Menu

Markets

IndusInd Bank Facing Investigation, Assessing the Impact on Shareholders
Banking, Equities, Markets - January 15, 2026

IndusInd Bank Facing Investigation, Assessing the Impact on Shareholders

IndusInd Bank Facing Investigation, Assessing the Impact on Shareholders

On 24-26 December 2025 the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, SFIO, opened a formal enquiry into IndusInd Bank after internal and external checks flagged accounting discrepancies in the bank’s derivatives and related disclosures, reportedly amounting to about ₹2,600 crore, which spooked markets and pushed the stock lower on the day.

*What Happened*
Regulators asked IndusInd Bank to provide documents related to an ongoing internal review that identified issues in parts of its derivatives portfolio, and the SFIO has now begun a probe, which is a step beyond company-level forensics. Media reports on 24-26 December 2025 said the discrepancies under review are in the order of ₹2,600 crore, and the bank confirmed receipt of an information request from SFIO. The announcement caused a one-day share reaction and renewed investor caution about the bank’s disclosures.

*IndusInd Bank’s Financial Position Before the Investigation*
To judge the potential impact it helps to know IndusInd’s recent financials. In Q2 FY26, reported in October 2025, the bank disclosed operating stresses with consolidated total income and profitability declining, and the quarter ending 30 September 2025 recorded a consolidated net loss of around ₹437 crore. The bank’s regulatory capital ratios were however comfortable at that time, with a reported *Total Capital Adequacy Ratio of 17.10% and Tier-1 at 15.88%* as on 30 September 2025. These ratios give some cushion, but headline profitability and the one-off items matter for markets.

*How the Market Reacted*
On 26 December 2025 the shares dipped, with intraday lows around ₹837-₹848, reflecting investor concern about potential earnings and reputational fallout, as well as the possibility of regulatory fines or provisions if the probe finds material problems. Even so, IndusInd traded well below its 52-week high of about ₹1,086 earlier in 2025, which means some downside was already priced in from earlier stresses. Market moves matter because they show how quickly confidence can change, and because bank funding costs and investor appetite are sensitive to reputational shocks.

*How Derivatives and Accounting Issues Can Impact Bank Stability*
Derivatives are used by banks to hedge or take positions in interest rates and currencies, but they can be complex to value and disclose properly. If accounting for certain trades was incorrect, it can affect reported income, reserves and contingent liabilities, which then alters profit measures and capital adequacy in practice, even if headline CRAR appears healthy on past filings. Beyond numbers, regulatory probes can reduce management bandwidth, delay strategic plans, and raise the prospect of governance or compliance remediation costs.

*Practical Implications for Investors*
1. Short-term volatility is likely because uncertainty about the probe’s scope and timing leads traders to price in risk, and banks typically see bigger intra-day moves on regulatory headlines.
2. Watch capital and provisions closely since any required restatement or additional provisioning would cut profits and may reduce common equity tier-1 capital, which affects dividend capacity and growth funding. The bank’s CRAR of 17.10% as of 30 September 2025 provides a buffer.
3. Funding and deposit flows matter because if confidence falls, marginal wholesale funding costs can rise and that compresses net interest margins.
4. Regulatory and legal outcomes are binary, meaning a clean outcome would remove the overhang and likely help the stock, while a negative finding could lead to fines, management changes, or stronger capital action.

*Investor Strategy and Portfolio Response*
If you hold the stock, consider reducing position size to limit exposure to headline risk, unless you have strong conviction in long-term recovery and governance fixes. If you are thinking of buying, it may be prudent to wait for clearer outcomes on the probe or for management and auditors to publish a reconciled set of numbers, so you can value the business on confirmed fundamentals rather than press speculation. For longer-term value investors, use the probe as a signal to reassess governance, risk controls and management accountability, not only price.

*Conclusion*
The SFIO probe into IndusInd Bank’s accounting and derivatives issues, first reported in late December 2025, is a material governance and financial event, and it rightly deserves investor attention. The bank had a capital buffer as of September 2025, but recent quarterly losses and the size of discrepancies under review mean outcomes could affect profits, capital and confidence. IIt’svital to watch official disclosures closely, follow audit and regulator updates, and manage exposure until the picture becomes clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Railway Fare Hikes and What They Mean for IRCTC, IRFC, and RVNL Stocks

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
Railway Fare Hikes and What They Mean for IRCTC, IRFC, and RVNL Stocks
Equities, Market News, Markets - January 15, 2026

Railway Fare Hikes and What They Mean for IRCTC, IRFC, and RVNL Stocks

Railway Fare Hikes and What They Mean for IRCTC, IRFC, and RVNL Stocks

On 26 December 2025 the Indian government implemented a rationalised passenger fare structure for long-distance trains, aimed at improving earnings for Indian Railways while keeping travel broadly affordable. Investors reacted quickly, pushing several railway-linked stocks higher on hopes that higher fares will improve cash flows across the rail ecosystem, including operators and financing arms.

*What changed in the fares and when*
The Ministry of Railways notified the fare “rationalisation” with effect for tickets booked on or after 26 December 2025, and it applies mainly to long-distance mail and express services, not to suburban or season tickets. The notification also made clear that tickets booked before 26 December will keep earlier prices, even if travel takes place later. The government described the move as balancing passenger affordability with the financial sustainability of rail operations.

*Immediate market reaction*
Stocks with direct links to Indian Railways moved sharply on the same day. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd, RVNL, jumped over 9% and was reported trading near Rs 379 on 26 December 2025 after several days of strong gains. Indian Railway Finance Corporation, IRFC, and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, IRCTC, also saw meaningful upside, as investors priced in better revenue visibility and higher government spending on rail projects.

*Why higher fares matter for IRCTC*
IRCTC earns directly from passenger services through catering, ticketing commissions and tourism packages, and indirectly from higher passenger volumes and yields. IRCTC reported FY25 consolidated revenue of about ₹4,904 crore and a full-year PAT near ₹1,315 crore, showing profitable growth through 2024-25. Even a modest improvement in passenger yields can lift IRCTC’s revenues and margins because its core ticketing and catering businesses scale with volumes. That said, the company’s earnings are also linked to travel demand, which can be sensitive to ticket price increases if hikes are large.

*Why IRFC benefits*
IRFC is the financing arm that raises money and leases rolling stock and infrastructure back to Indian Railways. Higher passenger fares improve the financial health of Indian Railways, which in turn strengthens IRFC’s lessee credit profile and reduces refinancing risk. IRFC reported robust results in recent quarters, with annual PAT in the thousands of crores and healthy return ratios reported in half-year FY26 filings, suggesting it has scale to absorb cost pressures. The refinancing of a ₹10,000 crore World Bank loan for freight corridors was another recent positive, showing active liability management at the system level that reduces interest burden overall. For IRFC investors, improved system cash flow reduces credit risk and supports steady interest income from leased assets.

*Why RVNL rallied*
RVNL is a government-owned infrastructure developer that builds rail projects and raises extra-budgetary funds. The company’s order book was reported near ₹90,000 crore (about ₹900 billion) as of Q2 FY26, giving multi-year revenue visibility. Fare increases signal the government’s intent to strengthen rail finances and potentially commit more spending to projects, especially ahead of the Union Budget 2026. That combination of a large order book and budgetary support explains why RVNL shares jumped and why investors see upside if the government steps up capital allocation to rail infrastructure.

*What investors should watch next*
1. Revenue impact estimates: Companies will try to quantify how much extra fare revenue enters the system. Look for formal guidance from Indian Railways or commentary from IRCTC management.
2. Union Budget 2026 signals: The budget can confirm larger capex for rail projects, which matters for RVNL and contractors.
3. Borrowing costs and bond plans: IRFC’s fund-raising plans and interest costs matter for margins. Any future bond issuances and yields demanded by the market will influence IRFC’s profitability. Note that IRFC cancelled a large bond sale earlier this month when market yields were too high for the company.
4. Execution and cash flow: RVNL’s cash-flow and project execution track record must improve to justify higher valuations, because order book alone does not equal profit.

*Risks and considerations*
The fare hike improves headline revenues, but it is not a cure-all. If fare increases are too large they could depress demand, particularly discretionary tourism travel, which affects IRCTC’s hospitality and tour business. For RVNL the main risk is execution delays, cost overruns and working capital strain. For IRFC a challenging interest rate environment or higher borrowing costs could limit benefits from improved rail finances. Markets can also be over-enthusiastic in the short term, so price moves right after a government announcement need to be checked against fundamentals.

*Conclusion*
The 26 December 2025 fare rationalisation is a constructive step for the rail ecosystem, it improves near-term revenue visibility and is a positive signal ahead of the Union Budget 2026. IRCTC stands to gain through higher yields and volume leverage, IRFC benefits from a stronger credit profile of its lessee, and RVNL could see stronger order flow if the government increases capex. It’s vital to monitor company disclosures and Budget details, and be mindful of execution and interest-rate risks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

How Coforge’s $2.35 billion Encora deal affects investors

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
How Coforge’s $2.35 billion Encora deal affects investors
Equities, Market News, Markets - January 12, 2026

How Coforge’s $2.35 billion Encora deal affects investors

How Coforge’s $2.35 billion Encora deal affects investors

On 26-29 December 2025 Coforge announced it will acquire US-based engineering firm Encora for *$2.35 billion*, which is roughly *₹17,032 crore*, via a share-swap and financing package. The deal is one of the largest in India’s IT services space, and it materially changes Coforge’s scale, margins and geographic mix.

*What the deal looks like financially*
Coforge will pay $2.35 billion in enterprise value to acquire Encora, funding the transaction with an *equity issue worth about $1.89 billion* and arrangements to retire roughly *$550 million of Encora debt*, according to company disclosures and market reports. Encora shareholders will hold about *20%* of the merged business post-deal. Management expects the transaction to close within *four to six months* and to be earnings-per-share accretive by fiscal 2027.

*What this does to size and revenue forecasts*
Before the deal Coforge reported FY25 revenue of *₹12,050.7 crore* (about $1.45 billion), growing 31-32% year on year on a continuing operations basis. Encora’s revenue is guided at roughly *$600 million* for FY26, with an adjusted EBITDA margin near *19%*. Post-merger the combined company is expected to operate at about *14% EBIT margin*, and management projects combined annual revenues could reach about *$2 billion by March 2027*. These numbers mean Coforge moves from a mid-cap India IT firm into a much larger player in digital engineering and AI services.

*Margins, synergies and EPS impact*
Encora operates at a higher adjusted EBITDA margin, near *19%*, while Coforge’s historical EBITDA margin was lower. Coforge’s investor presentation models a roughly 90 basis-point combined EBITDA improvement from synergies and cost saving assumptions, and the company conservatively assumes only *US$20 million of cost synergies* in initial modelling. Amortisation of goodwill and intangible assets is expected, because about 20% of the purchase price may be allocated to customer relationships amortised over about 12 years, per the company note. Given these assumptions, management says the deal should be EPS-accretive by FY27, but investors should account for one-time integration costs and potential dilution from issuance.

*Interpreting the deal valuation*
The headline price of ₹17,032 crore has generated debate, because it implies a premium to Encora’s standalone trading or private valuations. Encora’s $600 million revenue guidance for FY26 and an adjusted EBITDA margin of *~19%* imply an adjusted EBITDA near *$114 million*. If the deal values Encora’s enterprise at $2.35 billion, that equates to roughly *~20.6x EV/EBITDA* on FY26 guided numbers, before synergies. That multiple is high for pure services companies, but may be justifiable if Encora’s IP, client list and AI engineering capability drive sustained revenue growth and margin expansion.

*Capital structure and funding risks*
Coforge plans an equity issuance for the bulk of the consideration and will retire Encora debt of about $550 million through bridge loans or placements. This means near-term equity dilution and higher gross debt at the group level until integration is complete. Coforge’s balance sheet pre-deal showed healthy operating cash flows and net cash generation in FY25, but investors should monitor updated leverage metrics after the deal, especially Net Debt / EBITDA and interest coverage, because leverage could rise temporarily. The company’s plan to issue preference shares at an 8.5% premium and to use a share swap spreads the immediate cash strain, but dilution and higher amortisation will matter to earnings per share in the near term.

*Operational risks and integration challenges*
Large cross-border acquisitions often face three practical problems:
1. Talent retention because Encora’s value is people and losing engineers would hurt delivery and margins
2. Client overlap and churn which can erode projected revenue synergies
3. Integration cost overruns where planned US$20 million synergies could take longer to realise.
Any of these would delay EPS accretion and pressure stock performance.

*Areas investors should follow*
* Deal close timeline expected in four to six months, and any regulator filings.
* Updated pro-forma financials especially combined revenue, EBITDA margin and management’s EPS accretion schedule issued in the next investor update.
* Leverage metrics notably Net Debt / EBITDA and interest coverage once Encora’s debt is consolidated.
* Customer retention rates and order book details which show whether revenue synergies are real.
* Brokerage target revisions because analysts will re-rate Coforge based on the new scale, and price targets will indicate market sentiment.

*Conclusion*
Coforge’s acquisition of Encora for $2.35 billion ( ₹17,032 crore) is transformative, it scales the company into a global engineering and AI player, and it promises synergies and higher revenue visibility, but it also raises valuation, dilution and integration risks. For long-term investors, the important questions are whether Coforge can keep Encora’s talent, turn high purchase multiples into sustained growth, and manage leverage during integration. Short-term traders will watch EPS guidance and leverage metrics closely, while long-term holders should focus on execution and customer retention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

John Cockerill India Jump After the Bulk Deal, and whether investor confidence in green hydrogen and defence sectors has legs

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
John Cockerill India Jump After the Bulk Deal, and whether investor confidence in green hydrogen and defence sectors has legs
Equities, Market News, Markets - January 12, 2026

John Cockerill India Jump After the Bulk Deal, and whether investor confidence in green hydrogen and defence sectors has legs

John Cockerill India Jump After the Bulk Deal, and whether investor confidence in green hydrogen and defence sectors has legs

On 26-29 December 2025 John Cockerill India saw heavy investor attention after a sequence of block trades and buying by well-known investor Ramesh Damani. The stock rose *more than 11% in two days* and was trading around *₹5,200–5,300* on 29 December 2025, with a *market capitalisation near ₹2,500–2,600 crore*. At first glance this looks like a typical bulk-deal pop, but there are real business links behind the move that connect the company to green hydrogen ambitions and defence/industrial engineering demand.

*What happened in the bulk deals*
On 26 December 2025 the promoters John Cockerill SA sold about *1.91 lakh shares* worth roughly *₹91 crore*, while investor *Ramesh Damani bought 27,500 shares* valued at approximately *₹13 crore* in a bulk deal. The contrast, a large promoter sale with a visible retail/institutional buyer stepping in is what triggered the sharp price action and the subsequent two-day rally. The market responded quickly because Damani is a respected long-term investor and his purchase signalled confidence to other market participants.

*Where the company stands financially*
John Cockerill India is a small-cap engineering firm with recent annual revenues in the low hundreds of crores. Public snapshots list *revenue around ₹328 crore* and *net profit about ₹8–9 crore* for the most recent year, with the stock trading at a high price-to-book multiple (*P/B near 12–13*) and a very high trailing P/E because earnings are small and lumpy. The company’s reported order book was over *₹600 crore (INR 6 billion)* as of March 31, 2025, giving visible near-term work, though margins and working-capital cycles are important to monitor. Return on equity has been modest historically, around *low single digits*, which shows the business is still recovering scale. These numbers explain why the stock can swing big on block trades, fundamentals are small, so flows move prices sharply.

*Why investors linked the rally to green hydrogen and defence*
Two facts matter. First, John Cockerill Group globally is expanding green hydrogen electrolyser capacity and has plans to scale production in India with partners, aiming for 1 GW by 2026 and 2 GW by 2029. John Cockerill India sits in that group and is positioned to supply engineering, manufacturing or local execution for such projects, which could materially change revenue mix over coming years if orders convert. Second, the parent group has deep roots in defence engineering worldwide, and India’s push to localise defence manufacturing makes firms with proven heavy-industry capabilities attractive. The bulk-deal interest is therefore a bet on potential future demand from green hydrogen and defence work, not just a short trading play.

*How a rising hydrogen pipeline would change the numbers*
If John Cockerill India begins to win electrolyser manufacturing or EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) contracts tied to the AM Green/Greenko projects, revenues could shift from hundreds of crores to a much larger scale over a multi-year window. Electrolyser projects are capital-intensive, and margins on EPC work can be mid-single to low-double digits depending on subcontracting and localisation. That would help the company improve operating leverage and raise return ratios from current low levels, but only after consistent order wins and smoother working-capital cycles. In short, the opportunity is meaningful, but it is a multi-year execution story, not an immediate earnings leap.

*Risks that matter*
* Promoter sell vs buy clarity: The promoter off-load of ₹91 crore may reflect group-level capital moves and not confidence. Investors should seek clarity from the company on why the sale happened.
* High valuation metrics: P/B of ~12 and an elevated P/E (which may be negative or meaningless when earnings are tiny) imply the stock is priced for good growth and any delay in order conversion or margin pressure could cause sharp falls.
* Working capital and execution: The company historically has long debtor days and heavy working-capital needs, winning large green hydrogen or defence orders without strong cash management can strain finances.
* Parent-group dependencies and related-party risk: Small listed subsidiaries often depend on the group for orders, so investors should check related-party disclosures and project pipeline transparency.

*Practical checklist for investors*
* Read the company’s investor presentation and the Q3-FY26 integrated filing for exact order book, receivables and margin guidance.
* Watch promoter shareholding updates and any regulatory filings explaining the ₹91 crore promoter sale. Short-term price moves may be driven by liquidity and not fundamentals.
* Track confirmed contract wins in hydrogen or defence, with order value and margin guidance. Only secured, signed orders matter for near-term valuation changes.
* Monitor working capital days and debt levels quarterly, because rapid growth funded by receivables can squeeze cash and force equity dilution.

*Conclusion*
The recent bulk deal and subsequent rally in John Cockerill India is a mix of market psychology and a real strategic story. Ramesh Damani’s purchase added credibility, but the promoter sale and very high valuation multiples mean the stock is volatile and dependent on execution. The green hydrogen and defence angles are promising and backed by the wider John Cockerill group’s plans, notably a planned electrolyser capacity ramp in India but these are multi-year, execution-heavy opportunities. However, the sensible approach is to wait for clear, signed orders and improving cash-flow metrics, or limit exposure to a small, disciplined allocation while monitoring the exact contract pipeline and quarterly financials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Energy tech spin-outs: Why Kraken’s $8.65bn valuation matters for software stocks

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
Energy tech spin-outs: Why Kraken’s $8.65bn valuation matters for software stocks
Equities, Market News, Markets - January 10, 2026

Energy tech spin-outs: Why Kraken’s $8.65bn valuation matters for software stocks

Energy tech spin-outs: Why Kraken’s $8.65bn valuation matters for software stocks

On 29-30 December 2025 Octopus Energy sold a minority stake in its software arm, Kraken Technologies, valuing the unit at *$8.65 billion*. The deal raised about *$1 billion* from investors led by D1 Capital Partners, with participation from Fidelity International, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and others. Of that $1 billion, roughly *$150 million* went into Kraken and *$850 million* flowed to Octopus Energy, leaving Octopus with about *13.7%* ownership of Kraken after the transaction. Origin Energy also invested *$140 million* and will hold a roughly *22.7%* stake in Kraken post-deal. These facts make Kraken one of the largest pure energy-software valuations to date.

*The raw numbers that change the conversation*
Kraken already supports *over 70 million customer accounts* across utilities, and it reports *committed annual revenues of more than $500 million* from licensing and services. Using those public figures, Kraken’s *implied EV / revenue multiple* at $8.65 billion is about *17.3x* on $500 million of revenue, a very high multiple compared with median software multiples in 2025. For context, public SaaS medians in 2025 trade around *~6x EV / revenue*, while upper-quartile SaaS deals and private top transactions can range into *8-16x* or higher depending on growth and margin profiles. Kraken’s multiple is therefore clearly at the premium end, showing investor willingness to pay up for specialised, mission-critical platforms in the energy transition.

*Why investors are paying a premium*
* Scale of addressable market: Kraken is selling software to utilities and large energy groups globally, not just to small customers. Serving millions of meters means recurring licence revenues have big scale potential.
* Proven commercial traction: Over $500 million of committed revenue and big name customers like EDF, E.ON and National Grid reduce execution risk compared with early AI or platform startups.
* Strategic importance: Energy transition needs software for billing, EV charging, storage and grid flexibility, so buyers see Kraken as a long-term systems supplier, not a narrow app.

*What this premium implies for software stocks and valuations*
* Higher comps for vertical SaaS: Buyers will reference Kraken when valuing other industry-specific platforms for utilities, smart grids and energy management.
* Wider valuation dispersion: Public SaaS companies with strong growth, high retention and vertical moats may trade at 8-12x revenue, while commodity software may remain near the 3-6x median. Kraken confirms the premium is paid for scale plus strategic importance.
* M&A rerating potential: Listed software names that show similar attributes, such as 40%+ revenue growth, net revenue retention above 120% and enterprise contracts, could see re-rating if strategic buyers compete.

*Concrete investor checklist*
* ARR and growth rate: Higher growth justifies higher multiples, aim for 30%+ in fast sectors.
* Net Revenue Retention (NRR): 120%+ signals good upsell and stickiness.
* Gross margin: Vertical SaaS typically posts 70-85% gross margins, higher margins support higher EV/Revenue.
* Rule of 40: Growth rate plus free cash flow margin >40% is a commonly used premium indicator.
* Contracted revenue: Kraken’s $500m of committed revenue is the single biggest reason for its high multiple.

*Near-term market effects and risks*
* Re-rating pressure: Some software stocks may rerate higher on comparable M&A comps, but re-rating is selective and tied to measurable metrics.
* Execution risk: Conversion of contracted revenue into profitable cash flow matters, if Kraken or any acquirer fails to show margin expansion, multiples can compress.
* Regulatory and integration risk: Separate governance, cross-border issues and data rules can reduce the near-term upside for acquirers and targets.

*Conclusion*
Kraken’s $8.65 billion valuation on 29-30 December 2025 matters because it sets a clear market reference point, showing that investors will pay *well above median SaaS multiples* for software that combines scale, recurring revenue and strategic importance in a fast-growing sector. For Indian and global software investors, the practical takeaway is simple, chase companies with *real ARR, high retention, margin expansion and clear enterprise footprints*, not just flashy tech. Kraken’s numbers, including *70m accounts, $500m committed revenue, $1bn raise and a 17x implied revenue multiple*, make that guidance tangible, measurable and actionable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

AI M&A Heatmap: What Meta’s Manus deal means for Big Tech investors

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
AI M&A Heatmap: What Meta’s Manus deal means for Big Tech investors
Equities, Market News, Markets - January 10, 2026

AI M&A Heatmap: What Meta’s Manus deal means for Big Tech investors

AI M&A Heatmap: What Meta’s Manus deal means for Big Tech investors

On 29-30 December 2025 Meta announced it will acquire Manus, a Singapore-based AI startup originally founded in China. Reported price estimates cluster around $2 billion, with some outlets saying $2-3 billion, though Meta did not disclose formal terms. This deal is another sign that Big Tech is buying specialised AI capabilities rather than only building everything internally, and investors should read the transaction as both strategic and financial signal.

*Why Manus matters*
Manus builds what is called an agentic AI, meaning software that can take multi-step actions for users, like writing code, summarising research, or automating business tasks. Manus also has paying users and subscription revenue, which sets it apart from many research labs that are not yet revenue-generating. For Meta, buying Manus does three things at once, it brings product IP, it brings senior AI engineers, and it brings a tested revenue model that can be plugged into Meta AI and enterprise offerings.

*Financial overview*
Meta is a mega-cap company, with market value around *$1.6-1.7 trillion* as of 30 December 2025. Its trailing P/E sits roughly in the high twenties, near *28-29 times* trailing earnings, which shows the market is already pricing growth expectations into the stock. At the same time Meta is spending at scale on AI infrastructure, with guidance and reporting indicating full-year capex in the $64-72 billion range for 2025, and publicly announced plans to invest up to *$600 billion in U.S. infrastructure* and jobs over several years. These numbers tell us Meta has both the balance sheet to pay for bolt-on deals, and the need to monetise heavy infrastructure spending.

*What this means for Big Tech strategy and valuations*
1. From build to buy: The Manus deal shows big firms will buy specialised teams when speed and market traction matter. For investors, this means successful small AI companies can command steep takeover multiples.
2. Revenue matters more than model novelty: Manus already charges users, which lowers execution risk for Meta. Investors should prefer targets or public companies that show product market fit and recurring revenue.
3. Margin and cash flow questions for acquirers: Buying AI startups costs cash or equity, and the benefits show up over quarters or years. Meta’s high capex means the company needs long-term monetisation to protect margins, so smaller revenue-generating deals are easier to justify than acquisitive experiments.

*Sector effects investors should keep an eye on*
* AI platform vendors and tools may see re-rating when acquired companies set new pricing and subscription benchmarks.
* Smaller AI startups may get a seller’s market if they show consistent revenue and defensible IP.
* Chip and data-centre suppliers: Big-scale infrastructure spending continues to be the backbone, and margins will depend on efficient deployment.

*Risk factors*
* Regulatory scrutiny: Manus’ China origin and cross-border issues could attract closer government review, this can delay integration or force structural changes.
* Integration risk: Talent retention and product alignment are not guaranteed, and acquisitions often underperform if integration is poor.
* Valuation risk in AI hype: Some AI deals are pricey, and if macro demand weakens, multiples can compress quickly.

*Conclusion*
Meta’s Manus purchase is a practical move, it buys tested agent technology, paying users, and engineering talent, while signalling that Big Tech prefers targeted purchases to speed growth. For investors, the takeaways are clear, focus on revenue traction, watch capex vs monetisation, and use M&A multiples as a valuation guide for AI-era winners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

PB Fintech Q2 FY26: Revenue +38% YoY, Profit +165% YoY on Strong Insurance Premium Growth

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
AI M&A Heatmap: What Meta’s Manus deal means for Big Tech investors
Equities, Markets, Result Updates - December 16, 2025

PB Fintech Q2 FY26: Revenue +38% YoY, Profit +165% YoY on Strong Insurance Premium Growth

PB Fintech Q2 FY26: Revenue +38% YoY, Profit +165% YoY on Strong Insurance Premium Growth

PB Fintech, the parent of Policybazaar and Paisabazaar, reported robust quarterly results for the quarter ended September 30, 2025. Operating revenue grew meaningfully, driven by higher insurance premiums and better performance in protection products. Net profit expanded sharply as the business scaled and operating efficiency improved. The quarter reflects sustained strength in online insurance distribution and a gradual recovery in credit and new initiatives.

*Key Highlights*
* Revenue from Operations: ₹1,613.5 crore in Q2 FY26: +38% YoY from ₹1,167.2 crore in Q2 FY25.
* Profit After Tax (PAT): ₹135 crore in Q2 FY26: +165% YoY from ₹50.7 crore in Q2 FY25.
* Sequential Growth: Revenue up ~20% QoQ and PAT up ~59% QoQ.
* Total Insurance Premium (ARR): ₹304 billion in Q2 FY26 (a high premium run-rate figure from company investor page).
* Insurance Policies Sold: ~59 million total policies sold cumulatively till Sep 2025, showing scale of the platform.
* Loan Disbursals (Credit Marketplace): ₹343 billion (annualised run rate).
* Credit Score Customers: ~54.8 million users in credit ecosystem.

*Revenue & Profit Analysis*
For Q2 FY26, PB Fintech reported ₹1,613.5 crore in operating revenue, a 38% increase over the same quarter last year. This growth was largely driven by strong performance in insurance brokerage (the core business) and higher insurance premium collections. Sequentially the company also grew ~20%, suggesting healthy momentum beyond year-ago base effects. Profit jumped more sharply: PAT rose 165% YoY to ₹135 crore, as the company scaled revenue and improved operating leverage. Margin improvements reflected not only higher volumes but also cost discipline in marketing and employee spending relative to revenue growth. This indicates that PB Fintech is now converting scale into more profitable operations, moving away from the earlier low-margin or loss phases typical of growth-stage fintech firms.

*Segment & Business Performance*
Insurance Broking (Policybazaar) remains the biggest revenue engine. Growth in insurance premium (up ~40% YoY) and protection verticals (like health & term plans) drove topline strength. The surge in insurance premium helped revenue and profit expand in Q2.
Credit Marketplace (Paisabazaar) also showed signs of recovery. Credit revenue was reported at ~₹106 crore and loan disbursals were strong (₹2,280 crore in credit disbursals for core online business per some reports), showing activity picking up in lending products within the PB ecosystem.
The PB Partners agent aggregator network expanded significantly, with presence across most of India’s pincodes. This expansion broadens reach and supports future revenue from both insurance and credit verticals.

*Cost & Efficiency Trends*
While company filings do not break down all expenses in detail, external filings indicate that employee costs and marketing expenses grew at a much slower pace than revenue, aiding margin expansion. This improved cost efficiency contributed to stronger EBITDA and PAT growth.

*Balance Sheet & Scale Metrics*
PB Fintech’s insurance premium run rate is ₹304 billion and loan disbursals run rate is ₹343 billion. These high run rates highlight the scale of policy sales and credit distribution the platform is generating. Credit score customer base of ~54.8 million underscores the depth of the company’s ecosystem in the financial-services market.

*Management Commentary & Outlook*
The company’s press release indicated broad-based growth across insurance protection products (health & term insurance) and improved contribution from renewal revenue streams. Management also highlighted the expansion of the agent network through PB Partners and stronger performance from Paisabazaar’s credit marketplace. These initiatives are aimed at diversifying revenue streams and improving customer engagement across financial products. Overall, the outlook is positive: the core insurance business remains strong, and newer initiatives show early signs of contributing more meaningfully to revenue.

*Valuation Outlook*
PB Fintech’s Q2 performance places it on a clearer path to profitability, which historically was a concern for many tech-led marketplaces. The +38% revenue growth and +165% profit increase suggest improving operational leverage. This means a company that is still growing its top line strongly while starting to deliver sustainable profits. However, valuation is viewed in the context of the company’s business model and risk profile:
* PB Fintech earns most of its revenue from insurance brokerage, which is a high-growth but competitive sector.
* The credit and Paisabazaar segment, while growing, has regulatory and credit risk elements.
* Profit margins are improving, but continued invest-to-grow strategy (e.g., marketing, new initiatives) can weigh on near-term margins.

*Conclusion*
PB Fintech’s Q2 FY26 results were strong and investor-friendly. Revenue grew ~38% YoY while profit expanded ~165% YoY, driven by a stronger insurance business and improving operating efficiency. Scale metrics like insurance premium run rate and large policy count reinforce the company’s leadership in online insurance. While new segments like credit and agent aggregator platforms are evolving, the core business continues to drive profitable growth. For long-term investors, the results reflect both growth and improving profitability, a combination that supports confidence, provided market conditions remain stable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Chalet Hotels Q2 FY26: Revenue Nearly Doubles Year-on-Year and Profit Turns Positive After Last Year’s Loss

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
Chalet Hotels Q2 FY26: Revenue Nearly Doubles Year-on-Year and Profit Turns Positive After Last Year’s Loss
Business, Markets, Result Updates - December 16, 2025

Chalet Hotels Q2 FY26: Revenue Nearly Doubles Year-on-Year and Profit Turns Positive After Last Year’s Loss

Chalet Hotels Q2 FY26: Revenue Nearly Doubles Year-on-Year and Profit Turns Positive After Last Year’s Loss

Chalet Hotels reported a powerful turnaround in the second quarter of FY26 (for the period ending September 30, 2025). The company saw a strong YoY gain in revenue and EBITDA, with profitability returning after a loss in the same quarter last year. Operational performance in hospitality and annuity businesses improved, margins expanded and the board declared the maiden interim dividend. The results reflect a recovery in travel demand and the benefits of scaling up room inventory and rental properties.

*Key Highlights*
* Revenue from Operations: ₹735.31 crore in Q2 FY26: +~95% YoY from ₹377.05 crore in Q2 FY25.
* Consolidated Net Profit (PAT): ₹154.84 crore in Q2 FY26: turned positive from -₹138.49 crore loss in Q2 FY25.
* Operating Profit (EBITDA): ₹299.23 crore in Q2 FY26: +~100% YoY.
* Operating (EBITDA) Margin: 40.69% in Q2 FY26, improved ~104 bps YoY.
* Interim Dividend Declared: ₹1 per equity share (face value ₹10).
* Room Inventory Growth: ~10% increase YoY.
* New Premium Brand Launched: Athiva Hotels & Resorts introduced.

*Revenue & Profit Analysis*
Chalet Hotels demonstrated a strong revenue rebound with nearly double the income compared with the same quarter last year. Total revenue reached ₹735.31 crore in Q2 FY26, up almost 95% YoY, mainly due to higher contributions from hotel operations and annuity businesses.
Profit also saw a dramatic shift: PAT was ₹154.84 crore, compared with a loss of ₹138.49 crore in Q2 FY25. This is a substantial YoY swing, indicating that not only did revenue improve, but the company also controlled costs and reaped the benefits of higher operational scale.
EBITDA nearly doubled, reaching ₹299.23 crore and the operating margin improved, showing that the company is capturing more profit from each rupee of revenue compared with a year ago.

*Segment & Operational Performance*
1. Hospitality Core Business: Chalet’s core hotel operations excluding residential project income, delivered solid growth. On a like-for-like basis:
* Core revenue: ₹460 crore, up ~20% YoY.
* EBITDA for core operations: ₹200 crore, up ~25% YoY.
* EBITDA margin: 43.4%, which is ~1.4 percentage points higher than last year.
This improvement reflects higher room utilisation, stronger room rates and better cost efficiency in managing hotel operations.
2. Room Inventory Growth: Room inventory expanded by about 10% YoY, aided by acquisitions and new hotel additions. This helped drive topline growth and indicates ongoing expansion of business scale.
3. Brand Expansion: The company launched Athiva Hotels & Resorts, a premium lifestyle brand focused on experiential travel, positioning Chalet to capture demand in higher-margin segments.

*Margins & Cost Efficiencies*
Margins improved across the board:
* Operating (EBITDA) margin: ~40.69%.
* Margin expansion reflects better ability to convert revenues into profits, an indication that fixed costs were spread over higher revenues and that operational efficiencies have improved.

*Balance Sheet & Shareholder Returns*
The board declared a maiden interim dividend of ₹1 per share, which is a positive sign that the company is returning value to shareholders as profitability stabilises. The quarter also saw growth in room inventory and progress on ongoing projects, suggesting that the company continues to invest in expanding its hotel footprint and asset base.

*Management Commentary & Outlook*
Management highlighted that the company delivered a strong and steady performance in Q2 FY26, despite challenges like fluctuating travel patterns and weather impacts. The launch of the ATHIVA Hotels & Resorts brand reflects a strategic move to build a premium, scalable hospitality brand. Expansion projects such as the Taj at Delhi Airport and the Varca Beachfront Resort in Goa are on track, supporting future revenue streams once completed.

*Valuation Standpoint*
Several points stand out in Q2 FY26 results:
1. Strong Turnaround: The swing from a net loss to a meaningful profit (~₹155 crore) in just one year shows significant improvement in business fundamentals.
2. Revenue Momentum: Almost doubling revenue YoY (95%) signals strong demand for the hospitality and annuity businesses and this momentum can support higher valuation multiples.
3. Margin Expansion: Improved operating margin reflects operational discipline, which is attractive to investors seeking quality earnings growth.
4. Brand & Growth Strategies: The launch of a new brand (Athiva Hotels & Resorts) and continued addition of room inventory underline the company’s drive to grow both in scale and market positioning.
Chalet Hotels can be viewed relative to peers such as Indian Hotels, Lemon Tree and EIH. These hotel companies typically trade in the range of mid-20s to high-30s on forward P/E and around 14–20× on EV/EBITDA, depending on their growth visibility and asset mix. Chalet’s sharp improvement in profitability, expanding EBITDA margin and increasing room inventory position it closer to the premium end of this range. While it may still trade at a slight discount to the largest players due to smaller scale, its strong Q2 FY26 recovery and pipeline of new properties suggest that the valuation gap could narrow over time as earnings stabilise and cash flows strengthen.

*Conclusion*
Chalet Hotels’ Q2 FY26 performance was strong and strategic. Revenue almost doubled YoY, EBITDA nearly doubled and the company swung from a loss to a healthy net profit, while margins expanded. The launch of a premium brand and a maiden dividend declaration are additional positives for shareholders. Overall, the quarter suggests that Chalet Hotels is emerging from the pandemic and macro slowdowns with stronger operational resilience and growth potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Shree Renuka Sugars Q2 FY26: Revenue Holds Up Seasonally, But Loss Widened Sharply as Costs Bite

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
Shree Renuka Sugars Q2 FY26: Revenue Holds Up Seasonally, But Loss Widened Sharply as Costs Bite
Equities, Markets, Result Updates - December 12, 2025

Shree Renuka Sugars Q2 FY26: Revenue Holds Up Seasonally, But Loss Widened Sharply as Costs Bite

Shree Renuka Sugars Q2 FY26: Revenue Holds Up Seasonally, But Loss Widened Sharply as Costs Bite

Shree Renuka Sugars saw a modest uptick in its revenue this quarter compared with the previous quarter, but the business remains under severe strain. Inputs costs, weak realisations and operating losses caused the company to report a large net loss. While the revenue bump suggests some seasonal/ operational resilience, the sharp loss underscores deep challenges in the sugar and allied businesses. The quarter signals caution: revenue isn’t enough, margins and cost structure remain weak.

*Key Highlights*
* Revenue from operations (standalone): ₹ 2,323.3 crore in Q2 FY26.
* Quarterly total income (consolidated): ₹ 2,422.8 crore in Q2 FY26.
* Net loss (PAT) (consolidated): ₹ 368.6 crore in Q2 FY26 (vs a small loss of ₹22.3 crore in Q2 FY25).
* Profit-before-tax (PBT): Loss of ₹ 401.3 crore in Q2 FY26.
* EPS (diluted): -₹1.73 per share (vs -₹0.10 per share in Q2 FY25).
* Operating profit (PBDIT, excluding other income): Loss of ₹ 182.2 crore (vs profit of ₹227.4 crore in Q2 FY25).
* Segment-wise: Sugar refinery division revenue was ₹ 1,667.2 crore, but it made a PBT loss of ₹ 35.6 crore (vs profit of ₹ 300.8 crore a year ago). Sugar-milling business also reported a loss.

*Revenue & Profit Analysis*
Revenue from operations this quarter at ₹ 2,323.3 crore shows small change compared with last year, indicating that demand or sales volume for their products didn’t collapse completely. However, the profit side was painful. The company swung into a heavy loss ₹368.6 crore because operating costs far outstripped revenue. The PBDIT loss of ₹182.2 crore (versus a profit last year) shows that core operations are under stress. The slide in profitability shows up in EPS too: from a small negative in Q2 FY25 to -₹1.73 this quarter. This signals that shareholders’ capital is under pressure and returns remain negative. So, while the company managed to sell sugar/ products worth similar value as last year, the cost structure and business environment turned unfavourable resulting in sharp losses instead of modest results.

*Business Segment Performance & What Went Wrong*
Shree Renuka runs multiple businesses: sugar-milling and refining, distillery, power/ co-generation, trading etc. In Q2 FY26:
* Sugar-refinery business: Revenue ~₹1,667.2 crore. But it reported a PBT loss of ₹35.6 crore (versus profit of ~₹300.8 crore a year ago).
* Sugar-milling: Also loss-making this quarter. Milling business posted a loss of ₹68.7 crore.
* Distillery: This was a small positive, some profit (₹1.4 crore) but tiny compared with overall losses.
* Co-generation (power from bagasse/ mills) and trading businesses did not offset the losses, co-generation saw a loss, trading gave small profit.
In effect: most of their core sugar-refining and milling businesses are loss-making this quarter. The small gains in distillery/ trading are not sufficient to offset the losses.
Likely reasons: weak sugar realisations, high input costs (raw material, labour, fuel), possibly GST/ levy/ stock-price issues and adverse industry-level conditions.

*Risk & Key Challenges*
* Negative margins and heavy losses: The loss of ₹ 368.6 crore is a clear red flag. If this continues, risk to solvency and shareholder value increases.
* Volatile commodity and sugar price cycles: Sugar prices globally and domestically fluctuate widely. Company’s profitability is very sensitive to sugar price and raw-material cost swings.
* Dependence on allied businesses: Distillery or power business may not always perform; they are small now. Sugar milling/refining remains the mainstay but that is weak this quarter.
* Working-capital and debt burden: Losses erode internal accruals, liquidity & debt-repayment capacity may be under stress.

*Management Actions & Other Developments*
One positive note: the company’s board has approved a conversion of a loan of one subsidiary into equity (KBK Chem-Engineering Pvt Ltd). This may help clean up the balance sheet slightly. But this alone is unlikely to offset the large operating losses. Until the sugar business recovers (better prices, lower costs), the company will remain under pressure.

*Conclusion*
This quarter for Shree Renuka Sugars was tough and disappointing. While the top-line was relatively stable, the business is significantly loss-making. That means a lot of concern around their core business viability in current market conditions. The key takeaway is: this is a high-risk situation. Unless sugar prices firm up or company restructures operations/ cost base, the losses may continue. At present, this stock seems speculative and would need a catalyst (price recovery, turnaround in costs, favourable policy) to think of it as a buy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Netflix vs Paramount in the Fight for Warner Bros- What Investors Need to Know

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More
Netflix vs Paramount in the Fight for Warner Bros- What Investors Need to Know
Business, Market News, Markets - December 12, 2025

Netflix vs Paramount in the Fight for Warner Bros- What Investors Need to Know

Netflix vs Paramount in the Fight for Warner Bros- What Investors Need to Know

December 2025 has delivered one of the year’s most consequential media skirmishes: Netflix’s headline-grabbing agreement to acquire Warner Bros. from Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has been met with a hostile, higher-cash counteroffer led by Paramount Skydance. At stake is not only Hollywood’s creative crown jewels HBO, CNN, a vast film and TV library and major studio production capacity, but also the strategic architecture of global streaming, antitrust scrutiny and the capital structure of some of the industry’s largest players.

*The deal terms on the table*
Netflix announced a purchase that values Warner Bros. at roughly $72 billion of equity and an enterprise value near $82.7 billion, proposing $27.75 per WBD share comprised of cash and Netflix stock. Netflix’s plan, laid out in its December filing and release, would also see the acquirer assume existing WBD debt and materially increase leverage as part of the financing plan. Paramount Skydance responded with a dramatic, hostile $30 per share all cash tender that market reporting pegs at a substantially higher enterprise valuation (widely reported around $108 billion for the combined structure), and notably includes a syndicated financing package that draws on Gulf sovereign and institutional capital. Paramount’s bid has the virtue of cash certainty for shareholders, a factor that pushed WBD shares higher amid the duel.

*Financing, debt and balance-sheet implications*
The two offers take very different approaches to financing. Netflix’s plan uses a mix of cash and its own stock, and it would also take on about $11 billion of Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing debt. On top of that, reports suggest Netflix may need to borrow another $40–50 billion to complete the deal. Taking on this much extra debt would significantly change Netflix’s financial profile from a strong, growth-driven streaming leader to a heavily leveraged media giant with higher interest costs and tighter cash flow. Because of this, investors need to think carefully about what Netflix’s balance sheet would look like after the deal. Adding around $50 billion in new debt compared to Netflix’s current earnings would push its leverage ratios much higher and make its profits more vulnerable if advertising or subscriber growth slows. For context, Netflix was valued at roughly $400–425 billion in early December, with a trailing price-to-earnings ratio in the low 40s. That kind of premium valuation can be sensitive to rising financial risk, which is why the amount of new debt matters so much.

*Antitrust, politics and regulatory risk*
Beyond finance, the elephant in the room is regulatory scrutiny. Opponents argue a Netflix-Warner combination could concentrate content distribution and subscriber reach, some estimates suggest the merged firm could represent as much as 40%+ of global streaming viewing minutes in certain windows—triggering US and EU antitrust probes, Congressional commentary and even consumer-class litigation already reported in the wake of the bid. Paramount frames its all-cash deal as less likely to provoke competition concerns, and it is leaning into that narrative in letters to WBD shareholders. Political optics, particularly scrutiny of Gulf investors backing offers, may further complicate approvals and public sentiment.

*Strategic rationale and synergies: who wins if approval clears?*
Netflix argues the acquisition is transformative: large-scale intellectual property, production capacity and theatrical pipelines would accelerate content output and global reach, potentially permitting margin expansion through studio economics and distribution control. Paramount’s camp counters that a Paramount-led ownership preserves a more competitive landscape while still enabling scale and its cash offer removes execution and financing uncertainty. For shareholders, the calculus is now a tradeoff between price certainty (all cash) and combined upside plus stock consideration and that split explains why WBD’s board and many investors must weigh near-term cash versus longer-term value creation under different owners.

*Market reaction and investor playbook*
The market reacted very quickly to the takeover fight. Warner Bros. Discovery’s share price moved up toward the offer amounts, while Netflix and Paramount’s stocks became more volatile because investors were trying to judge which deal might actually go through and how risky the financing would be. For investors, the sensible approach now is to look at how each possible outcome would affect the companies’ future growth and debt levels, especially since Netflix may need to take on $40–50 billion of new debt while Paramount is offering pure cash. It’s also important to keep an eye on regulatory updates and political signals, because government approval will play a huge role in deciding which bid succeeds. At the same time, the rest of the industry could feel the effects: studios, advertising platforms and production-service companies may benefit from increased demand or higher pricing power, while older media distributors could face more pressure as the market becomes more concentrated. Creative content owners may also see their valuations rise if the sector continues to consolidate.

*Conclusion*
The fight between Netflix and Paramount for Warner Bros perfectly captures the bigger pattern shaping the media industry in 2025: companies are racing to become bigger and more powerful, but they’re running into political hurdles, strict regulators and complicated financing. This means taking the time to look at different possible outcomes using the actual December 2025 deal terms, keeping a close eye on how regulators respond and staying flexible enough to adjust their positions as the clarity around price, deal structure and approval chances changes. In the end, the winning bidder won’t just be the one offering the highest price, it will be the one that can actually get the deal approved and then manage to turn Warner Bros’ expensive content business into a consistent, profitable engine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image added is for representation purposes only

Bank of Baroda Q2 FY26: Strong Loan & Deposit Growth but Profit Softens on Lower Other Income

, , , , , , 0 Comment
Read More