pg 19. the patriot nris pg 22. interview: goutam das pg 25....
Post on 03-Jul-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
A PhillipCapital India Publication
16th April 2014 – 30th April 2014. Vol 1 Issue 2. For Private Circulation Only
pg 19. The Patriot NRIs
pg 22. INTERVIEW: Goutam Das
pg 25. Indian Economy – Trend indicators
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 2
Vineet Bhatnagar- Managing Director and CEO
EDITORIAL BOARD:Naveen Kulkarni Manish AgarwallaKinshuk Bharti Tiwari Dhawal Doshi
COVER & MAGAZINE DESIGN Chaitanya Modak, www.inhousedesign.co.in
FOR EDITORIAL QUERIES:PhillipCapital (India) Private LimitedNo. 1, 2nd Floor, Modern Centre, 101 K.K. Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011
RESEARCH Automobiles Deepak Jain, Priya Ranjan
Banking, NBFCs Manish Agarwalla, Sachit Motwani
Consumer, Media, Telecom Naveen Kulkarni, Vivekanand Subbaraman, Manish Pushkar
Cement Vaibhav Agarwal
Economics Anjali Verma
Engineering, Capital Goods Ankur Sharma, Aditya Bahety
Infrastructure & IT Services Vibhor Singhal, Varun Vijayan
Metals Dhawal Doshi, Dharmesh Shah
Oil & Gas, Agri Inputs Gauri Anand, Deepak Pareek
Pharmaceuticals Surya Patra
Retail, Real Estate Abhishek Ranganathan, Neha Garg
Technicals Subodh Gupta
Database Manager Vishal Randive
Sr. Manager – Equities Support Rosie Ferns
SALES & DISTRIBUTION Kinshuk Tiwari, Ashvin Patil, Shubhangi Agrawal Kishor Binwal, Sidharth Agrawal, Dipesh Sohani, Varun Kumar
ISSUE 2. 16TH TO 30TH APRIL 2014
GROUND ZERO - PREVIOUS ISSUE
3GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
LETTER FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTORSteel sector in India is a reasonable barometer of
the economic activity but has lost sheen given the
flagging investment cycle in the last few years. The
sector which is characterized by a highly concen-
trated primary producers market on one hand and
a highly fragmented market of secondary producers
on the other, is facing an adverse impact on its
market structure. The secondary producers account
for around 50% of the market volumes and they
play a critical role in driving market efficiencies by
developing new markets and consequently act as
price catalysts.
A tug-of-war like situation prevails as secondary
producers are losing ground at an alarming rate to
the primary producers. The secondary producers
are increasingly getting marginalized and their
hopes rest on the new government and revival in
economic activity.
Our cover story on secondary steel producers
written by our metal analysts Dhawal Doshi and
Dharmesh Shah tries to assess the damage inflicted
on this high employment generating sector. Prob-
ably, the only solution is to evolve and adapt to
the changing paradigms but in the interim the heat
of economic change will smelter some who will
emerge leaner-stronger while charring others.
Also, in this issue, as a part of our series on polit-
ical expositions we have delved into what resides
in the minds of the Indian Diaspora overseas (our
NRI friends). There is a tete-a-tete that provides an
insight on the evolving trends in the Global Pharma
outsourcing space.
We sincerely hope you have a good time reading
this issue.
Take good care, enjoy the long weekend and wher-
ever you are, do not forget to vote!
Best Wishes
Vineet
4. COVER STORY : Adapt or Perish
Ground Zero tracks the changing market structure of the steel industry in India.
19. The Patriot NRIs
22. INTERVIEW: Goutam Das
CDMO to drive value growth for Indian CRAMS
25. Indian Economy – Trend indicators
27. PhillipCapital Coverage Universe: Valuation Summary
CONTENTS
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 4
An evening with Jio: Picture of a live Ground Based Mast at Kankaria lake, Ahmedabad’
Billets at a TMT mill, in Raipur, waiting to be processed
5GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
COVER STORY
Why is it important to look at what is happening to small steel players? Because
the Indian steel industry is undergoing a tremendous systemic change and is
becoming increasingly institutionalized. What happens to these players (good
or bad) will affect the fortunes of the larger listed entities. Today, not only do
larger players command a huge market share and are price leaders, but they are
also looking at penetrating the retail market (a traditional forte of the smaller
enterprises) and are using their enormous financial muscle to edge out small
and medium sized units and even traders and middlemen. While this is good for
the large players in the long term, going by India’s demand and supply scenario
(enormous capacity creation), eventually, only the highly efficient, innovative, and
lean SME steel units will survive in India. Here is a Ground Zero look at what is
happening in this part of the steel industry…
BY DHAWAL DOSHI & DHARMESH SHAH
pg. 6 Primary v/s Secondary producers Primary producers are seriously arm-twisting the Secondary ones___________________________________________pg.9 New Government: The Hope Can the new government change the fortunes of the ailing secondary sector? ___________________________________________pg.12 Real Estate & Automobile: The saviours Real Estate and automobile sectors to the rescue (somewhat)___________________________________________pg.15 Secondary Producers: Evolution the only option What will secondary producers have to do to survive? Evolve___________________________________________
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 6
Demand = Nil,” says Mr Vijay Deriwal,
a small-sized flat steel trader who has
seen his business contracting signifi-
cantly due to low steel demand and
stiff competition from larger companies for higher
volumes. The reactions of some of his counter-
parts dealing in various steel products in North
India are similar. Slowing steel consumption and
significantly higher competition from primary
steel producers have seen the businesses of
most smaller steel producers and traders in India
contracting.
Primary producers are arm-twisting secondary producers
“90% of the structural mills have shut down in
Mandi Gobindgarh,” – says Mr S K Gupta from
Delhi who trades in structural steel (steel con-
struction material).
He has shifted his procurement from these small-
er mills to JSPL because of the various facilities
provided by the larger player. “I don’t need to
carry any inventory for structurals as the material
Primary producers are seriously arm-twisting the secondary ones
P R I M A R Y V / S S E C O N D A R Y P R O D U C E R S
is directly dispatched from their factory.” With
their financial clout, larger primary producers
such as JSPL are systematically edging out small-
er producers and traders out of the system. The
same scenario is seen repeated across various
parts of the country — smaller producers have
shut operations or altered their product profile
to survive. “40% of structural mills are shut and
this has helped primary producers gain market
share,” says Mr Chetan Agrawal from Raipur
whose structural steel production has come down
to zero due to low demand. “Lack of demand
from industrial projects has impacted our produc-
tion which has forced us to shift to other product
segments like TMT bars,” he adds.
Sour
ce: P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
h
The Indian steel industry is divided into primary and secondary sectors — the primary sector consists of a few large integrated steel producers that make a range of products across various flat and long products. The secondary sector consists of small and medium enterprises that generally focus on less capital inten-sive and smaller capacities with each intermediate product (Sponge iron, billets, etc) as their end products. The five biggest Indian steel producers have a large almost 45% share of the domestic market. This has given tremendous pricing power in the hands of the large players in India. Secondary steel production constitutes approximately 57% of the total steel production in India. It mainly takes place in steel re-rolling mills that usually are family-run small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with 75% of units in the small scale. (October 2013, SRMA).
“90% of the structural mills have shut down in Mandi Gobindgarh,”
– Mr S K Gupta from Delhi who trades in structural steel.
Mandi Gobindgarh is a town in Punjab, sometimes referred to as Steel Town or simply Loha Mandi or Iron Market, because of a large number of steel mills and factories.
7GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
The fact that primary producers are gaining
volumes at the cost of the smaller players is re-
flected in the larger players’ sales volume growth
numbers vs. industry consumption growth —
these producers’ overall market share has risen
from 40% in FY12 to 41% in FY13 and ~48% in
9MFY14.
Primary producers: Branding/direct marketing is the trick
“Direct company sales is impacting volumes,”
says Mr. Vijay Deriwal who trades in flat steel and
caters to the NCR region. “Our volumes have
shrunk and come down to 25-30% of our earlier
volumes,” he laments. Lately, primary producers
have captured a larger chunk of the retail market
because of aggressive marketing — JSW Steel
has increased its retail outlets and Tata Steel and
JSPL are focusing on branding to gain a foothold
in the retail markets, which were once the core
forte of secondary producers. In addition to in-
creasing their penetration in retail markets, large
companies have also increased their direct mar-
keting efforts in the SME sector to cut out mid-
dlemen and improve margins. As Mr. S K Gupta
points out, “Companies like JSPL have started
directly entering MOUs for industrial projects and
this has helped them ensure volumes”.
Liquidity: An equally important factor impact-ing volumes for the secondary sector
According to the President of Faridabad Iron &
Steel Traders Association (in a recent media re-
port) 80% of the steel trading happening in Farid-
abad is facing payment delays of 2-3 months.
This has seen volumes falling due to reducing
asset turns. Limited availability of capital and
an increasing working capital cycle has started
adversely affecting volumes for the entire steel
industry. While capital availability has played an
important role, there is a sense of unease among
the trading community. They would rather not sell
than extend credit that may not come back. “We
prefer selling less than blocking our money in
debtors which could go bad,” says Mr Chandresh
Mehta who mostly operates in Maharashtra.
JPC,
Cap
italin
e, C
ompa
ny &
Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
FY11 FY12 FY13 Q1FY14 Q2F Y14 Q3FY14
Sales Growth (%) 13.6 12.8 4.2 -9.7 -7.9 0.4
Operating Profit growth (%) 5.6 -19.4 10.5 -7.1 -27.5 -4.4
OPM (%) 12.5 9.0 9.4 9.0 7.7 9.2
PAT growth (%) -2.8 -52.7 -54.7 -203.1 -534.8 -374.4
Interest coverage (x) 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8
Net D/E ratio (x) 1.4 1.6 1.8
Note: The above data does not include the larger producers
Sector financials: Sample Size: 154 companies
Sales Volume growth
The liquidity factor has driven industry volumes (of secondary
producers and the trading community) down materially over the
past year. The table below aggregates the financial performance
of 154 companies in the sector (excluding the larger players).
Declining volumes and increasing leverage (net debt to equity
increased from 1.4x in FY11 to 1.8x in FY13) has made the debt
servicing (interest coverage reduced from 2.7x in FY11 to 0.8x in
Q3FY14) difficult for players over the past year.
Banks averse to increasing their lending to secondary producers
Mr Chetan Agarwal, a TMT producer from Raipur, believes that he
has lower working capital at his disposal because of the overall
poor performance of smaller steel manufacturers in the past cou-
ple of years. Declining revenues, poor profitability, and increasing
strain on the balance sheet has made Indian banks averse to
increasing their lending to this sector. This reflects in the growth
in outstanding credit to the sector, which has started coming off
sharply over the past few months. As per RBI’s data, outstanding
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 8
Primary steel producers – Key performance metrics
Sponge Iron capacity in India
Sour
ce: C
ompa
ny, P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
h
Sour
ce: R
BI, P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
h
Primary producers: Volume growth is the savior
Volume growth helped primary producers sail through
tough market conditions (falling prices and flat do-
mestic demand). Large players’ volumes were not only
at the cost the small producers but also some major
producers like Essar Steel whose liquidity issues saw
its production fall by 24% in 11MFY14. Its steel pro-
duction in this period was 2.8mn tonnes vs. its capac-
ity of 10mn tonnes. Falling profitability and leveraged
balance sheets affected Essar Steel’s production.
As seen in the table below, the profitability of primary
players would have been under severe pressure but
for volume growth. The operating profit growth for all
players (except JSW Steel) has been lagging volume
growth due to subdued pricing.
Bank credit growth (yoy) to iron & steel sector
State No of Units Capacity (mn tn) Utilizations
Chhattisgarh 90 9 75%
Jharkhand / West Bengal 65 6 65%
Orissa 90 8.5 65%
Karnataka / AP / Tamil Nadu 85 6 50%
Gujarat / Maharashtra 30 11 50%
9MFY14 growth
Volume Price Sales Operating profit
Net profit
Tata Steel 17.4% -7.3% 7.8% 11.3% 18.1%
JSW Steel 12.5% -9.1% 23.5% 36.3% 29.0%
JSPL 12.1% -8.8% 1.3% -15.0% 49.0%
SAIL 9.4% -5.5% 3.4% -20.9% -36.9%
Note: JSW Steel growth not comparable due to the impact of merger with JSW
Ispat. Volume growth has been adjusted for the merger however growth financial
parameters do not reflect the same
credit to the iron & steel sector grew by 21% yoy in
September 2013 vs. a 23.3% yoy increase in the gross
debt (as on September 2013) of the primary steel
producers. This implies a decline in the debt outstand-
ing for the rest of the sector (other than large players)
following a tight stance adopted by the Indian banking
sector.
Industry utilizations significantly lower
Tight liquidity and declining profitability has led to
volumes falling for the sector except for large players,
as can be seen from the capacity utilizations of sponge
iron plants across various states, which range from 50-
65%. Chhattisgarh is the only exception to this. How-
ever, excluding JSPL’s sponge iron production, average
utilizations for Chhattisgarh would also be around
65%. This has benefitted primary producers the most
because they could capture a larger pie of the volumes
due to their stronger balance sheets.
9GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
India Steel Consumption Pattern
N E W G O V E R N M E N T: T H E H O P E
Sour
ce: P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
hSo
urce
: Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Sour
ce: C
risIn
fac,
Phill
ipCa
pita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Can the new government change the fortunes of the ailing secondary sector? Not immediately!Mr S K Gupta who trades in long and flat steel is
optimistic about the new government driving in-
dustrial demand, but is savvy enough to realize
that business will revive only if a stable govern-
ment comes with a clean majority. Chetan Agar-
wal from Raipur shares his sentiment and says,
“I expect demand to improve after 6 months
with the new government taking initiatives for
growth.”
The fortunes of many small- and mid-sized play-
ers hinges on a new progressive government at
the center. It is clear that most of these players
expect demand to pick up after elections —
they believe a stable government will fast-track
work on investments in the infrastructure sector,
thereby boosting steel consumption in India. As
seen from the charts alongside, more than 50%
of India’s steel consumption depends on the
infrastructure- and construction-related sectors.
While expectations continue to stay high, steel
consumption in FY15 will not see any material
movement and any positive impact of possible
policy initiatives by the new government will
largely be felt from FY16.
Flat Steel Consumption Pattern
Long Steel Consumption Pattern
Construction 19%
Infrastructure 21%
Capital Goods 5%
Pipes & Tubes 8%
Automobiles 12%
Others 35%
100%
“I expect demand to improve after 6 months with the new government taking initiatives for growth.” - Chetan Agarwal, Raipur
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 10
Sector-wise break up of projects referred to CCI
Concerned Ministry Rs bn % share
Power 9,206 45%
Steel 4,653 23%
Petroleum and Natural Gas 3,561 17%
Road Transport and Highways 524 3%
Commerce and Industry - Commerce 523 3%
Railways 451 2%
Mines 414 2%
Coal 344 2%
Shipping 323 2%
Commerce and Industry-DIPP 276 1%
Fertilizers 192 1%
Civil Aviation 120 1%
Chemicals and Petrochemicals 50 0%
Textiles 13 0%
Total 20,651 100%
The current UPA government formed a Cabinet Com-
mittee on Investments (CCI) to fast track implementa-
tion of various stalled projects — 427 projects worth Rs
20tn were referred to the committee, of which projects
in the power, steel, and oil & gas sectors accounted for
~83%.
Out of the 427 projects, the CCI has cleared only 146
projects worth Rs 5.4tn (26% of the projects by value)
until February 2014. Our review of around 100 projects
out of these 146, representing 91% of value of projects
cleared, reveals a spending potential of only Rs 0.7tn.
Out of the Rs 5.4tn worth of projects cleared, 70% are
from the power sector (as seen from the chart) where
the plants have been built but are stranded due to no
fuel availability. The power sector projects were cleared
on fast track primarily to save the Indian Banking sector
from a significant jump in the NPAs. Mr Sameer Mehta,
who operates a steel service centre in Maharashtra,
acknowledges this fact saying he does not expect any
increase in demand before CY15 as the projects are
only on paper and there is no major execution happen-
ing on these.
If it wants to, the new government can play a major
role to free up many tied-up projects, which could
trigger further spending and revive steel consumption.
Out of the pending projects, the central government
can have a direct role in untangling around 50%, while
the other 50% are stalled due to issues at the state
government level, local issues, and legal problems.
About 30% of the projects are delayed for want of
environment and forest clearances and 17% are stuck
due to no fuel availability. The government’s approach
to these issues will determine the pace at which these
projects come online and thereby improve steel de-
mand.
Infrastructure and Industrial construction – a lot needs to be done for the consumption uptick
Sectoral break up of projects cleared by CCI
Sour
ce: C
ompa
ny, P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
h
Projects are only on paper and there is no major execution happening on these.
Mr Sameer Mehta, who operates a steel service centre in Maharashtra,
11GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Sour
ce: G
SACo
m, P
hilli
pCap
ital I
ndia
Res
earc
h
Factors for projects being stalled
Order book and book to bill of 16 major companies
A PhillipCapital India study across 80% of the
projects yet to be cleared amounting to Rs 12tn
shows that projects worth Rs 5.5tn are not likely to
start in the near term. Projects worth Rs 1.9tn are
currently on track and can see a total spending of
roughly Rs 283bn over the next 2-5 years. Projects
worth Rs 3.1tn would need government interven-
tions from both the state and the center, which
could lead to a total spending of about Rs 2.2tn
over the next 2-5.
The order book and the potential spending reflect a weak demand scenario in FY15, which has the po-
tential to decline further in the near term before any material growth starts only from FY16 onwards. This
does not augur well for overall steel demand in India, which derives ~50% volumes from the industrial
and infrastructure sectors. Overall demand growth is likely to stay subdued in FY15 vs. 8.2% CAGR over
the past decade and 5.6% CAGR FY10 till date.
Projects cleared 712.5
Projects yet to be cleared
- On track projects 283.4
- requiring government intervention 2,191.0
Potential capital spending 3,186.9
Potential cap. spend over next 2-5 yrs. (Rs bn)
PhillipCapital estimates a total capex of around Rs
3.2tn over the next 2-5 years commencing majorly
from FY16 onwards. This amounts to only 15% of the
value of total projects referred to the CCI. While the
spending looks huge in absolute terms, it looks quite
miniscule when you juxtapose it with the orderbook
position of major companies from the capital goods
and construction sector — the potential capital spend-
ing accounts for only 75% of the orderbook of the top-
16 companies in the sectors. The total orderbook of
these companies (Rs 4.1tn) has seen a CQGR of -0.3%
since the start of FY12. Book-to-bill ratio has declined
from 2.38x at the end of FY12 to 2.28x in Q3FY14.
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 12
“Activity in construction and automobiles
determines the steel consumption scenar-
io in India,” says Mr Vinesh Mehta, who
expects rising activity in these sectors to
translate into improved steel demand. Mr
Sandeep Goyal, Director, Bajrang Ispat ap-
preciates the efforts of the National Housing
Board, which increased real estate activity
and led to a good uptick in steel demand in
Raipur.
Real Estate: FY14 – negatively impacted; FY15 expected to improveRising real estate prices and weak senti-
ment had led to a slowdown in the overall
construction activity in FY14. This can be
seen from sales volumes of major real
R E A L E S T A T E & A U T O M O B I L E : T H E S A V I O U R S
Real estate and Automobile sectors to the rescue (somewhat)?
“Activity in construction and automobiles determines the steel consumption scenario in India,” - Mr Vinesh Mehta, Flat steel trader based in Mumbai
Sou
rce:
Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Real Estate: Revenues vs. volume growth (yoy)
estate companies across India as well as
the nationwide completion progress of
units committed during CY13. All India
volume growth for 25 major real estate
companies, as compiled by Knight Frank,
has been declining over the past year.
However, corresponding revenue growth
has been positive, implying higher prices
impacted volumes.
The slowdown in FY14 is also visible from
the fact that total units completed in CY13
stood at 290,926 vs. a committed supply
of 406,537. Increasing inventory in various
cities was one of the factors that lowered
execution.
13GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Sou
rce:
Kni
ght F
rank
, Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rchRegion wise Real Estate Inventory (000 units)
Real Estate Inventory (000 units) Dec-13 Dec-12 % chg
Mumbai 134.71 119.1 13.1%
Pune 53.68 41.54 29.2%
Bangalore 61.95 34.15 81.4%
Chennai 47.86 47.61 0.5%
NCR 195.85 179.8 8.9%
NHB Residex Index
Committed real estate supply (units)
Sou
rce:
Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Cities 2007 Index Q1FY13 Q2FY13 Q3FY13 Q4FY13 Q1FY14 Q2FY14 Q3FY14
Hyderabad 100 85 84 90 88 84 88 93
Faridabad 100 217 216 205 207 202 204 209
Patna 100 140 138 151 152 147 150 159
Ahmedabad 100 174 180 191 192 186 191 197
Chennai 100 309 312 314 310 303 318 330
Jaipur 100 78 85 87 112 110 108 105
Lucknow 100 171 175 189 183 187 191 185
Pune 100 200 201 205 221 219 219 235
Surat 100 145 138 150 140 142 145 154
Kochi 100 73 80 87 89 86 86 85
Bhopal 100 207 206 216 230 227 220 223
Kolkata 100 196 191 209 197 189 199 196
Mumbai 100 197 198 217 222 221 222 222
Bengaluru 100 100 98 106 109 108 107 111
Delhi 100 172 178 195 202 199 190 196
Bhubaneshwar 100 164 168 172 197 195 193 202
Guwahati 100 159 158 166 153 147 149 160
Ludhiana 100 171 168 179 167 157 150 150
Vijayawada 100 186 181 185 184 174 167 161
Indore 100 203 196 194 195 184 180 184
Chandigarh 100 194 191 192 188
Coimbatore 100 184 178 178 173
Dehradun 100 183 184 184 186
Meerut 100 191 189 176 171
Nagpur 100 163 168 162 175
Raipur 100 156 155 157 159
CY2014 CY2013 % chg
Bangalore 78261 31122 151.5%
Chennai 50193 27851 80.2%
Pune 75358 44894 67.9%
Mumbai 29295 14140 107.2%
Navi Mumbai 41744 18791 122.1%
Thane 115384 38575 199.1%
Gurgaon 36001 15196 136.9%
Noida 68724 18016 281.5%
Price hikes coupled with weak sentiments impacted volumesIncreasing prices coupled with slowing growth impacted sen-
timents, which affected real estate volumes. National Housing
Board’s Residex Index (index for real estate prices) shows the
price increases over a period — 16 of the 26 cities reported
price rises over the past year. Price hikes were prominent in the
last 6 months with 18 cities reporting higher prices.
Activity to pickup from FY15FY15 is likely to see an uptick in activity based on
the committed supply for CY14 — note that the
CY14 target is much higher than CY13 and taking
into account backlog completion in addition to
the fresh target, even if there is a slip up, overall
construction would be higher than CY13. This bodes
well for steel consumption, which can see growth
in FY15. Committed supply for CY14 across India
has seen a growth of 62% (659,789 units in CY14 vs.
406,539 units in CY13). This coupled with the back-
log of the past year will see good pickup in steel
demand in FY15.
A pick up in the industrial capex and improving sen-
timents towards growth in income will ensure further
demand growth from FY16. Higher affordability as
seen from the chart below will see the residential
demand improve with improving sentiments. The
demand improvement is expected despite the rising
prices (see NHB Residex Index below) because of
perception of better growth prospects.
The table below highlights the inventory buildup across various cities
Affordability Index: Improved Affordability
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 14
Automobiles – a mixed bag
Steel consumption per vehicle (Kgs)
The automobile sector accounts for around 12% of the overall steel con-sumed in India. A slowing economy has taken its toll on the sector with both passenger and commercial vehicle sales dwindling for more than a year. The two-wheeler segment has shown resilience with strong sales defying the slowing economy. However, two wheelers have been growing at the cost of passenger vehicle sales and this does not augur well for overall steel consumption, as the amount of steel consumed in a two-wheeler is a fraction of that in the PVs and CVs.
Can the auto segment be a saving grace for steel demand in FY15?
The sector performance is likely to be mixed going ahead and two-wheelers are likely to continue strong volume growth. Recent excise duty cuts and replacement demand will help the PV segment buck its current declining trend and show some revival. However, overcapacity and low economic activity is expected to impact the already ailing CV segment in FY15. Steel demand is expected to see some uptick in FY15 (pinning hopes on the PV segment), but healthy growth will happen only in FY16 with an expected recovery in the PV and CV segments.
Passenger Vehicles volume growth
CV volume vs. GDP growth
PV segment Excise duty cuts and replacement de-mand to help boost volumes: After see-ing strong growth in the last five years, PV volumes (domestic as well as exports) have softened in FY14 with 11MFY14 registering 4.3% fall. The slowdown in the domestic market was partly offset by strong exports. Domestic volumes declined by 6.7% yoy in 11MFY14 where-as exports grew 7% helped by rupee depreciation. The recent excise duty cut (in Feb 2014 to 8% from 12% earlier) and replacement demand for cars will help volumes grow in FY15 and FY16. Strong volume growth in FY10 and FY11 is expected to drive replacement demand, assuming a 5-year replacement cycle.
CV segment - still a while away:
Slowing domestic demand and sig-nificant capacity created in FY10 and FY11 impacted CV volumes in FY13 and majorly in FY14. Overcapacity was accentuated by the iron ore mining bans in Karnataka and Goa. CV volumes fell 3% in FY13 and have seen an almost 19% yoy fall in 11MFY14. These volumes are not expected to pick up materially except for significant ramp up in the overall economic activity in India. Easing of the iron ore mining restrictions and increasing output will also play a major role in industry utilizations and hence the volume growth.
15GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Can steel consumption growth address woes of the ailing secondary sector? – Yes, but it could be short lived
A pick up in the overall steel consumption in India (due
to the growth in auto and real estate) will improve the fi-
nancial state of the secondary sector in the coming 6-12
months. However, it will be short lived with steel capac-
ity expansions coming up — capacity is expected to
grow from the current 104mn tonnes to 121mn tonnes
in the coming three years with a bulk of the expansions
coming from the primary producers.
New capacities along with already low utilizations
across the industry will lead to fierce competition.
Surplus steel capacity will continue to limit spreads
earned at lower levels. This can be seen from the wid-
ening price spreads between primary and secondary
producers.
What will secondary producers have to do to survive? Evolve!
S E C O N D A R Y P R O D U C E R S : E V O L U T I O N T H E O N L Y O P T I O N
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
JSW Steel 14.3 - 3.2 -
Tata Steel 9.7 - 3.0 -
SAIL 15.4 2.4 3.0 -
JSPL 3.0 3.0 - -
RINL 6.3 - - -
Essar 10.0 - - -
Bhushan Steel 4.7 - - -
NMDC - - - 3.0
Monnet Ispat 1.8 - - -
Bhushan Power & Steel 2.8 - - -
Adhunik Metaliks 0.5 - - -
Usha Martin 1.0 - - -
Jai Balaji 0.9 - - -
Kalyani Steel 0.7 - - -
MSP Steel & Power 0.1 - - -
Visa Steel 0.5 - - -
Godawari Power 0.4 - - -
Electrosteel Steels Limited 2.5 - - -
Lloyd Steel 1.0 - - -
Others 28.0 - - -
Total 103.6 5.4 9.2 3.0
Cumulative capacity 103.6 109.0 118.2 121.2
Steel Capacity in India (mn tonnes)
TMT Bars stacked up for delivery
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 16
The chart above highlights the primary producer pric-
es for TMT Bars and the spread they earned over the
secondary producer. The pricing differential between
the primary producers and the secondary producers
has not corrected materially despite a 7.5% move up
in the primary producer prices since August 2013.
Secondary producers are keeping the differential
high to at least ensure volume growth.
Fresh investments required to sustain current volumes and margins
The secondary sector, which mainly supplies
long-steel products will need fresh investment for
reducing the cost (increasing integration levels)
and improving the product profile (through value
additions). This will help them sustain margins, given
the expansion plans of the primary producers. Long-
steel capacity is expected to rise by ~9mn tonnes
by FY16 and is entirely being expanded by primary
producers. This can significantly dent the volumes of
the secondary producers, but for them getting their
costs leaner to sustain competition.
Pricing differential: Primary producer vs. secondary producer
Sou
rce:
Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Mn tonnes FY14 FY15 FY16
JSW Steel 2.5 - 3.2
Tata Steel 3.3 - -
SAIL (including Semis)
6.0 2.4 2.2
JSPL 2.0 1.5 -
RINL 6.3 - -
Monnet Ispat 1.1 - -
Adhunik Metaliks 0.5 - -
Usha Martin 1.0 - -
Jai Balaji 0.9 - -
Kalyani Steel 0.7 - -
MSP Steel & Power 0.1 - -
Visa Steel 0.5 - -
Godawari Power 0.4 - -
Electrosteel Steels Limited
2.5 - -
Others 24.0 -
Total 51.7 3.9 5.4
Cumulative capacity 51.7 55.6 61.0
Long Steel Capacities
“The key to survival is reducing costs by increasing the integration levels. Our integration level is what has helped us earn profits and retire majority of our debt,” - Mr Sandeep Goyal from Bajrang Ispat
Sou
rce:
Ste
elm
int,
Phill
ipCa
pita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
17GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Mn tonnes FY14 FY15 FY16
JSW Steel 2.5 - 3.2
Tata Steel 3.3 - -
SAIL (including Semis)
6.0 2.4 2.2
JSPL 2.0 1.5 -
RINL 6.3 - -
Monnet Ispat 1.1 - -
Adhunik Metaliks 0.5 - -
Usha Martin 1.0 - -
Jai Balaji 0.9 - -
Kalyani Steel 0.7 - -
MSP Steel & Power 0.1 - -
Visa Steel 0.5 - -
Godawari Power 0.4 - -
Electrosteel Steels Limited
2.5 - -
Others 24.0 -
Total 51.7 3.9 5.4
Cumulative capacity 51.7 55.6 61.0
Heat Treatment to Billets in the process of manufacturing TMT
“The key to survival is reducing costs by increasing
the integration levels,” says Mr Sandeep Goyal
from Bajrang Ispat who operates an integrated TMT
mill with operations spanning from making pellets
to long-steel products such as TMT and wire rods.
“Our integration level is what has helped us earn
profits and retire majority of our debt,” he says.
Secondary sector will need higher investments to
reduce end-product costs, which will help sustain
their margins. This trend is seen from the increasing
number of secondary producers currently producing
billets (semi-finished product) that are looking at
setting up TMT facilities. Secondary producers are
adding around 1mn tonne of new capacity in the
TMT segment. This forward integration will help
them utilize their already existing semi-finished steel
capacity and enhance margins.
Increasing integration levels is the key to sustain margins
Sou
rce:
Ste
elm
int,
Phill
ipCa
pita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
Tonnes per day
Kalika TMT 600
Vandanaa Energy & Steels 500
Rajuri TMT 450
Swadeshi 500 TMT 300
Kore TMT 250
Sarda Energy 250
Kamdhenu Ispat 240
Avon Steel Rollings 200
Total 2790
TMT capacity expansions by a few players
Secondary producers are adding around 1mn tonne of new capacity in the TMT segment.
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 18
Higher value addition – boon for some and curse for the others?
Improving the share of value-added products is beneficial for the
secondary long-product players. However, the story is different for the
flat-steel producers. Primary producers are specifically expanding CRC
capacity — they have plans to commission 4.1mn tonnes of new CRC
capacity, which will account for around 55% of the existing capacity of
7.5mn tonnes. While the capacity addition is targeted at import substi-
tution (11MFY14 net imports of 0.7mn tonnes), standalone re-rollers will
see further compression in business once the capacity expansions start
kicking in. “SAIL has started trial runs for its new CRM and the material
was really good. The volumes from these new capacities will not only
replace the imports but also impact the small re-rollers given the quality
edge and lower cost for the primary producers,” says Mr S K Gupta who
trades in flat products in the Northern markets.
CRC: Demand vs. supply
As seen from the chart below, FY15 and FY16
will continue to see over capacity for the CRC
products despite a 10% annual growth in ex-
pected demand. This will see players with weak
balance sheets and the ones who do not have
a technological edge move out of the system
making way for the primary producers capturing
the market.
To conclude, the prospects of the larger players
look far better than the smaller players. A
significant rise in demand due to government
initiatives may ease the problems of secondary
players for a while. However, to survive the
onslaught of the larger players who are focused
on capturing the traditional bastions of the
smaller ones, these companies are going to
have to shape up both in terms of finance and
technology. Over the next decade or so, we
could see a scenario where primary steel pro-
ducers have captured a majority of the market
and only highly efficient value-adding smaller
players dominate the rest.
Sou
rce:
Phi
llipC
apita
l Ind
ia R
esea
rch
“SAIL has started trial runs for its new CRM and the material was really good. The volumes from these new capacities will not only replace the imports but also impact the small re-rollers given the quality edge and lower cost for the primary producers,” - Mr S K Gupta who trades in flat products in the Northern markets.
19GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Ground Zero caught up with some Indians residing abroad – the NRI diaspora.
BY VARUN KUMAR
"India needs a better leader," says a Fund Manager of Indian origin working with one of largest US based hedge fund. "Rahul is not going to make much of a differ-ence and Kejriwal prefers protest over power," said another leading investor who works in Singapore. We figured that if we were to put our NRI-based friends into baskets based on their political allegiance, they would roughly fall equally into two baskets
a) Kejriwal fans:
They do like Modi for his develop-ment agenda but they prefer Kejri-wal as the underdog outsider who can shake the system and eliminate corruption making life better for cit-izens. They like his handle on data, his ideas, and zeal to reform things at a lightning pace. They have fond memories of his 49-day rule in Delhi. We get the feeling that they like the sheer courage Kejriwal showed in terms of launching a political party, taking on Delhi CM and finally winning the elections. They like the bravado quite a bit.
b) Modi Fans: They are absolute fans of Modi. He has generously showered his atten-tion on the NRI diaspora as is evi-dent from his cheerful demeanour on the Pravasi Bhartiya Divas, 2014.
Facebook: the aggregator of sentiments
Besides conversations on weekend get-togethers, Facebook is definite-ly the biggest compiler of public sentiment in one's friend circle. At least for us, Facebook has become a political portal instead of a social network. Most of the items that land
THE PATRIOT N R I s
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 20
in our feed these days are on poli-tics, though last few days were ruled by Yuvraj Singh's dismal perfor-mance as well! As they say, Indians love their Bollywood and Cricket, but we think we love our elections even more. At least this time. Possi-bly, one of the catalysts for this deep political involvement and awareness over last 1-2 years has been the rise of India Against Corruption move-ment and the consequent meteoric rise of AAP. However, as we noted above, sentiment about AAP has changed from universal adulation to a polarizing binary -- people either love them or hate them.
Kejriwal's loss is modi's gain
Kejriwal's loss has been Modi's gain as far our interactions suggest. While Kejriwal seems to have lost support post resignation, Modi’s star has been steadily rising. A friend of ours in Singapore who hails from Gujarat had animated dis-
cussions with Ground Zero regard-ing the development that has been done in Gujarat and expressed hope that Modi can do that at the national level given an opportunity. Another close friend takes pride in discussing that he has lived in Gu-jarat (though only for three months) and that we should go and visit the state to understand how the government machinery functions in Gujarat and how that is the way it should work across the country.
How investors are taking it
While the market’s rapid ascent has taken many participants by surprise, as far as Ground Zero gathers , in-vestors seem to quite like Modi. The discussion about Modi always veers towards how for the past few years India has seen a gigantic scale of economic mismanagement, mas-sive corruption and policy pause that hurt economic growth, jobs, corpo-rate profits and hence investors as
well. One of Ground Zero’s friends, who is also an institutional investor, highlights the track record in Gujarat in terms of development and growth and puts forth an argument that this is what we need at the central level as well. Another client of us was all praises for e-governance initiatives highlighted in BJP's manifesto.
How about investing?
In terms of portfolio positioning, we think there are a few investors who are cautious on election results due to prior unreliability of polls. These investors are little careful about adding beta to their portfolio. It also seems to Ground Zero that quite a few participants missed the rapid ral-ly as they were caught overweight on export-oriented defensives or were underweight India in general. These investors are are now torn between whether to enter at this time when early entrants might be looking to sell their positions.
Both Modi and Kejriwal are passionately using social media to promote their ideas among young voters:
21GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
They are concerned that they would just be providing an exit to such early entrants and would be getting in at a price where incremental returns would become difficult. The bullish in-vestor believes that a stable government verdict isn’t yet priced in because retail and domestic mutual funds do not seem positioned for a positive election outcome. If outcome is indeed positive, this inflow could keep markets propped up.
All investors want a government that moves fast on investment related decisions and controls the fiscal situation with a rein on various subsidies. We also noticed something interesting about investors who like Modi — when we pointed out that in terms of election manifesto, BJP is more vague and Congress is more specific, we got a response that BJP has done this deliberately so as not to get caught off guard on some specific promises. That definitely is a pragmatic political approach and as has been widely argued, Modi does have a strong following outside India as well.
Not to mention...
While a Modi wave in India has been well cov-ered by media, here is our off-the-beaten-path take on it — the following picture was in the house of one of Ground Zero’s friends in a village in UP - the battleground state. The village is 15-20 km away from a major road and the nearest town, Deoband, has a population of just 80,000. In that remote village, a picture of Modi on the wall of a farmer's home says quite a lot.
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 22
CDMO to drive value growth for Indian CRAMS
Q: What is your growth outlook for the global pharma outsourcing industry and what do you foresee for the Indian CRAMS industry?
The global pharmaceutical outsourcing industry has
certainly been impacted by the global economic
slowdown in the last couple of years. Increased reg-
ulatory scrutiny has also delayed approvals of clinical
development projects and this has caused ear-
ly-stage discovery projects to be postponed. There
has also been a steady decline in the R&D produc-
tivity impacting the pharma outsourcing. Howev-
er, of late I see this trend of more new NCE(new
chemical entity)/NBE(new biological entity) approv-
als on the one hand and on the other hand there is
this continued loss of blockbuster patents — this will
definitely trigger more contract research (CRO) from
innovative pharma players.
Similarly, the rising need for life-cycle management
of drugs after patent expiry and increasing activity
of small biotech companies — those usually funded
by private equity and venture funds in advanced
markets, specifically in the US — leads to an uptrend
in outsourcing of pharma manufacturing (CMO).
Currently, the size of the global pharma outsourcing
market is about US$ 75bn. I think that the segment
should maintain double-digit growth in the near to
medium term. The ~US$ 4bn Indian CRAMS market
is well poised to deliver a healthy annual growth of
In an interaction with Ground Zero, Mr. Goutam Das - the COO of the Association Biotech Led Enterprises (ABLE) and Ex-COO of Syngene International (Biocon’s research services arm) talks about emerging trends in the global pharma outsourcingspace and how the Indian Contract Research And Manufacturing Services industry will benefit from them.
BY SURYA NARAYAN PATRA
23GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
20-30%. Its strong execution track record in con-
tract manufacturing and more importantly its focus
on better margin contract development and manu-
facturing services (CDMO) will drive value growth .
Q: What are the key opportunities in the val-ue-chain of pharma outsourcing? And where do Indian companies figure in this?
There are three broad categories of pharma out-
sourcing — contract research (CRO), contract de-
velopment & manufacturing service (CDMO), and
contract manufacturing (CMO). Contract research
covers both pre-clinical and clinical development.
Contract manufacturing covers generic intermedi-
ates, APIs, and formulations.
As far as CRO opportunity is concerned, Indians are
way behind and their position in the global CRO
space is insignificant. Within that, the most prom-
inent Indian names are Siro ClinPharm, Manipal
Acunova, GVK Biosciences, and Lamda Therapeu-
tics. But the leading player is the Indian arm of
US-based Quintiles.
On contract manufacturing, Indian CRAMS have
gained a significant foothold in the global outsourc-
ing market mainly led by cost advantages
— but mostly for the manufacturing of generic
intermediates, APIs, and formulations.
As far as CDMO is concerned, India is yet to
achieve meaningful progress. Global CDMO
companies focus on development and manufac-
turing of new molecule intermediates, APIs, and
formulations. Divi’s Laboratories leads in the Indian
CDMO space, followed by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories,
Syngene — the CRAMS arm of Biocon, and Shasun
Pharma.
Q: Why has India lagged behind in the pharma outsourcing opportunity and what are the key challenges before Indian CRAMS?
Within global pharma outsourcing, the share of
contract research (CRO) is highest. Indian compa-
nies are almost not present in this segment due to
lack of investment in the field of new drug develop-
ment and lack of quality infrastructure for under-
taking discovery research services. This is the main
reason for India’s lower share in the global CRO pie,
despite the advantages of a large genetically varied
population and diverse treatment naïve patient
population.
There are two other key reasons India has not being
able to attract global innovators in the area of new
drug development — one is our country’s pharma
industry’s pro-generic approach and the second is
lax patent protection for drug innovation. This has
restricted India’s progress in the CDMO segment.
On the other hand, thanks to cost advantages and
process-development skills of Indians, we have
earned a strong foothold in contract manufacturing
of generics, which is the relatively low-value seg-
ment and a smaller part of overall global pharma
outsourcing.
So the key challenges for Indian CRAMS as I see
are — a need for large investments in building
quality research infrastructure, empowering the pat-
ent system to offer strong protection for new drug
innovations, and lastly creating a good business
environment for global clinical trials in India.
The reason CRAMS has taken a back seat in India
are the current clinical trial restrictions of Phase I
trials in the country for molecules innovated outside
India, then there are restrictions about clinical trials
on monkeys, and there are delays in clinical project
approvals. All these issues need to be sorted.
Q: Quality and reliability are important in out-sourcing of pharma research and manufacturing. Will the recent USFDA warning letters to some Indian units, affect the Indian CRAMS industry badly?
No. If you go by the statistics, India owns about
40% share in the overall fillings of ANDAs/DMFs in
the US and it is the largest supplier of generics into
the US. So, the US would definitely like to ensure
quality and safety of the drugs procured from
India. Yes, we have seen about 19-20 violations in
the manufacturing practices by Indian producers
recently and while they may seem high, considering
the fact that there are over 170 USFDA-approved
plants in India, the number of violations are not
really large. So I definitely don’t believe that the
recent warning letter or import alert would create
any dent in the potential CRAMS opportunity of the
Indian industry.
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 24
Q: Quintiles - one of the leading CRO in the world, in its recent IPO document mentioned that nearly 40% of US$ 51bn money spent on clinical development during 2013 was out-sourced and this business should see steady progress. How do you see this as an opportunity for Indian players?
So far, Indians have not really achieved great suc-
cess in the global CRO space. However, selective
Indian CROs like Manipal Acunova have moved
abroad to setup their base in various international
markets and that should help them grab a share in
the growing opportunity of global clinical develop-
ment space.
Q: What is your assessment of the competitive advantage offered by Indian CRAMS compared to other competing pharma outsourcing destina-tions like China, Korea, and Vietnam?
China is definitely a big competitor in the space
of global pharma outsourcing. Apart from cost
advantages, China has a conducive policy frame-
work including better fiscal measures, strong patent
system, and faster approval of clinical projects
and this has made it the preferred destination for
contract research. More importantly, the size of
its pharma market, which is expected to become
the 2nd largest in the world by 2020, makes it a
preferred play in contract research — this is where
the big money lies.
However on the contract manufacturing front, India
leads because of its strong execution track record
coupled with cost advantages — here it holds a su-
perior position compared to China. India’s focus on
execution and quality standards in manufacturing
should graduate Indians from generic manufactur-
ing to high-value CDMO.
I don’t believe South Korea is a key competitor in
the chemical-based pharma space or in the field
of generics for India. However, they have emerged
as a much bigger player in the field of biogener-
ics or biosimilars, where India is still progressing.
Although Indian peers like Biocon, Dr Reddy’s
Lab, Intas, and Reliance Life sciences, have moved
forward in the field of biologics, they are yet to find
success in the global biologic market.
Likewise, I don’t think Vietnam is anyway a compet-
itor in the global pharma outsourcing space. Rather
Malaysia is catching up faster and can become a
threat at some point.
Q: What are your thoughts about the merger and acquisition trend among leading global pharma peers in the world and its effect on pharma outsourcing?
The ongoing consolidation among global pharma
peers will certainly expand the scope of pharma
outsourcing. More importantly, such consolidation
enhances the scope of outsourcing business for the
already associated/partnered CRAMS player. I see
the trend as favourable.
Q: Do you see the growing presence of MNC CROs and CMOs in India as an increasing com-petitive threat for Indian CRAMS?
The MNC arms like Quintiles, Covance, and ICON
operate their contract research operation in India as
a cost centre and most of those contracts are as an
extension of their global clinical trial projects. On the
other hand, Indian CROs look for bases in India and
advanced markets as a need for conducting global
trials or to have exposure to the advanced regulated
markets. There is no direct competitive threat from
MNC CROs. Similarly, MNC CMOs like Lonza and
DSM don’t pose a threat for Indian CRAMS.
Q: A study by Chemical Pharmaceutical Generic Association of Italy suggests that Indian CRAMS should grow at a CAGR of 35% over 2012-2017 and its share of 8% in global pharma outsourc-ing in 2012 should grow to 21% in 2017. Do you believe the assessment?
What I believe is Indian CRAMS peers have already
started moving up the value chain of pharma out-
sourcing, particularly on the manufacturing front,
led by their increased focus on research services
and product development. With the rising share of
CDMO revenue in the overall CRAMS operation, In-
dian CRAMS industry should deliver healthy growth
of 20-30% with better value proposition in the me-
dium term. Specifically, industry leaders like Divi’s
Laboratories, Biocon, and Dr Reddy’s Laboratories
should be the larger beneficiaries of the anticipated
uptrend in the global pharma outsourcing space.
25GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Indian Economy – Trend Indicators
Quarterly Economic Indicators
Monthly Economic Indicators
Growth Rates (%) Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-14 Feb-14
IIP 2.5 0.6 3.5 1.5 -2.5 -1.8 2.6 0.4 2.7 -1.2 -1.3 -0.2 0.1 -
PMI 53.2 54.2 52 51 50.1 50.3 50.1 48.5 49.6 49.6 51.3 50.7 51.4 52.5
Core sector 8.3 -2.4 3.2 2.3 2.3 0.1 3.1 3.7 8 -0.6 1.7 2.1 1.6 -
WPI 7.3 7.3 5.7 4.8 4.6 5.2 5.9 7 7 7.2 7.5 6.4 5.0 4.7
CPI 10.8 10.9 10.4 9.4 9.3 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.8 10.2 11.2 9.9 8.8 8.1
Money Supply 12.7 12.8 13.6 12.4 12.1 12.8 12.5 12.2 12.5 13 14.5 14.9 14.5 14.5
Deposit 13.2 12.8 14.4 13.4 13.5 13.8 13.5 13.1 14.1 14.4 16.1 15.8 15.7 15.9
Credit 16.1 16.3 14.1 14.6 14.2 13.7 14.9 17.1 17.8 16.6 15.5 14.5 14.7 14.4
Exports 1.6 5.9 7 1.7 -1.1 -4.6 11.6 13 11.2 13.5 5.9 3.5 3.8 -3.7
Imports 4.8 1.7 -2.9 11 7 -0.4 -6.2 -0.7 -18.1 -14.5 -16.4 -15.2 -18.1 -17.1
Trade deficit (USD Bn) -19 -14.1 -10.3 -17.8 -20.1 -12.2 -12.3 -10.9 -6.8 -10.6 -9.2 -10.1 -9.9 -8.1
Net FDI (USD Bn) 2.7 2.6 1.3 2.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 3.3 1.8 2.4 1.9 0.8 -
FII (USD Bn) 6.1 4.2 1.2 1.6 6.7 -8.7 -4.7 -2 0.2 -0.4 0 2.9 2.6 -
ECB (USD Bn) 3.5 2.3 5.1 1.1 2.5 2 3.7 2.3 3.3 1.9 2.2 4.6 1.8 -
NRI Deposits (USD Bn) 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.7 2.5 1.3 1.2 5.9 4.5 14.6 2 0.7 -
Dollar-Rupee 54.3 53.8 54.4 54.4 55.1 58.4 60.6 63 63.8 61.6 62.6 61.9 62.1 62.2
FOREX Reserves (USD Bn) 295.8 291.9 293.4 296.4 287.9 284.6 280.2 275.5 276.3 283 291.3 295.7 292.2 291.1
Balance of Payment (USD Bn) Q3FY12 Q4FY12 Q1FY13 Q2FY13 Q3FY13 Q4FY13 Q1FY14 Q2FY14 Q3FY14
Exports 71.1 80.2 75 72.6 74.2 84.8 73.9 81.2 79.8
Imports 118.8 131.7 118.9 120.4 132.6 130.4 124.4 114.5 112.9
Trade deficit -47.7 -51.5 -43.8 -47.8 -58.4 -45.6 -50.5 -33.3 -33.2
Net Invisibles 28.3 29.8 26.8 26.7 26.6 27.5 28.7 28.1 29.1
CAD -19.4 -21.8 -17.1 -21.1 -31.8 -18.2 -21.8 -5.2 -4.1
CAD (% of GDP) 4.2 4.4 4 5.1 6.5 3.6 4.9 1.2 0.8
Capital Account 8 16.6 16.5 20.7 31.5 20.5 20.6 -4.8 23.8
BoP -12.8 -5.7 0.5 -0.2 0.8 2.7 -0.3 -10.4 19.1
GDP and its Components (YoY, %) Q3FY12 Q4FY12 Q1FY13 Q2FY13 Q3FY13 Q4FY13 Q1FY14 Q2FY14 Q3FY14
Agriculture & allied activities 6.7 2 1.8 1.8 0.8 1.4 2.7 4.6 3.6
Industry 4.4 3.9 -0.6 0.1 2 2 -0.9 1.5 -1.2
Mining & Quarrying -0.4 4.2 -1.1 -0.1 -2 -3.1 -2.8 -0.4 -1.6
Manufacturing 4.5 3.6 -1.1 0 2.5 2.6 -1.2 1 -1.9
Electricity, Gas & Water Supply 9.7 5.6 4.2 1.3 2.6 2.8 3.7 7.7 5
Services 6.4 7.5 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.3 6.3 5.8 6.7
Construction 7.6 6.9 2.8 -1.9 1 4.4 2.8 4.3 0.6
Trade, Hotel, Transport and Communications 3.9 6.1 4 5.6 5.9 6.2 3.9 4 4.3
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate & Business Services 11 11.3 11.7 10.6 10.2 9.1 8.9 10 12.5
Community, Social & Personal Services 4.7 6 7.6 7.4 4 4 9.4 4.2 7
GDP at FC 6.1 6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.7
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 26
Annual Economic Indicators and Forecasts
Indicators Units FY6 FY7 FY8 FY9 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14E FY15E
Real GDP growth % 9.5 9.6 9.3 6.7 8.6 8.9 6.7 4.5 4.6 5.2
Agriculture % 5.1 4.2 5.8 0.1 0.8 8.6 5 1.4 4.5 2.4
Industry % 8.5 12.9 9.2 4.1 10.2 8.3 6.7 0.9 0.5 2.4
Services % 11.1 10.1 10.3 9.4 10 9.2 7.1 6.2 5.7 6.7
Real GDP Rs Bn 32,531 35,644 38,966 41,587 45,161 49,185 52,475 54,821 57,486 60,475
Real GDP US$ Bn 733 787 967 908 953 1,079 1,096 1,008 958 1,008
Nominal GDP Rs Bn 36,925 42,937 49,864 56,301 64,778 77,841 90,097 1,01,133 1,13,205 1,26,723
Nominal GDP US$ Bn 832 948 1,237 1,229 1,367 1,707 1,881 1,859 1,887 2,112
Population Mn 1,106 1,122 1,138 1,154 1,170 1,186 1,202 1,219 1,236 1,254
Per Capita Income US$ 753 845 1,087 1,065 1,168 1,439 1,565 1,525 1,526 1,685
WPI (Average) % 4.5 6.6 4.7 8.1 3.8 9.6 8.7 7.4 6 6
CPI (Average) % 4.2 6.8 6.4 9 12.4 10.4 8.3 10.2 9.5 7.5-8
Money Supply % 15.5 20 22.1 20.5 19.2 16.2 15.8 13.6 13 14
CRR % 5 6 7.5 5 5.75 6 4.75 4 4 4
Repo rate % 6.5 7.5 7.75 5 5 6.75 8.5 7.5 8 8
Reverse repo rate % 5.5 6 6 3.5 3.5 5.75 7.5 6.5 7 7
Bank Deposit growth % 24 23.8 22.4 19.9 17.2 15.9 13.5 14.4 14 15
Bank Credit growth % 37 28.1 22.3 17.5 16.9 21.5 17 15 15 16
Centre Fiscal Deficit Rs Bn 1,464 1,426 1,437 3,370 4,140 3,736 5,160 5,209 5,425 5,855
Centre Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 4 3.3 2.9 6 6.4 4.8 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.7
Gross Central Govt Borrowings Rs Bn 1,310 1,460 1,681 2,730 4,510 4,370 5,098 5,580 6,290 6,450
Net Central Govt Borrowings Rs Bn 954 1,104 1,318 2,336 3,984 3,254 4,362 4,674 4,840 5,270
State Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 2.4 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.9 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.5
Consolidted Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 6.4 5.1 4.4 8.4 9.3 6.9 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.2
Exports US$ Bn 105.2 128.9 166.2 189 182.4 251.1 309.8 306.6 315.7 337.8
YoY Growth % 23.4 22.6 28.9 13.7 -3.5 37.6 23.4 -1 3 7
Imports US$ Bn 157.1 190.7 257.6 308.5 300.6 381.1 499.5 502.2 465.9 515.2
YoY Growth % 32.1 21.4 35.1 19.7 -2.5 26.7 31.1 0.5 -7.2 10.6
Trade Balance US$ Bn -51.9 -61.8 -91.5 -119.5 -118.2 -129.9 -189.8 -195.6 -150.2 -177.4
Net Invisibles US$ Bn 42 52.2 75.7 91.6 80 84.6 111.6 107.5 111.6 121
Current Account Deficit US$ Bn -9.9 -9.6 -15.7 -27.9 -38.2 -45.3 -78.2 -88.2 -38.6 -56.4
CAD (% of GDP) % -1.2 -1 -1.3 -2.3 -2.8 -2.6 -4.2 -4.7 -2.1 -2.7
Capital Account Balance US$ Bn 25.5 45.2 106.6 7.8 51.6 62 67.8 89.3 77.5 69.5
Dollar-Rupee (Average) 44.4 45.3 40.3 45.8 47.4 45.6 47.9 54.4 60 60
Source: RBI, CSO, CGA, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of commerce, Bloomberg, PhillipCapital India Research
27GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Net S
ales
EBID
TAPA
TEP
S (Rs
) EP
S Gro
wth
(%)
P/E (
x) P
/B (x
)EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE (
%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Secto
rRs
Rs m
nFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
E
Cham
bal F
ertil
iser
sAg
ri In
puts
43 1
7,89
5 8
6,90
3 8
7,44
1 6
,120
7
,829
2
,595
3
,260
6.
27.
814
.525
.66.
95.
50.
90.
88.
76.
313
.215
.24.
76.
0
Coro
man
del F
ertil
iser
s Ag
ri In
puts
222
62,
923
99,
682
1,0
9,14
1 7
,886
1
0,01
0 3
,686
5
,348
13
.018
.9-1
4.8
45.1
17.1
11.8
2.6
2.3
11.6
9.1
15.3
19.6
13.9
18.4
Tata
Che
mica
ls Lt
dAg
ri In
puts
281
71,
650
1,6
1,00
3 1
,55,
404
19,
820
20,
983
5,3
31
6,5
88
20.9
25.9
-41.
623
.613
.410
.91.
11.
06.
55.
67.
99.
27.
57.
3
Deep
ak Fe
rtilis
ers
Agri
Inpu
ts11
8 1
0,40
8 3
1,49
8 3
2,74
4 4
,862
4
,882
1
,901
2
,251
21
.625
.547
.318
.45.
54.
60.
70.
74.
23.
914
.115
.19.
710
.1
Kave
ri Se
eds
Agri
Inpu
ts60
9 4
1,84
0 1
0,22
0 1
1,89
6 2
,194
2
,604
2
,096
2
,456
30
.635
.865
.417
.219
.917
.08.
26.
018
.415
.241
.435
.347
.840
.3
PI In
dust
ries
Agri
Inpu
ts25
6 3
4,87
1 1
6,39
5 1
9,70
2 2
,948
3
,533
1
,773
2
,184
13
.016
.081
.323
.119
.716
.04.
93.
812
.210
.125
.123
.724
.324
.6
Ralli
s Ind
iaAg
ri In
puts
169
32,
797
17,
345
19,
235
2,6
58
2,8
22
1,5
16
1,6
98
7.8
8.8
27.4
12.0
21.6
19.3
4.7
4.1
12.5
11.5
21.9
21.1
20.3
20.1
Unite
d Ph
osph
orus
Agri
Inpu
ts22
1 9
4,70
0 1
,04,
470
1,1
6,17
8 1
8,00
2 1
9,66
9 8
,887
1
0,56
6 20
.123
.99.
718
.911
.09.
31.
81.
66.
75.
817
.017
.511
.312
.6
Baja
j Aut
oAu
tom
obile
s20
06 5
,80,
427
2,0
0,50
5 2
,23,
739
42,
374
46,
397
34,
670
37,
851
119.
813
0.8
12.0
9.2
16.7
15.3
6.1
4.9
13.6
12.4
36.3
32.0
37.0
33.0
Bhar
at Fo
rge
Auto
mob
iles
427
99,
287
59,
170
59,
525
10,
228
11,
528
4,2
04
5,3
57
18.1
23.0
84.5
27.4
23.6
18.5
3.9
3.4
11.3
9.6
16.5
18.4
11.7
13.0
Hero
Mot
oCor
pAu
tom
obile
s22
22 4
,43,
786
2,5
0,92
3 2
,73,
622
35,
286
38,
087
20,
510
26,
135
102.
713
0.9
-3.2
27.4
21.6
17.0
8.0
6.8
12.5
11.6
37.0
40.1
37.6
42.0
Asho
k Le
ylan
dAu
tom
obile
s24
62,
792
1,0
7,47
0 1
,27,
060
4,4
99
9,2
68
(3,3
14)
1,2
08
-1.2
0.5
-329
.9-1
36.4
-18.
952
.01.
61.
624
.812
.2-8
.33.
1-0
.24.
1
Mah
indr
a &
Mah
indr
aAu
tom
obile
s98
3 6
,05,
638
4,2
4,94
5 4
,82,
519
48,
919
55,
617
34,
833
39,
670
56.7
64.6
3.7
13.9
17.3
15.2
3.5
2.9
12.8
11.2
20.0
19.3
17.0
17.0
Mar
uti S
uzuk
iAu
tom
obile
s19
22 5
,80,
688
4,1
3,41
1 4
,71,
751
52,
581
60,
317
28,
585
33,
321
94.6
110.
319
.516
.620
.317
.42.
92.
510
.99.
414
.114
.313
.714
.3
Apol
lo Ty
res
Auto
mob
iles
166
83,
668
1,3
4,80
7 1
,44,
550
17,
067
18,
011
8,0
72
9,0
24
16.0
17.9
39.7
11.8
10.4
9.3
2.0
1.7
6.1
5.7
21.3
19.6
15.0
14.8
Tata
Mot
ors
Auto
mob
iles
412
12,
20,1
94
23,
75,2
41
27,
42,0
17
3,6
9,39
4 4
,33,
713
1,6
0,52
6 1
,82,
478
50.3
57.2
62.3
13.7
8.2
7.2
2.4
1.8
3.9
3.5
29.4
25.1
16.7
16.0
ABB
Indi
aCa
p Goo
ds81
4 1
,72,
504
76,
158
80,
624
4,2
65
7,3
54
2,1
21
4,1
65
10.0
19.7
-19.
696
.381
.341
.46.
35.
840
.923
.67.
814
.07.
812
.2
BGR
Ener
gyCa
p Goo
ds13
7 9
,854
3
5,20
4 4
0,64
0 4
,281
4
,820
1
,329
1
,622
18
.422
.5-1
8.0
22.1
7.4
6.1
0.8
0.7
6.7
7.3
10.2
11.6
5.9
5.9
BHEL
Cap G
oods
181
4,4
3,87
2 3
,84,
099
3,5
4,63
5 4
5,92
1 3
9,20
5 3
4,28
4 2
8,22
0 14
.011
.5-4
8.2
-17.
712
.915
.71.
41.
38.
09.
110
.58.
18.
56.
9
Alst
om T&
DCa
p Goo
ds26
2 6
7,19
9 3
4,32
6 3
8,09
3 3
,103
4
,015
1
,119
1
,879
4.
47.
3-1
0.8
67.9
60.1
35.8
5.4
4.9
22.5
17.0
10.4
14.3
10.8
12.7
Crom
pton
Gre
aves
Cap G
oods
178
1,1
1,71
7 1
,34,
314
1,4
4,35
4 6
,872
1
1,07
4 2
,674
5
,391
4.
38.
622
3.6
101.
641
.820
.72.
82.
618
.811
.46.
812
.55.
59.
1
Jyot
i Stru
ctur
esCa
p Goo
ds37
3,0
44
30,
703
30,
855
2,9
64
2,9
47
722
6
41
8.8
7.8
11.3
-11.
44.
24.
80.
40.
43.
83.
88.
97.
410
.910
.9
KEC
Inte
rnat
iona
lCa
p Goo
ds74
19,
102
79,
751
84,
659
5,0
46
6,2
93
1,0
39
1,8
10
4.0
7.0
59.4
74.3
18.4
10.6
1.5
1.4
7.8
6.2
8.4
13.1
8.4
9.8
Lars
en &
Toub
roCa
p Goo
ds12
98 1
2,02
,901
5
,71,
938
6,5
1,89
7 5
9,14
2 6
9,19
5 4
2,33
8 4
8,23
7 45
.952
.3-7
.313
.928
.324
.83.
73.
321
.017
.813
.113
.411
.211
.3
Siem
ens
Cap G
oods
756
2,6
9,31
6 1
,11,
452
1,1
4,45
1 4
,831
6
,920
4
,313
4
,620
12
.113
.0-1
8.8
7.1
62.4
58.3
6.7
6.3
54.5
37.6
10.7
10.8
7.8
8.3
Cum
min
s Ind
iaCa
p Goo
ds56
8 1
,57,
547
39,
772
44,
183
6,2
53
7,2
23
6,0
48
6,7
35
21.8
24.3
-8.8
11.4
26.1
23.4
6.0
5.4
24.5
21.3
22.9
23.1
20.1
20.6
Ther
max
Cap G
oods
731
87,
115
51,
341
58,
176
4,1
40
5,6
22
2,6
93
3,4
04
22.6
28.6
-11.
426
.432
.425
.64.
33.
921
.015
.213
.315
.111
.213
.6
VA Te
ch W
abag
Cap G
oods
773
20,
557
20,
211
27,
626
1,5
57
2,3
59
912
1
,366
34
.451
.41.
049
.722
.515
.02.
62.
311
.47.
911
.615
.310
.113
.2
Volta
sCa
p Goo
ds16
4 5
4,24
9 5
2,42
6 5
4,53
1 2
,427
3
,020
1
,818
2
,340
5.
57.
1-6
.828
.729
.823
.23.
12.
821
.517
.210
.412
.210
.512
.1
ACC
Cem
ent
1361
2,5
5,52
1 1
,09,
084
1,2
4,74
7 1
3,69
0 1
9,90
1 1
0,94
7 1
1,87
6 58
.263
.2-2
1.5
8.5
23.4
21.5
3.3
3.1
16.8
12.5
14.0
14.3
11.7
11.4
Ambu
ja C
emen
tCe
men
t21
4 3
,30,
856
91,
180
2,2
6,62
0 1
5,68
9 3
8,88
8 1
2,53
8 1
7,84
5 8.
19.
0-2
0.6
11.0
26.3
23.7
3.5
2.3
18.6
8.1
13.3
9.6
11.8
13.7
Indi
a Ce
men
tCe
men
t74
22,
701
53,
635
59,
954
6,8
56
7,7
78
18
686
0.
12.
2-9
9.2
3807
.312
93.4
33.1
0.6
0.6
7.7
6.5
0.0
1.7
3.2
4.2
Man
gala
m C
emen
tCe
men
t13
4 3
,585
7
,117
1
0,17
1 4
84
1,2
89
156
3
88
5.8
14.5
-79.
914
9.2
23.0
9.2
0.7
0.7
16.4
6.2
3.1
7.3
2.4
5.9
Shre
e Ce
men
tCe
men
t58
56 2
,04,
012
59,
036
68,
020
13,
252
16,
215
6,2
52
7,5
42
179.
521
6.5
-37.
720
.632
.627
.14.
64.
014
.912
.214
.114
.713
.313
.9
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tion
Sum
mar
y
Note
: For
ban
ks, E
BITD
A is
pre-
prov
ision
pro
fit
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 28
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Net S
ales
EB
IDTA
PA
TEP
S (Rs
)EP
S Gro
wth
(%)
P/E (
x)
P/B
(x)
EV/
EBITD
A (x
) RO
E (%
)RO
CE (%
)
Nam
e of c
ompa
nySe
ctor
RsRs
mn
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
FY14
EFY
15E
Ultra
tech
Cem
ent
Cem
ent
2214
6,0
7,21
2 2
,29,
854
2,7
0,89
3 4
0,68
2 5
7,57
5 2
1,23
4 2
8,92
9 77
.410
5.5
-20.
736
.228
.621
.03.
53.
117
.012
.112
.414
.78.
710
.8
OCL I
ndia
Cem
ent
184
10,
453
19,
195
22,
072
2,9
24
3,4
24
1,0
50
734
18
.412
.9-3
4.2
-30.
110
.014
.20.
90.
96.
96.
29.
16.
06.
86.
0
JK La
kshm
i Cem
ent
Cem
ent
127
14,
944
20,
290
22,
694
2,9
48
3,8
98
465
6
35
4.0
5.4
-75.
736
.532
.123
.51.
21.
19.
77.
93.
64.
74.
05.
1
Heid
elbe
rgCe
men
t Ind
iaCe
men
t45
10,
288
13,
824
16,
925
1,0
76
2,0
82
(195
) 1
36
-0.9
0.6
-163
.2-1
69.5
-52.
875
.91.
21.
220
.610
.5-2
.31.
62.
23.
6
JK C
emen
tCe
men
t25
3 1
7,68
7 2
8,17
8 3
8,39
4 3
,449
4
,737
7
58
1,3
63
10.8
19.5
-67.
179
.723
.313
.01.
01.
012
.17.
64.
37.
44.
36.
2
Dalm
ia B
hara
t Ltd
Cem
ent
275
22,
347
27,
439
36,
197
4,4
11
6,6
59
29
1,1
86
0.4
14.6
-98.
539
82.7
769.
118
.80.
70.
713
.69.
20.
13.
72.
84.
7
Andh
ra B
ank
Finan
cials
64 3
7,79
4 4
1,37
0 4
6,98
6 4
1,37
0 4
6,98
6 1
2,18
0 1
4,37
0 21
.825
.7-5
.518
.02.
92.
50.
40.
3NM
NM13
.814
.70.
80.
8
Bank
of B
arod
a Fin
ancia
ls75
3 3
,23,
178
1,2
0,69
6 1
,43,
419
1,2
0,69
6 1
,43,
419
46,
500
52,
094
108.
012
1.0
0.1
12.0
7.0
6.2
1.0
0.9
NMNM
14.4
14.6
0.8
0.8
Bank
of I
ndia
Fin
ancia
ls22
1 1
,42,
101
1,0
6,28
9 1
,28,
652
1,0
6,28
9 1
,28,
652
30,
691
37,
211
47.7
57.9
3.6
21.2
4.6
3.8
0.5
0.5
NMNM
12.6
13.6
0.6
0.6
Cana
ra B
ank
Finan
cials
269
1,2
4,05
6 8
7,18
8 1
,06,
493
87,
188
1,0
6,49
3 2
2,32
9 3
1,77
9 48
.468
.9-2
5.3
42.3
5.6
3.9
0.5
0.5
NMNM
9.3
12.4
0.5
0.6
Corp
orat
ion
bank
Finan
cials
285
47,
682
38,
750
44,
906
38,
750
44,
906
13,
743
16,
500
79.5
85.5
-15.
37.
63.
63.
30.
40.
4NM
NM13
.213
.30.
70.
7
HDFC
Ban
kFin
ancia
ls72
3 1
7,35
,473
1
,84,
234
2,2
2,36
7 1
,84,
234
2,2
2,36
7 8
5,36
4 1
,01,
908
35.9
42.8
26.9
19.4
20.2
16.9
4.0
3.4
NMNM
21.6
21.8
2.0
2.0
ICIC
I Ban
kFin
ancia
ls12
18 1
4,06
,665
1
,66,
253
1,9
0,55
4 1
,66,
253
1,9
0,55
4 9
7,18
3 1
,08,
004
84.1
93.2
16.5
10.9
14.5
13.1
1.9
1.8
NMNM
13.9
14.1
1.7
1.7
IOB
Finan
cials
52 6
3,80
6 5
7,90
2 6
7,31
8 5
7,90
2 6
7,31
8 7
,740
1
1,13
4 6.
67.
97.
420
.27.
86.
50.
40.
4NM
NM5.
87.
30.
30.
4
Orie
ntal
Ban
k Fin
ancia
ls22
1 6
6,17
7 5
1,01
1 5
7,04
5 5
1,01
1 5
7,04
5 1
1,18
0 1
3,86
2 37
.346
.2-1
8.1
24.0
5.9
4.8
0.5
0.5
NMNM
8.9
10.2
0.5
0.6
PNB
Finan
cials
763
2,7
6,25
9 1
,65,
127
1,8
8,75
8 1
,65,
127
1,8
8,75
8 3
4,91
1 4
5,40
7 98
.812
8.5
-26.
530
.17.
75.
90.
80.
7NM
NM10
.712
.80.
70.
8
SBI
Finan
cials
1964
14,
65,8
96
6,7
3,37
1 7
,93,
549
6,7
3,37
1 7
,93,
549
1,3
6,33
9 1
,60,
717
182.
621
5.3
-30.
317
.910
.89.
11.
00.
9NM
NM9.
710
.20.
60.
6
Unio
n Ba
nk
Finan
cials
152
95,
491
78,
033
87,
433
78,
033
87,
433
15,
610
18,
265
24.8
29.0
-31.
517
.06.
15.
20.
60.
5NM
NM9.
510
.30.
50.
5
HDFC
Finan
cials
888
13,
85,4
32
74,
608
86,
872
78,
513
91,
217
56,
585
65,
676
36.3
42.1
15.7
16.1
24.5
21.1
5.1
4.4
NMNM
21.2
21.7
2.8
2.7
Indi
an B
ank
Finan
cials
130
60,
407
44,
320
52,
207
44,
320
52,
207
11,
246
13,
504
24.2
31.4
-34.
229
.85.
44.
10.
50.
4NM
NM10
.211
.20.
60.
7
Deve
lopm
ent C
redi
t Ban
kFin
ancia
ls66
16,
459
3,6
93
4,2
80
3,6
93
4,2
80
1,5
20
1,5
89
6.1
6.4
48.9
4.5
10.8
10.3
1.5
1.3
NMNM
14.8
13.5
1.2
1.1
AXIS
Ban
kFin
ancia
ls14
46 6
,79,
278
1,1
7,90
9 1
,32,
875
1,1
7,90
9 1
,32,
875
60,
539
66,
805
128.
714
1.3
16.3
9.8
11.2
10.2
1.8
1.6
NMNM
17.0
16.3
1.7
1.7
Indu
sind
Bank
Finan
cials
484
2,5
4,39
5 2
8,59
2 3
4,08
6 2
8,59
2 3
4,08
6 1
3,85
6 1
7,07
1 26
.532
.630
.623
.218
.314
.82.
92.
5NM
NM17
.318
.31.
71.
8
Shrir
am Tr
ansp
ort F
inan
ceFin
ancia
ls73
4 1
,66,
623
37,
012
40,
499
30,
159
32,
179
12,
960
14,
744
57.2
65.0
-4.7
13.8
12.8
11.3
2.1
1.8
NMNM
17.0
17.3
2.7
2.6
LIC
Hous
ing
Finan
ceFin
ancia
ls26
5 1
,33,
786
18,
645
22,
158
18,
259
21,
504
12,
927
15,
406
25.6
30.5
26.3
19.2
10.4
8.7
1.8
1.5
NMNM
18.4
18.8
1.5
1.5
Hind
usta
n Un
ileve
rFM
CG61
2 1
3,24
,219
2
,75,
885
3,0
6,80
5 5
0,46
2 5
8,35
2 3
5,55
5 4
0,64
0 16
.418
.86.
214
.337
.232
.634
.624
.125
.721
.992
.973
.910
9.9
87.5
Mar
ico In
dust
ries
FMCG
210
1,3
5,52
0 4
8,32
6 5
4,54
8 7
,148
8
,685
4
,654
5
,280
7.
28.
227
.713
.529
.125
.79.
48.
419
.415
.932
.132
.819
.124
.0
Jubi
lant
Food
wor
ksFM
CG10
30 6
7,37
3 1
7,51
8 2
2,60
0 2
,679
3
,113
1
,346
1
,542
20
.623
.6-0
.414
.649
.943
.611
.89.
325
.221
.423
.621
.326
.323
.2
Godr
ej C
onsu
mer
FMCG
840
2,8
5,90
1 7
8,13
6 8
9,35
5 1
1,45
1 1
3,52
1 7
,686
9
,132
22
.626
.83.
418
.837
.231
.37.
66.
626
.021
.720
.521
.014
.918
.0
ITCFM
CG34
1 2
7,12
,035
3
,27,
341
3,7
9,30
1 1
,21,
888
1,4
3,43
9 8
4,97
1 1
,00,
219
10.8
12.7
13.8
17.9
31.7
26.9
10.5
8.9
21.8
18.3
33.1
32.9
27.4
28.4
Nest
leFM
CG48
30 4
,65,
717
92,
304
1,0
6,56
5 2
0,65
0 2
3,78
7 1
1,53
6 1
3,69
1 11
9.6
142.
08.
118
.740
.434
.020
.316
.222
.719
.550
.247
.638
.038
.2
Colg
ate
FMCG
1396
1,8
9,89
4 3
5,32
4 4
0,82
5 6
,475
7
,699
4
,879
5
,643
35
.941
.5-1
.815
.738
.933
.735
.331
.328
.724
.190
.893
.010
4.3
98.6
Glax
o Sm
ithkl
ine C
onsu
mer
FMCG
4377
1,8
4,07
5 3
5,64
0 4
1,25
0 5
,271
6
,586
5
,165
6
,289
12
2.8
149.
518
.321
.835
.629
.311
.49.
931
.825
.332
.133
.934
.636
.2
Agro
Tech
Food
sFM
CG50
9 1
2,40
4 8
,342
9
,427
7
09
837
4
76
581
19
.523
.814
.221
.926
.121
.44.
43.
717
.414
.116
.717
.416
.917
.1
Dabu
rFM
CG17
9 3
,11,
794
70,
891
82,
186
11,
799
14,
523
9,0
06
11,
232
5.2
6.5
16.9
24.7
34.5
27.7
11.1
9.0
26.7
21.3
32.3
32.5
25.3
26.7
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tion
Sum
mar
y
29GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es
EBID
TA
PAT
EPS
(Rs)
EP
S Gr
owth
(%)
P/E
(x)
P/B
(x)
EV/E
BITD
A (x
) R
OE (%
) RO
CE (%
)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
E
Emam
iFM
CG46
7 1
,06,
096
18,
837
22,
014
4,2
42
4,8
09
3,8
15
4,2
24
16.8
18.6
21.2
10.7
27.8
25.1
11.1
8.7
24.5
21.1
40.0
34.8
38.6
35.0
Brita
nnia
FMCG
881
1,0
5,60
7 6
9,89
2 8
0,17
9 5
,969
7
,137
3
,950
5
,011
33
.141
.952
.126
.826
.621
.013
.610
.018
.214
.650
.947
.738
.842
.1
Baja
j Cor
pFM
CG21
7 3
2,06
7 6
,984
8
,494
1
,801
2
,113
1
,744
1
,986
11
.813
.54.
113
.918
.416
.16.
46.
317
.414
.634
.939
.228
.627
.6
Zydu
s Wel
lnes
sFM
CG52
0 2
0,32
1 4
,246
4
,898
1
,057
1
,208
1
,101
1
,232
28
.231
.513
.411
.818
.516
.56.
14.
816
.713
.932
.929
.237
.232
.7
Asia
n Pa
ints
FMCG
535
5,1
2,97
9 1
,24,
901
1,4
5,71
9 1
9,60
3 2
2,74
9 1
2,29
8 1
4,39
8 12
.815
.010
.417
.141
.735
.612
.710
.725
.922
.030
.530
.030
.831
.0
Balra
mpu
r Chi
niFM
CG56
13,
723
31,
031
33,
081
2,6
77
3,2
61
374
7
73
1.5
3.2
-76.
810
6.7
36.6
17.7
1.0
1.0
9.4
7.8
2.9
5.7
4.4
6.1
Tila
knag
arFM
CG65
8,0
70
8,7
90
10,
626
1,9
05
2,3
96
735
9
27
6.0
7.6
21.3
26.1
10.8
8.6
1.4
1.2
8.0
6.8
12.6
14.1
12.4
13.3
Radi
co K
haita
nFM
CG12
9 1
7,16
9 1
4,18
8 1
6,12
2 2
,217
2
,612
9
57
1,2
04
7.2
9.1
23.8
25.8
17.9
14.2
2.1
1.9
11.2
9.7
11.8
13.1
11.0
11.9
Berg
er P
aint
sFM
CG23
5 8
1,30
2 3
8,95
8 4
5,68
9 4
,340
5
,237
2
,553
3
,041
7.
48.
813
.519
.131
.826
.77.
36.
119
.716
.322
.822
.821
.421
.9
GMR
Infra
stru
ctur
eIn
frastr
uctu
re25
98,
284
84,
578
94,
736
25,
751
36,
678
(14,
881)
(5,2
21)
-3.8
-1.3
226.
4-6
4.9
-6.6
-18.
81.
11.
216
.311
.1-1
7.0
-6.4
2.7
2.6
GVK
Pow
erIn
frastr
uctu
re13
20,
009
20,
272
28,
909
10,
172
17,
228
(2,2
17)
(7,0
74)
-1.4
-4.5
-34.
021
9.1
-9.0
-2.8
0.6
0.8
23.1
13.9
-7.2
-27.
51.
21.
0
IRB
Infra
stru
ctur
eIn
frastr
uctu
re11
5 3
8,33
8 3
7,03
4 3
6,83
5 1
7,23
7 2
0,19
3 4
,472
4
,238
13
.512
.8-1
9.7
-5.2
8.6
9.0
1.0
0.9
7.4
7.3
12.1
10.3
7.1
6.6
Adan
i Por
ts &
SEZ
Infra
struc
ture
187
3,8
6,78
9 4
3,54
2 4
4,52
4 2
8,08
1 3
1,87
0 2
2,30
5 2
3,99
0 10
.811
.622
.17.
617
.316
.14.
13.
415
.112
.923
.821
.213
.613
.2
HCL T
echn
olog
ies
IT Se
rvice
s14
24 9
,96,
385
2,5
7,69
4 3
,33,
109
57,
539
86,
754
40,
142
61,
818
56.9
87.5
63.3
53.7
25.0
16.3
7.0
5.3
17.6
11.6
28.1
32.7
26.3
32.7
Info
sys
IT Se
rvice
s32
60 1
8,72
,268
5
,01,
492
5,4
8,77
6 1
,33,
448
1,4
9,87
8 1
,04,
873
1,1
6,32
5 18
3.5
203.
611
.310
.917
.816
.04.
13.
412
.010
.422
.921
.524
.523
.3
TCS
IT Se
rvice
s22
52 4
4,10
,174
8
,22,
565
9,8
4,30
1 2
,53,
126
3,0
2,71
8 1
,89,
067
2,3
2,50
3 96
.511
8.7
35.5
23.0
23.3
19.0
8.5
6.6
17.4
14.5
36.2
34.6
38.9
37.4
Tech
Mah
indr
aIT
Serv
ices
1763
4,1
1,54
3 1
,88,
802
2,2
4,11
6 4
2,03
5 4
9,88
6 3
1,49
7 3
3,75
0 13
2.6
141.
748
.46.
913
.312
.43.
82.
99.
17.
428
.323
.529
.225
.4
Wip
roIT
Serv
ices
589
14,
52,7
43
4,3
5,42
9 4
,92,
256
98,
016
1,1
1,22
1 7
6,86
7 8
9,14
5 31
.236
.225
.215
.918
.916
.34.
53.
814
.712
.823
.723
.424
.124
.0
Pers
iste
nt S
yste
ms
IT Se
rvice
s10
67 4
2,68
8 1
6,75
6 1
9,96
9 4
,311
5
,206
2
,579
3
,194
64
.579
.937
.523
.916
.613
.43.
52.
99.
88.
021
.322
.020
.321
.6
KPIT
Tech
nolo
gies
IT Se
rvice
s16
1 3
1,24
6 2
7,01
6 3
1,10
3 4
,179
4
,883
2
,512
3
,134
13
.416
.923
.026
.012
.09.
52.
41.
97.
86.
720
.220
.518
.319
.2
Zee
Ente
rtain
men
tM
edia
267
2,5
6,05
6 4
3,41
4 4
9,89
6 1
1,81
1 1
4,92
2 7
,545
9
,466
7.
99.
95.
525
.533
.726
.96.
55.
821
.216
.619
.321
.523
.024
.5
HT M
edia
Med
ia90
20,
831
22,
064
23,
766
3,1
14
3,4
93
1,8
91
2,1
83
8.0
9.3
12.8
15.4
11.1
9.6
1.2
1.0
4.2
3.1
10.3
10.5
11.4
11.5
Sun
TV N
etw
ork
Med
ia39
9 1
,57,
062
22,
147
25,
169
11,
186
13,
279
7,1
45
8,2
94
18.1
21.0
0.7
16.1
22.0
18.9
4.7
4.0
13.7
11.2
21.6
21.2
22.9
23.1
Jagr
an P
raka
shan
Med
ia10
3 3
3,73
7 1
7,24
3 1
9,08
0 4
,009
4
,331
2
,037
2
,396
6.
47.
6-4
.117
.616
.013
.63.
22.
99.
68.
620
.121
.014
.213
.9
Den
Netw
orks
Med
ia18
7 3
3,23
4 1
0,96
1 1
8,84
0 2
,951
6
,227
4
11
1,9
34
2.8
13.2
-42.
537
0.0
66.4
14.1
1.5
1.4
9.2
5.5
2.3
9.7
6.3
10.8
Dish
TVM
edia
49 5
1,64
8 2
4,06
6 2
6,88
6 5
,565
6
,390
(1
,030
) (2
47)
-1.0
-0.2
56.0
-76.
0-5
0.2
-209
.1-2
0.0
-18.
210
.99.
339
.88.
7-2
.69.
0
Hath
way
Cab
leM
edia
234
35,
591
15,
734
22,
845
3,2
86
6,0
28
(823
) 1
,003
-5
.66.
6-6
.2-2
18.2
-41.
935
.53.
83.
613
.98.
6-9
.210
.01.
07.
7
Hind
alco
Inds
Met
als
134
2,7
7,06
8 8
,39,
351
9,4
2,25
0 8
3,02
8 1
,03,
972
24,
848
23,
802
12.0
11.5
-23.
9-4
.211
.211
.60.
70.
710
.18.
46.
45.
84.
04.
3
NALC
O M
etal
s39
1,0
0,64
1 6
6,68
3 7
2,62
4 9
,126
1
1,96
1 6
,834
8
,591
2.
73.
315
.325
.714
.711
.70.
80.
86.
45.
25.
66.
85.
16.
2
Hind
usta
n Zi
ncM
etal
s13
1 5
,51,
404
1,3
2,11
7 1
,38,
756
68,
822
70,
356
66,
299
69,
550
15.7
16.5
-4.2
4.9
8.3
7.9
1.5
1.3
4.3
3.6
17.8
16.3
17.8
16.5
Tata
Ste
elM
etal
s40
8 3
,96,
644
14,
84,3
24
15,
38,7
20
1,5
7,00
1 1
,72,
854
36,
801
36,
567
37.8
37.6
1005
.6-0
.610
.810
.91.
11.
06.
86.
410
.19.
46.
46.
3
JSW
Ste
elM
etal
s10
15 2
,45,
251
4,9
8,93
6 5
,24,
669
91,
138
1,0
4,81
5 2
3,77
1 2
9,09
3 98
.312
1.2
57.5
23.3
10.3
8.4
1.2
1.0
6.2
5.5
11.3
12.3
5.2
8.6
SAIL
Met
als
70 2
,87,
453
4,6
3,34
5 5
,11,
913
43,
534
59,
861
19,
639
19,
884
4.8
4.8
-16.
71.
214
.614
.50.
70.
711
.69.
44.
64.
54.
63.
8
Sesa
Ste
rlite
Met
als
190
5,6
2,54
7 6
,40,
987
8,3
8,98
3 2
,11,
086
3,0
6,02
1 6
0,16
5 8
1,95
2 20
.327
.6-2
3.4
36.2
9.4
6.9
0.8
0.7
5.5
3.5
8.4
10.4
14.5
10.4
Jind
al S
teel
& P
ower
Met
als
269
2,4
5,96
7 2
,02,
539
2,6
7,54
9 6
1,18
9 8
5,24
7 2
0,02
3 2
1,84
8 21
.423
.4-3
1.2
9.1
12.6
11.5
1.1
1.0
9.3
6.5
8.7
8.7
5.2
5.7
Jind
al S
awM
etal
s61
16,
712
65,
531
70,
919
6,4
74
7,7
51
1,5
72
2,2
22
5.7
8.0
-13.
441
.410
.67.
50.
40.
410
.59.
34.
15.
63.
64.
1
Note
: For
ban
ks, E
BITD
A is
pre-
prov
ision
pro
fit
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 30
Note
: For
ban
ks, E
BITD
A is
pre-
prov
ision
pro
fit
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es
EBID
TA
PAT
EPS
(Rs)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
)
EV/E
BITD
A (x
) R
OE (%
) RO
CE (%
)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
EFY
14E
FY15
E
ONGC
Oil &
Gas
319
27,
32,1
96
17,
42,8
64
19,
20,1
85
5,8
5,00
1 7
,26,
330
2,7
8,69
1 3
,31,
920
32.6
38.8
15.1
19.1
9.8
8.2
1.7
1.5
4.9
3.9
17.6
18.3
12.6
14.5
Petro
net L
NGOi
l & G
as14
2 1
,06,
313
3,8
4,54
0 4
,59,
707
14,
881
18,
121
7,0
71
8,0
36
9.4
10.7
-38.
513
.715
.013
.22.
21.
98.
67.
114
.314
.69.
89.
8
Cairn
Indi
aOi
l & G
as35
8 6
,83,
790
1,8
5,71
5 1
,96,
352
1,4
1,57
7 1
,43,
606
1,1
8,87
1 1
,20,
022
62.2
62.8
2.4
1.0
5.8
5.7
1.2
1.0
3.8
3.3
20.6
18.0
22.5
18.0
GAIL
Oil &
Gas
368
4,6
6,29
2 5
,86,
357
5,9
2,53
4 7
2,42
0 7
9,47
7 4
8,09
2 4
7,64
9 35
.937
.613
.14.
710
.29.
81.
71.
57.
66.
616
.615
.512
.811
.6
Indr
apra
stha
Gas
Oil &
Gas
285
39,
893
39,
432
46,
838
7,9
97
8,2
93
3,6
76
3,8
98
26.3
27.8
3.8
6.0
10.9
10.2
2.3
2.0
5.3
4.9
22.6
20.6
16.6
15.4
Guja
rat S
tate
Pet
rone
tOi
l & G
as69
38,
998
10,
770
10,
731
9,9
19
9,8
67
4,8
83
4,8
58
8.7
8.6
0.1
-0.5
8.0
8.0
1.1
1.0
5.5
5.4
15.3
13.5
9.7
8.3
HSIL
Ltd
Othe
r14
3 9
,425
1
7,75
9 2
0,23
1 2
,313
2
,976
3
87
732
5.
911
.1-3
3.7
89.0
24.3
12.9
0.9
0.9
8.0
6.2
3.7
6.8
2.2
4.1
Gree
nply
Indu
strie
sOt
her
421
10,
158
21,
665
23,
853
2,7
95
3,0
06
1,1
24
1,2
40
46.6
51.4
-1.5
10.4
9.0
8.2
1.7
1.5
5.8
5.3
19.3
17.8
12.4
12.6
Tran
sfor
mer
s & R
ectifi
ers
Othe
r10
4 1
,489
6
,659
7
,216
3
30
432
1
32
192
10
.214
.917
8.9
45.3
10.1
7.0
0.4
0.4
7.9
6.1
3.8
5.3
4.4
5.6
Kaja
ria C
eram
icsOt
her
385
29,
062
18,
603
22,
051
2,7
16
3,4
18
1,1
61
1,5
30
15.4
20.2
8.1
31.7
25.0
19.0
5.9
4.7
11.4
9.0
23.4
24.9
26.2
29.2
Have
lls Lt
dOt
her
930
1,1
6,09
0 4
7,52
0 5
3,16
5 6
,409
7
,283
4
,645
5
,284
37
.242
.325
.113
.725
.022
.05.
24.
417
.314
.820
.920
.021
.720
.8
Auro
bind
o Ph
arm
aPh
arm
a55
8 1
,62,
662
77,
683
1,1
6,93
1 1
8,17
8 1
8,82
6 1
1,23
3 1
1,43
5 38
.639
.315
9.7
1.8
14.5
14.2
4.4
3.4
10.8
10.7
30.7
24.1
21.3
17.7
Bioc
onPh
arm
a45
2 9
0,31
0 2
8,39
5 3
3,64
0 6
,682
7
,815
4
,425
5
,205
22
.126
.027
.017
.620
.417
.43.
02.
613
.111
.413
.615
.113
.814
.4
Cadi
la H
ealth
care
Phar
ma
977
2,0
0,00
9 7
0,12
0 8
1,34
0 1
2,09
7 1
5,43
0 7
,395
9
,614
36
.147
.010
.430
.027
.020
.85.
95.
018
.614
.621
.824
.013
.015
.3
Divi
's La
bora
torie
sPh
arm
a13
21 1
,75,
296
25,
319
30,
991
10,
432
12,
489
7,8
38
9,4
60
59.1
71.4
30.5
20.7
22.3
18.5
5.6
4.5
16.6
13.7
25.2
24.5
0.0
0.0
Dr R
eddy
's La
bs.
Phar
ma
2577
4,3
8,26
1 1
,32,
881
1,5
5,42
2 3
2,95
4 3
7,30
1 2
0,85
8 2
3,79
7 12
2.6
139.
923
.314
.121
.018
.44.
83.
913
.912
.122
.821
.115
.315
.3
Glen
mar
k Ph
arm
aPh
arm
a58
1 1
,57,
676
60,
036
71,
252
12,
851
15,
679
7,0
02
9,1
87
25.9
33.9
10.3
31.2
22.5
17.1
4.6
3.7
13.7
11.0
20.6
21.6
14.0
16.2
Ipca
Labo
rato
ries
Phar
ma
808
1,0
1,97
1 3
1,63
2 3
7,01
6 8
,066
9
,477
5
,097
6
,110
40
.748
.829
.619
.919
.916
.65.
03.
913
.411
.425
.423
.820
.920
.6
Lupi
nPh
arm
a95
3 4
,27,
212
1,1
0,14
5 1
,33,
189
27,
610
33,
251
16,
635
19,
933
37.2
44.5
25.4
19.8
25.6
21.4
6.4
5.1
15.5
12.6
25.1
23.8
31.4
30.9
Sun
Phar
ma
Phar
ma
616
12,
76,4
20
1,5
9,33
8 1
,78,
015
70,
373
75,
376
50,
886
52,
098
24.6
25.2
40.0
2.4
25.1
24.5
6.6
5.4
17.4
15.8
26.3
22.0
25.5
20.7
Phoe
nix
Mill
s Re
al E
state
247
35,
726
12,
165
15,
674
5,6
34
7,7
98
2,2
04
3,4
70
15.2
24.0
168.
857
.516
.210
.31.
71.
69.
97.
211
.315
.48.
110
.1
DLF
Real
Esta
te16
6 2
,95,
632
83,
499
1,0
2,19
3 2
8,52
9 3
6,26
2 8
,199
9
,484
4.
85.
67.
015
.734
.529
.91.
01.
017
.313
.72.
83.
25.
15.
4
Unite
ch Lt
dRe
al E
state
17 4
3,40
2 2
7,84
4 3
2,50
5 5
,012
7
,586
3
,244
5
,141
1.
22.
054
.858
.513
.48.
40.
40.
419
.612
.82.
84.
32.
02.
9
Ober
oi R
ealty
Real
Esta
te22
0 7
2,34
3 6
,748
1
6,87
5 3
,871
9
,474
2
,953
6
,284
9.
019
.1-4
1.5
112.
824
.511
.51.
71.
517
.68.
56.
813
.16.
913
.8
Futu
re R
etai
lRe
tail
100
22,
410
1,1
7,34
7 1
,05,
209
10,
327
9,8
90
(179
) 3
03
-0.8
1.3
-126
.0-2
69.6
-129
.676
.40.
70.
77.
18.
1-0
.50.
94.
44.
3
Shop
pers
Sto
pRe
tail
365
30,
370
38,
393
46,
532
1,1
85
1,8
89
(76)
216
-0
.92.
6-2
7.7
-385
.0-4
00.1
140.
46.
15.
931
.219
.7-1
.54.
2-1
.22.
9
Raym
ond
Ltd
Reta
il31
7 1
9,46
7 4
4,90
8 5
0,61
4 4
,895
5
,821
1
,413
2
,029
23
.033
.114
5.0
43.5
13.8
9.6
1.3
1.2
6.7
5.4
9.5
12.1
7.8
9.1
Bata
Indi
aRe
tail
1085
69,
745
20,
649
24,
453
3,2
21
3,9
37
2,0
52
2,6
03
31.9
40.5
19.3
26.8
34.0
26.8
8.3
6.7
20.7
16.2
24.3
24.9
25.4
27.5
Tita
n Co
mpa
nyRe
tail
257
2,2
8,56
1 1
,11,
593
1,2
4,50
9 1
0,60
1 1
2,70
0 7
,342
8
,717
8.
39.
81.
318
.731
.126
.29.
07.
121
.717
.932
.630
.429
.524
.2
Tren
tRe
tail
996
33,
085
25,
290
30,
836
643
1
,471
4
10
1,0
12
12.3
30.4
78.7
146.
880
.832
.72.
62.
454
.423
.63.
27.
32.
95.
9
Bhar
ti Ai
rtel
Tele
com
325
12,
97,7
56
8,6
2,52
8 9
,62,
625
2,7
8,23
2 3
,15,
423
20,
626
54,
185
5.2
13.5
107.
216
2.7
63.0
24.0
2.3
2.0
6.8
5.6
3.6
8.5
4.7
6.6
Relia
nce
Com
mun
icatio
nsTe
leco
m13
3 2
,74,
928
2,1
7,64
3 2
,31,
552
74,
698
81,
152
10,
638
17,
083
5.2
8.3
42.6
60.6
25.8
16.1
0.9
0.9
8.5
7.4
3.6
5.4
4.0
4.3
Bhar
ti In
frate
lTe
leco
m19
6 3
,70,
586
66,
512
73,
378
43,
721
48,
620
14,
374
17,
302
7.6
9.2
43.7
20.4
25.8
21.4
2.0
2.0
8.0
6.9
7.9
9.4
7.0
7.9
Idea
Cel
lula
rTe
leco
m14
0 4
,66,
242
2,6
3,70
1 3
,01,
327
82,
688
98,
080
19,
555
24,
168
5.5
6.8
81.3
23.6
25.4
20.5
2.5
2.2
7.1
6.8
9.8
10.8
7.6
7.9
OnM
obile
Glo
bal
Tele
com
36 4
,152
8
,970
1
0,36
1 1
,569
2
,207
2
41
626
2.
05.
1-5
2.1
159.
918
.47.
10.
40.
41.
40.
62.
45.
82.
65.
8
Tata
Com
mun
icatio
nTe
leco
m31
2 8
8,89
2 1
,94,
499
2,1
3,87
5 3
0,61
7 3
6,73
1 2
,577
6
,356
9.
022
.3-1
35.4
146.
734
.514
.05.
64.
26.
55.
116
.330
.04.
56.
0
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tion
Sum
mar
y
31GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014
Disclosures and Disclaimers
PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. has three independent equity research groups: Institutional Equities, Institutional Equity Deriv-atives and Private Client Group. This report has been prepared by Institutional Equities Group. The views and opinions expressed in this document may or may not match or may be contrary at times with the views, estimates, rating, target price of the other equity research groups of PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This report is issued by PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. which is regulated by SEBI. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Phillip (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. References to "PCIPL" in this report shall mean PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd unless otherwise stated. This report is prepared and distributed by PCIPL for information purposes only and neither the information contained herein nor any opinion expressed should be construed or deemed to be construed as solicitation or as offering advice for the purposes of the purchase or sale of any security, investment or derivatives. The information and opinions contained in the Report were considered by PCIPL to be valid when published. The report also contains information provided to PCIPL by third parties. The source of such information will usually be disclosed in the report. Whilst PCIPL has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that this information is correct, PCIPL does not offer any warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Any person plac-ing reliance on the report to undertake trading does so entirely at his or her own risk and PCIPL does not accept any liability as a result. Securities and Derivatives markets may be subject to rapid and unexpected price movements and past performance is not necessarily an indication to future performance.
This report does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person who may receive this report. Investors must undertake independent analysis with their own legal, tax and financial advisors and reach their own regarding the appropri-ateness of investing in any securities or investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects may not be realized. In no circumstances it be used or considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell the Securities mentioned in it. The information contained in the research reports may have been taken from trade and statistical services and other sources, which we believe are reliable. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. or any of its group/associate/affiliate companies do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Any opinions expressed reflect judg-ments at this date and are subject to change without notice
Important: These disclosures and disclaimers must be read in conjunction with the research report of which it forms part. Receipt and use of the research report is subject to all aspects of these disclosures and disclaimers. Additional information about the issuers and securities discussed in this research report is available on request.
Certifications: The research analyst(s) who prepared this research report hereby certifies that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect the research analyst’s personal views about all of the subject issuers and/or securities, that the analyst have no known conflict of interest and no part of the research analyst’s compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific views or recommendations con-tained in this research report. The Research Analyst certifies that he /she or his / her family members does not own the stock(s) covered in this research report.
Independence: PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. has not had an investment banking relationship with, and has not received any compensation for investment banking services from, the subject issuers in the past twelve (12) months, and PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd does not anticipate receiving or intend to seek compensation for investment banking services from the subject issuers in the next three (3) months. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt.
Ltd is not a market maker in the securities mentioned in this research report, although it or its affiliates may hold either long or short positions in such securities. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd does not hold more than 1% of the shares of the company(ies) covered in this report.
Suitability and Risks: This research report is for information-al purposes only and is not tailored to the specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular requirements of any individual recipient hereof. Certain securities may give rise to substantial risks and may not be suitable for certain investors. Each investor must make its own determination as to the appropriateness of any securities referred to in this research report based upon the legal, tax and accounting considerations applicable to such investor and its own investment objectives or strategy, its financial situation and its investing experience. The value of any security may be positively or adversely affected by changes in foreign exchange or interest rates, as well as by other financial, economic or political factors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance or results.
Sources, Completeness and Accuracy: The material herein is based upon information obtained from sources that PCIPL and the research analyst believe to be reliable, but neither PCIPL nor the research analyst represents or guarantees that the informa-tion contained herein is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Opinions expressed herein are current opinions as of the date appearing on this material and are subject to change without notice. Furthermore, PCIPL is under no obligation to update or keep the information current.
Copyright: The copyright in this research report belongs exclusively to PCIPL. All rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. No reprinting or reproduction, in whole or in part, is permitted without the PCIPL’s prior consent, except that a recipient may reprint it for internal circulation only and only if it is reprinted in its entirety.
Caution: Risk of loss in trading in can be substantial. You should carefully consider whether trading is appropriate for you in light of your experience, objectives, financial resources and other relevant circumstances.
For U.S. persons only: This research report is a product of PhillipCapital (India) Pvt Ltd. which is the employer of the research analyst(s) who has prepared the research report. The research analyst(s) preparing the research report is/are resident outside the United States (U.S.) and are not associated persons of any U.S. regulated broker-dealer and therefore the analyst(s) is/are not subject to supervision by a U.S. broker-dealer, and is/are not required to satisfy the regulatory licensing requirements of FINRA or required to otherwise comply with U.S. rules or reg-ulations regarding, among other things, communications with a subject company, public appearances and trading securities held by a research analyst account.
This report is intended for distribution by PhillipCapital (India) Pvt Ltd. only to "Major Institutional Investors" as defined by Rule 15a-6(b)(4) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Act, 1934 (the Exchange Act) and interpretations thereof by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in reliance on Rule 15a 6(a)(2). If the recipient of this report is not a Major Institutional Investor as specified above, then it should not act upon this report and return the same to the sender. Further, this report may not be copied, duplicated and/or transmitted onward to any U.S. person, which is not the Major Institutional Investor.
In reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 15a-6 of the Exchange Act and interpretations thereof by the SEC in order to conduct certain business with Major Institu-tional Investors, PhillipCapital (India) Pvt Ltd. has entered into an agreement with a U.S. registered broker-dealer, Marco Polo Securities Inc. ("Marco Polo").Transactions in securities discussed in this research report should be effected through Marco Polo or another U.S. registered broker dealer
GROUND ZERO 16th - 30th April 2014 32
top related