. What you find there may matter more than the headline earnings number.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Before you celebrate any growth story, ask three fundamental questions. The answers will tell you far more about the sustainability and quality of the expansion than the headline revenue number itself.

1. Will growth come from better use of existing facilities or from new capacity?

The cleanest form of growth is when a company simply runs its current plants harder and smarter. Higher capacity utilisation of existing assets usually means better operating leverage, stronger margins, and minimal additional capital outlay. This is almost always a positive trigger.

If the company says growth will come from expansion, dig deeper. Is it brownfield (adding capacity at existing sites) or greenfield (building entirely new plants)? Brownfield expansions are generally faster, cheaper, and less risky because the company already has land, utilities, skilled labour, and regulatory approvals in place. Greenfield projects take longer, cost more, and carry higher execution risk.

2. How will the expansion be funded?

This is the most critical question. The source of capital directly affects future earnings per share and valuation multiples.

Internal accruals (cash reserves)

Funding growth with the company’s own cash is usually the most shareholder-friendly route. There is no interest burden and no dilution of ownership. The bottom line is not immediately pressured by financing costs. However, there is one important caveat: when new capacity comes online, depreciation begins immediately, while meaningful revenue may take time to ramp up. Watch the depreciation line carefully in the intervening quarters. A temporary dip in margins or return ratios is normal, but prolonged weakness without corresponding revenue growth is a red flag.

Debt

Borrowing to expand is common and can be efficient if the company generates returns higher than the cost of debt. But interest expense will hit the profit and loss account from day one. When you calculate forward price-to-earnings ratios, you must factor in this higher interest cost. Rising leverage also increases financial risk, especially if the ramp-up is slower than expected or if interest rates rise.

Equity raise

Issuing new shares or converting warrants brings in capital without the burden of interest. The downside is dilution. Every new share reduces existing shareholders’ ownership percentage and lowers earnings per share unless the capital generates sufficient additional profit. Scrutinise the issue carefully:

• At what price are the shares or warrants being issued?

• Is it a rights issue (existing shareholders get preferential allocation) or a QIP (qualified institutional placement)?

• Who is participating — promoters, long-term institutions, or short-term investors?

A well-priced rights issue that allows existing shareholders to maintain their stake is generally more favourable than a heavily discounted QIP that significantly dilutes ownership.

Putting it all together

The ideal growth story combines high utilisation of existing assets with carefully staged brownfield expansion funded largely by internal accruals. Greenfield projects funded by debt or equity can still create value, but they demand stricter scrutiny of timelines, costs, and dilution impact.

Next time a company projects substantial revenue growth, do not stop at the top-line number. Ask how the growth will be achieved and how it will be paid for. The answers will separate temporary excitement from durable shareholder value.

Share

Subscribe now

JOIN TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Leave a comment

As of late August 2026, the stock trades around ₹605 (market cap roughly ₹7,400–7,600 crore). FY26 delivered solid numbers, and the order book mix has flipped meaningfully. Here’s a structured look at the growth triggers, simple forward projections, and a PE-based price estimate.

FY26 Snapshot and Recent Momentum

• Revenue from operations: ₹1,107 crore (+19.9% YoY)

• EBITDA: ₹299.5 crore (27.0% margin)

• PAT: ₹259 crore (+27% YoY, 22.7% margin)

Q1 FY27 continued the trend: Revenue ₹301 crore (+29% YoY), EBITDA ₹85 crore (28.2% margin), PAT ₹66 crore (+15.9% YoY). Margins held up despite sequential cost pressures and some Middle East-related logistics noise in Q4 FY26.

Defence, aerospace and railways now form ~50% of the order book (up sharply from low single digits a couple of years ago) and contributed ~13% of FY26 revenue.

Key Growth Triggers

1. Large-calibre ammunition / empty shells
   Fully automated indigenous line with 360,000 shells per annum capacity is commercialised. Serial production and dispatches of 152 mm and 155 mm shells have begun. A 5-year binding MoU with a NATO-affiliated entity provides long-term visibility. Management has indicated potential for significant scaling (initial orders in the tens of thousands of units, with scope to go much higher). At full utilisation this vertical alone can contribute meaningful high-margin revenue.

2. NATO supply-chain induction + export potential
   Entry into the NATO ecosystem opens European and allied markets—an important differentiator versus purely domestic defence suppliers.

3. Aerospace breakthrough
   Maiden order from Alpha Aircraft Systems Inc. (USA) marks entry into the global aerospace supply chain. Precision components using advanced alloys (including potential titanium/aluminium work) carry higher realisations and longer qualification cycles, which create stickiness.

4. Capacity expansion at the 46-acre Belgaum campus
   Forging capacity is being scaled toward 150,000 MTPA and machining toward 80,000+ MTPA. Heavy presses (including 25-ton hammer and 8,000-ton mechanical press) and multi-axis machining lines support heavier, more complex parts. This is funded largely through internal accruals so far, with an approved FCCB raise of up to USD 60 million available if needed.

5. Forward integration
   Subsidiary Quantum Energetics is expanding its object clause into energetics (TNT, RDX, HMX and related materials, subject to approvals). This moves the company beyond empty shells toward higher value-added ammunition solutions.

6. Broader “Make in India / Europe +1” tailwinds
   Diversified end-markets (still includes agriculture, CVs, oil & gas, power, heavy engineering) provide a base while the high-value mix improves. UAE subsidiary continues to contribute.

These triggers are execution-heavy. Capacity ramp, customer qualification timelines, working-capital intensity of defence contracts, and geopolitical risks (already visible in Q4 FY26) matter.

REVENUE AND PAT PROJECTIONS:-

Looking ahead, a reasonable base-case trajectory points to revenue in the range of ₹1,500–1,600 crore in FY27 with PAT of ₹320–360 crore, followed by ₹2,000–2,200 crore revenue and ₹430–500 crore PAT in FY28, and further growth toward ₹2,500–2,800 crore revenue and ₹550–650 crore PAT by FY29. These estimates assume sustained capacity utilisation, gradual improvement in the defence and aerospace mix, and EBITDA margins remaining in the mid-to-high 20s. They are illustrative only and subject to execution risks.

At the current market price around ₹605 the trailing price-to-earnings multiple stands in the mid-20s. Applying a conservative 22–26 times multiple to estimated FY28 earnings produces a fair-value range roughly between ₹815 and ₹960.

A more optimistic multiple in the high 20s, justified by successful defence re-rating and consistent delivery, would push the implied value higher. Valuation is no longer cheap on trailing numbers, but the multi-year growth runway, if delivered, can support these multiples.

Bottom Line

Balu Forge is no longer just another forging company. The combination of a commercialised automated shell line, NATO qualification, aerospace entry, and large capacity addition at Belgaum creates a multi-year growth runway if execution stays on track. The shift in order-book mix toward higher-margin, stickier segments is the real story.

Valuation is no longer cheap on trailing numbers, but the growth trajectory (if delivered) can support mid-20s multiples or better. Investors should watch quarterly capacity utilisation of the shell line, order conversions, working-capital trends, and any dilution from the approved FCCB.

This is not investment advice. Defence manufacturing involves long qualification cycles, regulatory hurdles, and geopolitical variables. Do your own due diligence, read the latest investor presentations and annual reports, and size positions appropriately

.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

When you open an Indian company’s balance sheet (or the notes to the financial statements), two related items often catch the eye under non-current assets: Gross Block and Capital Work-in-Progress (CWIP).

They sit at the heart of how a company accounts for its long-term productive capacity — the factories, machines, buildings, and infrastructure that will (or should) generate future cash flows. Understanding them helps you separate companies that are actively building for growth from those that may be parking money in incomplete or delayed projects.

What is Gross Block?

Gross Block is the cumulative original cost of all tangible fixed assets (Property, Plant and Equipment) a company has acquired or constructed over time — land, buildings, plant & machinery, vehicles, furniture, computers, etc. — valued at historical cost (purchase price + directly attributable costs such as freight, installation, duties).

It is shown before any depreciation or impairment.

In the notes (usually Note on Property, Plant and Equipment under Schedule III of the Companies Act), you will typically see:

• Opening Gross Block

• Additions during the year

• Disposals / adjustments

• Closing Gross Block

Then accumulated depreciation is deducted to arrive at Net Block (the carrying amount that appears on the face of the balance sheet in many presentations):

Net Block = Gross Block − Accumulated Depreciation (and impairment, if any)

Gross Block represents the total capital the company has already put into assets that are ready and in use. It is the foundation of current operating capacity.

What is CWIP (Capital Work-in-Progress)?

CWIP captures the costs incurred on fixed assets that are still under construction or installation and not yet ready for their intended use.

Examples: a factory building under construction, a production line being assembled, a power plant still being commissioned, or civil works and machinery awaiting final testing.

All directly attributable costs — materials, labour, contractor fees, professional fees, site preparation, and (under Ind AS 23 / IAS 23) eligible borrowing costs — accumulate in the CWIP account.

Key points:

• CWIP is a non-current asset.

• It is not depreciated while it remains CWIP, because the asset is not yet available for use.

• Once the asset is in the location and condition necessary to operate as intended by management (the “ready for use” test under Ind AS 16 / IAS 16), the entire accumulated cost is transferred from CWIP to the relevant Gross Block category (e.g., Buildings or Plant & Machinery). Depreciation then begins.

In the balance sheet / notes, CWIP is usually shown as a separate line immediately after (or within the PPE note of) Property, Plant and Equipment. Since the 2021 amendments to Schedule III, Indian companies must also provide:

• An ageing schedule (less than 1 year, 1–2 years, 2–3 years, more than 3 years)

• A completion schedule for projects that have overrun their original timelines

These disclosures make it easier to spot stalled or problematic projects.

How They Interact

Think of the lifecycle:

1. Company starts building or installing a new asset → costs go into CWIP.

2. Asset is completed and ready for use → balance is transferred to Gross Block.

3. Over the asset’s useful life → depreciation reduces the Net Block.

A rising CWIP (especially relative to Gross Block) often signals an active capital expenditure cycle and future capacity addition. A persistently high or ageing CWIP with little transfer into Gross Block can indicate delays, cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, or, in extreme cases, questions about project viability or capital allocation.

Why This Matters for Analysis

• Capacity and growth: Growing Gross Block (via CWIP capitalisation) usually precedes higher production potential.

• Capital intensity: The CWIP-to-Gross Block ratio gives a sense of the size of the pipeline relative to the existing asset base.

• Cash vs accounting: Borrowing costs capitalised into CWIP reduce reported interest expense in the P&L during construction, which can make profitability look better than the underlying cash economics.

• Red flags: Very old CWIP balances, frequent project delays disclosed in the completion schedule, or large CWIP that never converts can point to inefficient capital deployment.

• Comparability: Always look at both the face of the balance sheet and the detailed PPE / CWIP notes. Net Block alone does not tell the full story of what is already earning returns versus what is still being built.

Quick Mental Checklist When You See These Numbers

• Is CWIP rising or falling year-on-year?

• What does the ageing schedule show — mostly recent projects or long-pending ones?

• How much was transferred from CWIP to Gross Block this year?

• Are there significant capital commitments or contingent liabilities related to ongoing projects?

• Does the company capitalise borrowing costs, and how material are they?

Gross Block shows the capital already deployed and working. CWIP shows the capital still in transit toward becoming productive. Together they give a clearer picture of a company’s investment cycle than looking only at the net fixed assets figure.

Next time you open an annual report, spend a few extra minutes on the PPE note and the CWIP ageing schedule. The story of where the company is heading is often written there.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Q1 FY27 Snapshot

Revenue from operations: ₹703.7 crore (+20.1% YoY)

EBITDA: ₹132.2 crore (+90.3% YoY), margin 18.8% (up ~693 bps YoY)

PAT: ₹76.0 crore (+122.8% YoY), margin 10.8%

Spreads improved to ₹133/kg (vs ₹107/kg in the prior quarter). Production volume was ~20,120 MT and yarn sales ~20,492 MT. Existing capacity (~3.79 lakh spindles) continues to run at high utilisation.

FY26 base: Revenue ~₹2,496 crore, EBITDA ₹286 crore (11.5% margin), PAT ₹120 crore.

Key Growth Triggers

1. Capacity Expansion – Odisha Greenfield (Biggest Near-Term Driver)

• 1.5 lakh spindles (~40% capacity addition; total capacity to rise toward ~5.3 lakh spindles).

• Capex ~₹975–1,000 crore.

• Phase 1 production expected in Q3 FY27; full ramp-up targeted by March-end FY27 (~90% utilisation).

• Management expects ~30–40% of the new plant’s revenue potential to contribute in Q4 FY27; full impact from FY28.

• Higher margins (300–400 bps or more vs existing plants) due to incentives: ₹2.50/unit power subsidy, 30% capital subsidy (no cap), land and employment subsidies (₹7,000 per employee), plus logistics advantages for eastern markets and exports.

This is the primary volume growth engine.

2. Cost Efficiency – Solar Power

Commercial operations have begun. Expected annual power-cost savings of ~12–15% (quantified at ~₹15 crore run-rate). Full benefit should flow from Q2 FY27 onward (only ~10 days in Q1). This supports margin resilience even if spreads moderate.

3. Favourable Industry Backdrop

• Indian cotton prices have aligned with international levels (earlier premium compressed competitiveness). Good new-crop outlook expected.

• Strong export demand, especially from China (arbitrage due to higher Chinese cotton prices and smaller crop) and steady Bangladesh. China + Bangladesh account for a large share of India’s yarn exports; Sportking’s export mix mirrors this (60–70% of its exports).

• Global textile recovery after inventory corrections; India gaining share as a preferred yarn sourcing destination.

• Policy tailwinds: India–UK FTA (benefits expected to show in 6–9 months as sampling converts to orders) and progress on India–EU FTA.

• Consolidation in the industry and compliance requirements favour larger, quality-focused players like Sportking.

4. Forward Integration

Acquisition of Marvel Dyers (fabric dyeing/processing) and Sobhagja Sales (garments) is progressing (predominantly via preferential shares; small cash outflow ~₹25–30 crore). Expected to add ~₹250 crore revenue from FY28, contributing 8–10% of top line with similar EBITDA margins. This moves the company further downstream and reduces pure commodity cyclicality over time.

5. Operational Discipline

Consistent 70–90 day order book, efficient procurement (covered for 4–5 months), rising automation/efficiency (lower headcount per unit of output), and focus on blends/counts. Management targets long-term EBITDA margins around 15% once Odisha is fully online (current elevated margins may moderate but absolute EBITDA should rise).

Revised Revenue and PAT Estimates (Narrative Form)

For FY26 the company reported revenue of approximately ₹2,496 crore and PAT of about ₹120 crore.

Management has guided for FY27 revenue of around ₹3,000 crore, representing roughly 20% growth. Taking into account the strong Q1 run-rate, continued favourable spreads for the next couple of quarters, full benefit of solar savings from Q2 onward, and partial contribution from the Odisha plant in Q4, PAT for FY27 is estimated in the range of ₹280–320 crore.

For FY28, with the Odisha facility expected to be fully ramped up and contributing meaningfully, plus the first full-year impact of the downstream acquisitions (around ₹250 crore of additional revenue), management expects revenue to exceed ₹4,000 crore. A realistic range of ₹4,000–4,300 crore appears achievable. At sustained EBITDA margins of 15–17%, PAT could land between ₹420–500 crore.

Looking further to FY29, assuming steady utilisation of the expanded capacity, continued operational efficiencies and a gradual increase in the downstream mix, revenue is projected in the ₹4,600–5,000 crore band with PAT potentially reaching ₹480–580 crore, assuming long-term margins settle near the company’s 15% guidance.

These figures are directional estimates drawn from management commentary on the August 2026 call, the stated capacity addition timeline, and reasonable assumptions on utilisation, spreads, depreciation and interest costs post-capex. Actual numbers will depend on cotton price movements, export demand and execution of the Odisha project.

A base-case target around ₹300–350 (roughly 12–14x FY28E) appears reasonable if execution stays on track, reflecting the growth trajectory while staying conservative versus peak cyclical multiples. Upside would expand if spreads stay elevated longer or downstream integration accelerates. Downside risks include cotton volatility, delayed ramp-up, or weaker export demand.

Risks to Monitor

Commodity price swings, execution delays at Odisha, import-duty policy on cotton (currently till 31 Oct 2026; company seeking extension/removal), and broader textile demand.

Bottom Line

Sportking is transitioning from a pure cyclical yarn spinner to a larger, more efficient, and partially integrated player. The combination of near-term margin strength, volume ramp from Odisha, cost savings from solar, export/FTA tailwinds, and downstream moves creates a multi-year growth runway. Management’s own guidance already points to ~20% revenue growth in FY27 and a further significant step-up in FY28.

This is not investment advice — do your own due diligence, consider risk tolerance, and track quarterly execution (especially Odisha commissioning and utilisation).

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

https://t.me/equity_investment

Most investors listen to conference calls for guidance, margin commentary, and growth outlook. Fewer pay close attention to the subtle language around cost structure — and that’s a mistake. Operating leverage is one of the most powerful (and underappreciated) drivers of bottom-line outcomes, and management’s concall commentary is often the earliest place it shows up.

What Operating Leverage Actually Is

Operating leverage measures how sensitive a company’s operating profit is to changes in revenue. It is high when a large portion of costs are fixed (or semi-fixed) and low when costs move largely in line with sales.

In simple terms:

• High operating leverage → Small increase in sales can produce a disproportionately large increase in operating profit (and EPS).

• The same leverage works in reverse when revenue slows.

This is not just an accounting concept. It is a business-model characteristic that determines how much of incremental revenue drops to the bottom line.

Why Concall Commentary Matters

Management rarely says “our degree of operating leverage is 2.4x.” Instead, they talk about:

• Capacity utilization and incremental margins

• Fixed-cost absorption

• Scalability of the cost base

• Ability to grow revenue faster than operating expenses

• Investments that increase the fixed-cost base (new plants, tech platforms, sales teams)

These comments are early signals. When a company is operating below optimal capacity and has a high fixed-cost base, even modest volume recovery can drive sharp margin expansion. Conversely, when utilization is already high or the company is adding fixed costs aggressively, the upside from volume may be muted — or the downside sharper if demand softens.

How It Hits the Bottom Line

Consider two companies with identical revenue growth:

Scenario Low Operating Leverage High Operating Leverage

Revenue growth +10% +10%

Cost structure Mostly variable High fixed / semi-fixed

Operating profit impact Roughly in line with revenue Often 1.5–3x the revenue

growth rate EPS impact Moderate Amplified (positive or negative)

In an upcycle, high operating leverage can turn mid-single-digit top-line growth into strong double-digit EPS growth. In a downturn, the same structure can compress margins and earnings far more than the revenue decline suggests. This is why two companies with similar growth rates can deliver very different shareholder outcomes.

What to Listen For in Concalls

• Mentions of “operating leverage kicking in,” “better fixed-cost absorption,” or “incremental margins improving.”

• Commentary on utilization rates and when the company expects to reach optimal capacity.

• Discussion of whether new investments are increasing the fixed-cost base or improving scalability.

• Tone around cost discipline versus growth investments — especially when revenue growth is moderating.

These remarks often precede the actual margin expansion (or contraction) visible in the numbers by one or two quarters.

The Practical Takeaway

Operating leverage is not inherently good or bad. It is a multiplier. In the right environment and with the right cost structure, it can significantly enhance returns. In the wrong environment, it can amplify pain. The best investors treat concall commentary on cost structure and utilization as leading indicators of future bottom-line trajectory — not just colorful language around the current quarter.

Next time you listen to a call, ask yourself: Is management describing a business that can convert incremental revenue into profit at a high rate? Or is the cost base becoming heavier just as growth is slowing? The answer often determines how much of the top-line story actually reaches the bottom line.

Comment if you have heard of any company that has guided for more than 200-300 bps increase in EBIDTA margins in next few quarters/years.

Subscribe now

Share

PNGS Reva Diamond Jewellery (NSE: PNGSREVA) delivered another standout quarter in Q1 FY27 and held its earnings call on 29 July 2026. The conversation with management (led largely by Aditya Modak) offered clear visibility on the growth drivers, margin trajectory and expansion roadmap.

Here’s a structured breakdown of the key takeaways, forward estimates and a simple PE-based price projection for the next three years.

Growth Triggers from the Q1 FY27 Concall

• Volume-led same-store growth: Diamond caratage volumes grew more than 50%. Same-store sales growth (SSSG) on the existing 34 Shop-in-Shop (SIS) outlets was ~50% and was broad-based across ~21 cities.

• Festive strength: Akshaya Tritiya revenue jumped 268% YoY to ₹12.7 crore. Monsoon festival sales also contributed meaningfully.

• Store expansion (core growth engine): Management remains on track to open 15 new Company-Owned Company-Operated (COCO / EBO) stores using IPO proceeds — 9 largely in FY27 and the balance in FY28. Two stores are already live; a third opened at Amanora Mall, Pune in early July. Total network now stands at 37 stores (3 COCO + 34 SIS). Focus remains on Tier-1 cities with selective Tier-2 and metro expansion in Maharashtra and North India.

• Shift in revenue mix: Currently ~95% of revenue comes from PNGS SIS stores. Management expects this dependency to fall to 20–25% over the next 2–3 years as EBOs scale.

• Brand & structural tailwinds: Rising preference for certified natural diamond jewellery and a visible shift from plain gold to studded jewellery. Diamond jewellery is more utility-oriented and has been less impacted by gold-related sentiment shifts.

• Digital push: E-commerce website targeted for launch by end-August 2026.

• Operating leverage: Better diamond price realisation on a caratage basis plus scale benefits drove strong gross-margin expansion in Q1.

Margin guidance: Full-year EBITDA margins expected in the 25–27% range and PAT margins around 22–23% (versus Q1 levels of ~29% EBITDA and 23% PAT). Marketing spends will rise in Q2–Q4, which may create a 1–3% temporary dent.

Recent Financial Snapshot

FY26

• Revenue: ₹439 crore (+70% YoY)

• EBITDA: ₹95 crore (~22% margin)

• PAT: ₹64.7 crore (~15% margin)

• Average Order Value: ~₹1.20 lakh (+41% YoY)

Q1 FY27

• Revenue: ₹118 crore (+119.5% YoY)

• Gross Profit: ₹41.8 crore (35.5% margin)

• EBITDA: ₹33.9 crore (28.8% margin)

• PAT: ₹27.2 crore (+265% YoY, 23.1% margin)

Forward Estimates (Illustrative)

Building on the Q1 run-rate, 50% SSSG, new-store contribution and H2 seasonality:

• FY27: Revenue ₹700–800 crore | PAT ₹155–185 crore

• FY28: Revenue ₹1,000–1,200 crore | PAT ₹220–275 crore

• FY29: Revenue ₹1,350–1,650 crore | PAT ₹300–380 crore

These assume successful store ramp-up, sustained healthy SSSG, and margins stabilising in the guided range. Actual outcomes will depend on execution.

PE-Based Price Targets (Next 3 Years)

Current context (mid-August 2026): Share price in the ₹560–580 zone, market capitalisation ~₹1,780–1,850 crore, ~31.7 million shares.

Assumptions:

• Target PE of 20–25x (reasonable for a high-growth specialty diamond retailer with improving scale and brand).

• Mid-point PAT estimates used.

• No major equity dilution assumed in the near term.

Illustrative fair-value ranges:

Year Mid-point PAT Approx.EPS 20–25x PE Target

FY27 ₹170 Cr ~₹53–54 ₹1,060 – ₹1,350

FY28 ₹250 Cr ~₹79 ₹1,580 – ₹1,975

FY29 ₹340 Cr ~₹107 ₹2,140 – ₹2,680

If the company continues to execute on store openings, maintains high teens-to-low twenties PAT margins and sustains volume growth, the upside from current levels over a 3-year horizon looks meaningful under these assumptions. Valuation, of course, remains sensitive to actual delivery, festive demand and any margin pressure from marketing or new-store costs.

Key Risks to Watch

• Execution risk on the new COCO store roll-out and payback timelines

• Competition, including lab-grown diamonds (management currently views brand positioning as resilient)

• Gold price volatility and broader consumer discretionary slowdown

• Higher-than-expected marketing or expansion-related costs

• Working-capital intensity inherent to the jewellery retail model

Disclaimer: This is an independent analysis based on the Q1 FY27 earnings call transcript, company presentations and publicly available financials. It is not investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell, or a guarantee of future performance. Please do your own research and consult a qualified advisor before making any investment decisions.

Subscribe now

Share

From ₹2,100 today — what could the stock be worth by FY29?

Published: August 2026

Advait Energy Transitions Limited (NSE: ADVAIT) has transformed from a niche power transmission products company into a multi-vertical energy transition platform. In the last five years, revenue has grown at a ~74% CAGR, the order book has exploded, and the company is now building manufacturing capacity in BESS, electrolysers, and specialised conductors.

With the Q4 FY26 earnings call (1 June 2026) and the Q1 FY27 investor presentation (August 2026) now available, we have enough visibility to attempt a structured 3-year projection of revenue, profits, and potential share price outcomes.

This is not a recommendation. It is a transparent framework based on management guidance, order book, capacity expansion, and historical delivery patterns.

Snapshot of Where We Stand

In FY26, Advait reported revenue of ₹715 crore (up 80% year-on-year), EBITDA of ₹84 crore, and PAT of ₹58 crore. The order book stood at ₹1,304 crore at the end of FY26 and rose further to ₹1,330 crore by 30 June 2026 (71% from Power Transmission Solutions and 29% from New & Renewable Energy).

In Q1 FY27 (quarter ended June 2026), the company reported revenue of ₹179 crore (up 51% year-on-year), EBITDA of ₹25 crore with margin improving to 13.8%, and PAT of ₹16 crore.

As of around 20 August 2026, the stock was trading near ₹2,100, giving a market capitalisation of approximately ₹2,300–2,315 crore. There are roughly 10.94 million shares outstanding, and the trailing twelve-month PE multiple is in the 39–41x range.

Management has guided for 40%+ revenue growth going forward and described this figure as conservative (they delivered 80% growth in FY26 after similar language the previous year). The order book is expected to reach ₹1,600–1,650 crore by the end of FY27.

Key Drivers for the Next Three Years

• Power Transmission Solutions (PTS) remains the cash cow and is expanding capacity. The new multi-integrated manufacturing facility near Dholera is scheduled for Q4 FY27.

• BESS manufacturing (2.5 GWh) is expected to start contributing from September–October 2026, with management guiding ₹100–200 crore revenue in FY27 from this vertical alone.

• Electrolyser Phase-1 (100 MW) and fuel-cell technology partnerships are progressing. Margins are expected to start low (5–10%) and expand toward 20% over time.

• Order execution cycle is typically 6–18 months, giving good visibility from the current ₹1,330 crore order book.

• Management expects roughly 1 percentage point improvement in margins in FY27 due to higher manufacturing mix and operating leverage.

Revenue & PAT Projections (Base Case)

Here is the base-case projection for the next three years:

• FY26 (Actual): Revenue ₹715 crore (+80%), PAT ₹58 crore (margin 8.1%), EPS around ₹53.

• FY27E: Revenue ₹1,100 crore (~54% growth), PAT ₹95 crore (margin ~8.6%), EPS ₹85–90.

• FY28E: Revenue ₹1,600 crore (~45% growth), PAT ₹150 crore (margin ~9.4%), EPS ₹135–140.

• FY29E: Revenue ₹2,200 crore (~38% growth), PAT ₹220 crore (margin ~10.0%), EPS around ₹200.

These numbers assume approximately 1.10 crore shares outstanding (minor dilution is possible from equity raises for capex).

Range around the base case:

• FY27: Revenue ₹1,050–1,150 crore | PAT ₹90–100 crore

• FY28: Revenue ₹1,500–1,700 crore | PAT ₹140–160 crore

• FY29: Revenue ₹2,100–2,400 crore | PAT ₹210–250 crore

Key assumptions behind the base case:

• Order book execution remains healthy and new order inflows continue at a strong pace.

• BESS and electrolyser manufacturing ramp as guided.

• EBITDA margins improve modestly (1% in FY27, further operating leverage thereafter).

• No major commodity or policy shocks.

Higher growth is possible if BESS/electrolyser order wins accelerate faster than expected. Lower growth is possible if manufacturing delays or working-capital pressures emerge.

Price Projections Based on PE Multiples

Current valuation is roughly 40x trailing earnings. High-growth energy transition and manufacturing companies in India have historically sustained 30–45x forward PE while delivering 35%+ growth.

Here are three scenarios using the base-case EPS numbers:

Scenario 1: Conservative (Multiple Compression)

• FY27E (EPS ₹87) at 30x → ₹2,610

• FY28E (EPS ₹136) at 28x → ₹3,800

• FY29E (EPS ₹200) at 25x → ₹5,000

Scenario 2: Base Case (Sustained Premium)

• FY27E at 35x → ₹3,045

• FY28E at 32–35x → ₹4,350–4,760

• FY29E at 28–30x → ₹5,600–6,000

Scenario 3: Optimistic (Continued Growth Premium)

• FY27E at 40x → ₹3,480

• FY28E at 38x → ₹5,170

• FY29E at 32–35x → ₹6,400–7,000

Summary of Base-Case Price Trajectory

• By the end of FY27, the implied price range is ₹3,000 – 3,500 (upside of 43% – 67% from ~₹2,100).

• By the end of FY28, the implied price range is ₹4,300 – 4,800 (upside of 105% – 129%).

• By the end of FY29, the implied price range is ₹5,600 – 6,000 (upside of 167% – 186%).

These are implied valuations based on future earnings and assumed PE multiples. Actual market prices will also depend on liquidity, broader market sentiment, interest rates, and how successfully the company executes the manufacturing ramp.

Key Risks to the Projections

• Execution risk on the new manufacturing facilities (Dholera and BESS plant).

• Dilution — significant equity raises for the large capex programme and asset-ownership platform could increase the share count.

• Margin pressure if the New & Renewable Energy segment (currently lower-margin) grows faster than expected before manufacturing scale benefits kick in.

• Working capital intensity remains high as the business scales.

• Policy and commodity risks (aluminium, copper, battery cells, etc.).

• Valuation risk — if growth slows to the low-30% range, the market may compress the PE multiple more aggressively.

Bottom Line

Advait sits at an interesting inflection point. The traditional PTS business continues to deliver strong growth and cash flows, while the company is simultaneously building the next growth engines in BESS manufacturing, electrolysers, and renewable asset ownership.

If management delivers even close to the 40%+ growth trajectory they have guided (and historically over-delivered on), the stock has a credible path toward ₹3,000–3,500 by the end of FY27 and potentially ₹5,500–6,000+ by FY29 under reasonable PE assumptions.

The next 12–18 months will be critical. Watch for:

1. Progress on the new manufacturing facilities

2. Actual BESS manufacturing revenue contribution

3. Order book trajectory and NRE mix

4. Working capital and cash flow conversion

As always, this remains a high-growth, high-execution-risk story. Position sizing and risk management matter more than precise price targets.

Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any kind. Projections are estimates based on publicly available information and management commentary as of August 2026. Actual results may differ materially. Please do your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. The author may or may not hold positions in the securities discussed

.

Subscribe now

Share

Share RAHIL Publication

The Scale of Growth

As of mid-2026, India’s transmission network (220 kV and above) has crossed 5.09–5.10 lakh circuit kilometres (ckm). This marks roughly a 70% expansion since 2014, when the network stood at about 2.91 lakh ckm.

Transformation (substation) capacity has also surged. In FY25 alone, India added 86,433 MVA — a 22% jump over the previous year. Cumulative transformation capacity now stands well above 1,300–1,400 GVA.

Inter-regional transfer capacity has risen to around 120 GW (as of mid-2026), up sharply from earlier years, allowing power to flow more freely across the country’s five regional grids.

What’s Driving This Expansion?

• Renewable Energy Integration

India is racing toward 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030 (and planning for much higher thereafter). Large solar and wind hubs in Rajasthan (Bhadla, Fatehgarh), Gujarat (Khavda), and other Renewable Energy Zones require long-distance, high-capacity corridors — mostly 765 kV and HVDC lines — to evacuate power to demand centres.

• Rising Electricity Demand

Peak demand has already touched record levels above 270 GW. Projections point to ~388 GW by 2032, driven by industrial growth, data centres, electric mobility, air-conditioning, and overall economic expansion.

• National Electricity Plan Targets

1. The National Electricity Plan (Transmission) 2024 lays out an ambitious roadmap:

2. Transmission lines to expand from ~5.09 lakh ckm (mid-2026) to 6.48 lakh ckm by 2032

3. Transformation capacity to rise to ~2,345 GVA

4. Inter-regional capacity to reach 168 GW by 2032

5. The cumulative investment requirement through 2032 is estimated at around ₹9 lakh crore (roughly US$100–110 billion).

Challenges on the Ground

• Growth is not frictionless. Key bottlenecks include:

• Right-of-way (RoW) and land acquisition delays

• Forest and environmental clearances

• Equipment supply constraints (especially high-voltage transformers)

• Coordination between generation and transmission timelines (renewables come online faster than the lines that evacuate them)

These issues have caused average delays of several months on many under-construction ISTS projects, leading to temporary curtailment of renewable power in some regions.

Why This Matters

• A stronger transmission network means:

• Lower curtailment of cheap renewable energy

• Reduced regional imbalances and better utilisation of generation assets

• Greater grid flexibility and reliability

• Support for emerging loads (data centres, EVs, green hydrogen)

• Long-term cost savings for consumers through efficient power transfer

India’s transmission sector is no longer just a supporting act — it is becoming a strategic growth industry in its own right, with multi-year visibility for developers, equipment manufacturers (transformers, conductors, towers, switchgear), and investors.

The next five to seven years will be decisive. If execution catches up with ambition, India’s grid will be one of the key enablers of both its economic growth and its clean energy transition.

Can you name some specific Stocks (Mid and small cap space which can benefit from this boom?

Subscribe

I love to decode concalls of company to predict future roadmaps and see at what valuations it deserves today as market always looks ahead.Subscribe to get in touch.

Important Growth Triggers and Future Roadmap – Exicom Tele-System(CMP 165) from Q4 & FY’26 Earnings Call, 19 May 2026)

EXICOM TELE (CMP 160-162) is a loss making company and aiming for profitability by fy 28 ....Company operates in EV sector (Building EV charges) and belongs to promoter family of HFCL.... Not a buy sell recommendation but company is worth a study

### 1. Key Growth Triggers (Near-term Drivers)

EV Charging / EVSE Business
- Record quarterly revenue of ₹88 crore in Q4 (highest ever); highest number of DC chargers sold in a quarter.
- Strong industry tailwinds: EV sales growth (14% QoQ, ~66% YoY in Q4), rising EV penetration (especially Tier-2/3 cities), commercial vehicle electrification momentum (ports, factories, mining – captive charging), highway expansion, and oil price surge supporting electric mobility.
- Standalone EVSE revenue growth: 60% YoY in Q4; full-year 40% YoY. Consolidated EVSE: 83% YoY in Q4 and 72% full-year.
- Highest-ever service + project revenue and 80 sites executed under “Exicom One”.
- Innovation edge: First liquid-cooled charger (Tritium tech) deployed with a leading CPO in India; AI-based remote management platform for DC charger O&M; first pilot of Ring Topology PC charger (CAPEX-saving for CPOs; mass production in FY’27).
- Strong OEM partnerships: Largest home-charger manufacturer in India (~50% chance an EV comes with an Exicom charger); supplies AC/DC chargers and dealership fast-charging infrastructure to multiple auto OEMs (Maruti, Mahindra etc.).

Critical Power Business
- Solid order book of ~₹1,000 crore as of 31 March 2026.
- Q4 revenue growth: ~18% sequential and ~23% YoY (standalone ~₹194 crore; consolidated ~₹198 crore).
- Large DC power system order (>₹100 crore) from a leading Indian telco under execution.
- Strong BharatNet supplies (hybrid power systems, batteries, solar); exports at all-time high (~₹30 crore sales + order booking in Q4, ~15% of Critical Power sales; target 20% in FY’27).
- Additional opportunity pipeline of ~₹400 crore (DC power/batteries for telcos, new BharatNet tenders ~₹100 crore, Phase-2 uncovered villages ~₹150 crore).

Tritium (US/Australia EV charging subsidiary)
- Q4 revenue ~$10 million with ~30% reduction in EBITDA losses vs previous quarter.
- Highest-ever quarterly order booking (~$10 million) and sales (~$9.7 million).
- Improved NPS and customer engagement; low-cost inventory from acquisition being utilised (margins expected to normalise after next quarter).

Overall Financial Inflection
- Standalone Q4 revenue ₹282 crore (+33% YoY, +21% QoQ); EBITDA ₹29.9 crore (10.6% margin, +148% YoY).
- Consolidated Q4 revenue ₹388 crore (+46% YoY, +40% QoQ); first positive consolidated EBITDA (₹0.3 crore) since Tritium acquisition.
- Full-year standalone: Revenue ₹895 crore (+19%), EBITDA ₹70 crore (+77%), margin up from 5.2% to 7.8%.
- New Hyderabad plant (inaugurated March 2026) fully operational – capacity for EVSE scale-up and “Make in India for global” ambition; majority production shifting from Gurgaon over next 2–3 months.

### 2. Future Roadmap & Medium-term Outlook

Tritium Scale-up
- Expect ~3x revenue growth and ~25% reduction in EBITDA losses in the coming period; path to EBITDA breakeven by Q4 FY’27.
- Large part of the 3x growth already secured or high-probability.
- Three new products launching May–July 2026:
- TRI-FLEX inverter (grid-to-high-voltage DC; applications in DC microgrids, BESS integration, 800V data centres). Factory acceptance test ongoing with a major hyperscaler → potential $30–35 million opportunity in FY’28 if successful.
- Two other products with similar ~$30 million each revenue potential in FY’28 (subject to successful pilots).
- Combined potential from these three products: significant FY’28 pipeline (management referenced ~₹850 crore opportunity in Q&A context).

BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems)
- Focus on commercial & industrial segment (not utility/transmission/homes).
- Modular battery systems for solar + storage or critical power applications.
- Internal target: >₹50 crore revenue in FY’27 (from near-zero last year); pilots (10–20 projects) already live in Q4.
- Longer-term ambition: Could become ~30% of Critical Power business in 2–3 years if successful.
- Scaling constrained by lack of local cell

manufacturing (heavy China dependence); expected improvement once domestic cell production starts (next 1–2 years).

Exports & Global Expansion
- Critical Power exports: Raise from historical ~10% to 20% of revenues in FY’27.
- EVSE exports: Highest SE Asia sales in 3 years (~₹32 crore full-year); active engagement in Middle East & Europe; US entry after certification.
- Hyderabad plant positioned for global markets.

Capacity & Operational Efficiency
- Full ramp of Hyderabad facility (Industry 4.0 principles) to support order book and export growth.
- Temporary inventory build-up expected to normalise as Gurgaon-to-Hyderabad transition completes.
- Balance sheet remains strong with comfortable debt coverage and liquidity headroom for growth + working capital.

Overall Strategic Positioning
- Dual-engine growth: Steady profitable Critical Power + high-growth EVSE (India + Tritium global).
- Management expects demand-side strength to support strong revenues in FY’27 despite geopolitical and supply-chain headwinds.
- Focus on product innovation, higher-margin mix, operational leverage, and converting order book + new product pipeline into revenue.

Key Risks Noted
- Geopolitical/commodity/forex pressures (affecting margins on fixed-price govt contracts).
- Supply-chain constraints (especially cells for BESS).
- Working-capital intensity during plant transition and Q4 revenue back-ending.

FY27 (Year ending March 2027)
Bear Case
Revenue is expected in the range of ₹1,550–1,650 crore (roughly 35–43% growth). Tritium scales only 2–2.5 times instead of the targeted 3 times, India EVSE growth moderates, and Critical Power stays steady but does not accelerate meaningfully. Consolidated PAT is likely to remain negative, in the range of –₹80 to –₹40 crore, as Tritium losses narrow but do not disappear fast enough and higher depreciation from the Hyderabad plant continues to weigh.
Base Case
Revenue is projected at ₹1,700–1,850 crore (around 48–60% growth). This assumes Tritium broadly follows the 3x revenue trajectory indicated by management, India EVSE continues its strong momentum, Critical Power benefits from the existing order book and rising exports, and BESS contributes the targeted ₹50 crore-plus. PAT is expected to move close to breakeven or modestly positive (–₹30 to +₹20 crore), reflecting sharp reduction in Tritium losses and operating leverage in the Indian business.
Bull Case
Revenue could reach ₹1,950–2,150 crore (70%+ growth). Tritium exceeds the 3x target, early contribution from new products appears, and both domestic EVSE and Critical Power deliver stronger-than-expected growth. PAT turns meaningfully positive in the range of ₹40–80 crore as margins expand faster than anticipated.
FY28 (Year ending March 2028)
Bear Case
Revenue grows to ₹2,100–2,300 crore (25–35% growth). Tritium becomes profitable for the full year but new product ramps (TRI-FLEX, GRID-FLEX, DC-FLEX) remain limited. PAT is projected at ₹50–100 crore as the business stabilises but does not yet enjoy strong operating leverage from the new product portfolio.
Base Case
Revenue is expected in the ₹2,400–2,700 crore range (35–50% growth). Successful pilots convert into meaningful orders for the new Tritium products (combined opportunity previously indicated in the $80–100 million zone), India businesses continue compounding, and exports rise. PAT is estimated at ₹120–200 crore as Tritium contributes positively for the full year and overall margins improve.
Bull Case
Revenue could climb to ₹2,900–3,300 crore (50%+ growth). Strong wins in data-centre, fleet and BESS applications, combined with accelerated global EVSE expansion, drive higher numbers. PAT rises to ₹220–320 crore on the back of better product mix and scale efficiencies.
FY29 (Year ending March 2029)
Bear Case
Revenue reaches ₹2,600–2,900 crore (20–30% growth). Growth normalises after the sharp ramp of the previous two years. PAT is projected at ₹150–220 crore as the company operates with more stable margins but without major new upside surprises.
Base Case
Revenue is estimated at ₹3,100–3,500 crore (25–35% growth). Full benefit of Hyderabad capacity, rising exports, scaling BESS and a profitable global Tritium business support continued compounding. PAT is expected in the ₹250–350 crore range.
Bull Case
Revenue could expand to ₹3,800–4,400 crore (35–50% growth). Market share gains in both India and international markets, successful large-scale deployment of the new product platforms, and strong EV adoption drive higher numbers. PAT rises to ₹400–550 crore.
Overall Summary
In the base case, consolidated revenue roughly doubles over three years while PAT moves from deep losses in FY26 to a healthy positive run-rate by FY29. The bull case assumes faster Tritium scale-up and successful conversion of the new product pipeline. The bear case reflects slower execution on Tritium and more muted domestic growth. The single largest variable remains Tritium’s ability to deliver the indicated 3x revenue growth and reach EBITDA breakeven by Q4 FY27.

For fy 29 bear case company might produce PAT OF 200 crore ....For 14 crore shares (if assumed no dilution further) it comes to EPS 14.28 and PE ratio of 11.85 .....So company is trading at forward pe of 11-12 on FY 29 BASIS.....Company operates in emerging sector(EV charging) with numerous tailwinds.