Why Banks Deserve Premium Valuations Over NBFCs: A Case for IndusInd Bank vs Shriram Finance

The Indian financial sector is broadly divided into two key segments: banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs). While both play critical roles in credit delivery and financial intermediation, their business models, risk profiles, and income generation capacities differ significantly. These differences translate into varied valuation levels in the stock market.

In this article, we explore why banks inherently deserve higher valuations than NBFCs, with a specific focus on IndusInd Bank and Shriram Finance as a case study.

---

1. Diversified Income Streams: The Bank Advantage

Funded vs. Non-Funded Exposures

• Banks earn from both funded (loans, advances) and non-funded (bank guarantees, letters of credit, trade finance) exposures.

• NBFCs, like Shriram Finance, primarily rely on funded exposures. They earn interest on loans but lack significant fee-based income.

Non-Funded Exposure Income

• Banks charge fees, commissions, and service charges for non-funded services. These include:

  • Bank Guarantees (BGs)

  • Letters of Credit (LCs)

  • Forex handling and trade documentation

  • Commitment fees on undrawn lines

• This diversifies revenue and boosts Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) without increasing risk proportionally.

---

2. Cost of Funds: A Key Differentiator

Banks:

• Fund themselves via low-cost CASA (Current and Savings Account) deposits.

• Access RBI liquidity windows and benefit from systemic trust.

NBFCs:

• Depend on market borrowings, bonds, or bank lines.

• Face higher cost of capital, often 8–10% or more.

• Vulnerable during tight liquidity cycles, as seen during IL&FS and COVID crises.

Result: Banks enjoy better spreads and capital efficiency.

---

3. Regulatory Advantages

• Banks enjoy direct access to RBI’s repo window, payment systems, and priority sector benefits.

• NBFCs are more exposed to regulatory shifts and funding disruptions.

• Banks also benefit from public trust and deposit insurance.

These factors provide banks a more stable and sustainable growth model.

---

4. Valuation Case Study: IndusInd Bank vs Shriram Finance

Shriram Finance:

• Strong in vehicle finance and retail lending.

• Limited to funded credit segments.

• Higher cost of capital.

• Limited ability to grow outside their niche without significantly increasing risk.

IndusInd Bank:

• A diversified private sector bank with improving ROA and solid digital + retail growth plans.

• Access to low-cost deposits and non-funded fee income.

• Acts as a full-service financial platform (corporate + retail + trade).

• Potential to scale with lower incremental capital.

Valuation Disconnect: Despite structural advantages, IndusInd has often traded at or below Shriram Finance’s valuation multiples due to past management perception and legacy asset quality issues. As these concerns ease, IndusInd's superior business model and return metrics should drive a valuation re-rating.

---

5. Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) Edge

• Non-funded exposures earn fee income without capital deployment, making ROIC structurally higher for banks.

• NBFCs must lend to earn, tying up capital for every rupee earned.

A well-run bank will thus generate higher returns per unit of capital, especially when managed prudently.

---

Conclusion: Banks Deserve to Trade at a Premium

The market often misprices entities during temporary phases of uncertainty. However, structurally:

• Banks have a superior business model.

• Diversified and fee-driven income provides resilience.

• Lower cost of funds and better capital access boost profitability.

• Higher ROIC and ROE potential justify a valuation premium.

IndusInd Bank vs Shriram Finance: Final Thought

Given the above, IndusInd Bank deserves to trade at a premium valuation to NBFCs like Shriram Finance. As investor confidence returns and asset quality remains stable, the mispricing should correct, rewarding patient investors who understand the long-term structural advantage of banks.

---

Disclosure: Always do your own research and consult with financial advisors before investing.

History Repeating at Indusind Bank

There is an interesting parallel between IndusInd Bank's current situation and Axis Bank's 2018 episode—both involve:

• A regulator-triggered disruption (Axis: NPA divergence, IndusInd: derivative accounting issues).

• CEO's tenure cut short or not extended (Shikha Sharma denied extension; Sumant Kathpalia exiting before term completion as on 29th april 2025).

• A committee of executives managing operations temporarily.

Let’s break this down:

---

🕒 How Long Might IndusInd Take to Appoint a New CEO?

Based on past precedents:

🔹 Axis Bank (2018):

• Shikha Sharma’s early exit announced: April 2018

• New CEO (Amitabh Chaudhry) appointed: September 2018

• ⏳ Time taken: ~5 months

🔹 Yes Bank (2018–19):

• Rana Kapoor’s extension denied: September 2018

• New CEO (Ravneet Gill) appointed: January 2019

• ⏳ Time taken: ~4 months

🔹 IndusInd Bank (2025):

• CEO exit announced in on 29th April 2025

• If RBI and the board follow a normal process, a new CEO could be finalized between August and October 2025 (i.e., 4–6 months).

So you can reasonably expect the new CEO to be named by Q2 FY26, with continuity in operations ensured through the executive committee in the meantime.

Great Businesses ≠ Great Investments

 “The best business at the wrong price is a bad investment.” - Warren Buffett

The 1970s "Nifty Fifty" episode is one of the most important and misunderstood lessons in market history, and Howard Marks often refers to it to illustrate the dangers of overpaying, regardless of business quality.

🧠 What Was the Nifty Fifty?

The Nifty Fifty were a group of ~50 large-cap U.S. companies that were considered one-decision stocks in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These were dominant, high-growth, high-quality businesses like:

• Coca-Cola

• IBM

• Polaroid

• McDonald’s

• Johnson & Johnson

• Xerox

• Disney

• Pfizer

• Procter & Gamble

They were considered so bulletproof that investors thought you could buy them at any price and just hold forever.

---

📉 What Happened in the 1970s?

By the early 1970s, these companies were trading at sky-high P/E ratios of 50–80x, compared to a market average P/E of 15.

Then came the crash (1973–74):

• The oil crisis, stagflation (high inflation + low growth), and tight monetary policy caused a major bear market.

• The S&P 500 dropped ~50% from 1973–1974.

• Many Nifty Fifty stocks fell even more — despite being great companies.

Here are some examples:

• Polaroid: -91%

• Avon: -86%

• Xerox: -71%

• McDonald's: -71%

• Disney: -68%

Even though these were quality businesses, the valuation bubble burst. Investors had paid too much for perfection.

---

💡 Howard Marks’ Key Lesson: “It’s not what you buy; it’s what you pay.”

Howard Marks was involved in investing around that time and admits losing money on great companies — simply because he overpaid. His key takeaways:

1. Valuation matters. Even great companies can deliver poor returns if bought at high prices.

2. Investor psychology drives risk. The more people agree a stock is "safe," the more dangerous it becomes — due to crowding and inflated valuations.

3. No company is worth an infinite price. “Growth at any price” is dangerous.

4. Mean reversion happens — both in performance and in valuation multiples.

Nifty Fifty Collapse: P/E Compression and Price Crash

	P/E in 1972–73	P/E in 1974–75	Price Drop from Peak
Polaroid	~90x	~20x	-91%
Avon Products	~65x	~15x	-86%
Xerox	~45x	~13x	-71%
McDonald's	~75x	~18x	-71%
Walt Disney	~80x	~15x	-68%
Coca-Cola	~45x	~12x	-68%
Johnson & Johnson	~60x	~14x	-60%
IBM	~50x	~12x	-55%
Merck	~50x	~13x	-56%
Philip Morris	~30x	~8x	-45%
Pfizer	~55x	~14x	-57%
PepsiCo	~50x	~12x	-50%
Gillette	~55x	~10x	-62%
Procter & Gamble	~40x	~11x	-58%
Colgate-Palmolive	~45x	~12x	-59%
Eli Lilly	~60x	~15x	-61%
Minnesota Mining (3M)	~35x	~9x	-50%

---

🎯 Key Observations:

• The average P/E fell from ~50–60x to ~10–15x, a compression of 70–80% in valuation multiples.

• Stock prices collapsed not because earnings fell massively — but because the market stopped paying sky-high prices.

• Many of these stocks eventually recovered and became long-term wealth creators — but it took a decade or more to break even.

---

💡 Lessons We Can Apply Today:

• P/E expansion can fuel a bull market — but P/E contraction can erase it in a flash.

• Great companies are not immune to valuation risk.

• If you buy at 60x earnings, even 20% growth for 5 years might not save you from multiple compression.

The interest rate environment played a huge role in the Nifty Fifty collapse, and it's a key part of the puzzle. Here's the backdrop:

---

📆 US Interest Rates (1970–1975)

Year	Fed Funds Rate (approx.)	Notes
1970	~7.75%	High inflation begins creeping in
1971	~4.5%	Fed eases post-recession (Nixon shock, end of Bretton Woods)
1972	~5.25%	Easy money continues; asset bubbles inflate
1973	~10.75%	Inflation surges (OPEC oil embargo), Fed tightens rapidly
1974	~13.0%	Interest rates peak amid stagflation
1975	~5.25%	Fed cuts rates to fight deep recession

---

📉 Why This Matters for Nifty Fifty Valuations:

• In 1971–72, falling interest rates made investors hungry for long-duration, high-quality stocks (similar to recent years). They were willing to pay 50–90x P/E for "never-fail" growth names.

• In 1973–74, as rates surged above 10%, those same stocks saw P/E multiples collapse. With bonds yielding 10–13%, investors demanded much higher equity risk premiums.

• The crash wasn't caused by earnings collapse — it was driven by macro tightening and inflation fears. Sound familiar?

Enantiodromia and the Indian Tea Sector: A Brewing Comeback

In the rhythms of history and markets, there’s a fascinating Greek term that captures the essence of dramatic turnarounds: enantiodromia. Coined by the philosopher Heraclitus and popularized by Carl Jung, enantiodromia means that anything that reaches an extreme will eventually turn into its opposite. In simple terms, when a system goes too far in one direction, it corrects by swinging back the other way. And nowhere is this psychological and philosophical concept more relevant today than in the Indian tea industry.

The Long Decline

Over the past decade, India’s tea sector has endured a structural downtrend. Prices have stagnated, costs have soared, and major players have either exited or downsized. Many plantations have suffered from underinvestment, labor issues, low productivity, and excessive supply of low-grade teas flooding auctions. Quality producers have been punished along with poor ones as the market failed to differentiate, leading to an industry-wide erosion of profitability.

Even large business houses like the Apeejay Group and the McLeod Russel empire have either exited or fallen into distress. Sentiment around tea as an investible sector has remained deeply pessimistic. Government intervention has been minimal, and working capital cycles for producers have worsened. All these are classic signs of an industry stretched to the extreme of neglect and apathy.

Signs of a Reversal: The First Echoes of Enantiodromia

But as enantiodromia teaches us, extreme neglect and oversupply set the stage for a shift in the opposite direction.

In 2024, India saw a significant drop in tea production — over 100 million kilograms — due to erratic weather, curbs on pesticide use, and reduced replantation. At the same time, domestic demand continues to rise steadily by 20–25 million kg annually, and export markets have shown signs of revival. For the first time in years, supply is likely to fall short of demand, creating a potential inflection point.

Government action has begun. The Tea Board is pushing for curbs on substandard tea and better quality enforcement, which could eliminate low-grade oversupply. The emphasis is shifting from volume to value. Like in the sugar sector a few years ago, the policy tailwind may amplify the turnaround.

The Investment Case: From Despair to Hope

In the stock market, tea companies have long traded at depressed valuations. High-quality producers like Goodricke Group, despite owning prime estates and having strong MNC parentage, are available at fractions of replacement cost. Most investors have written off the sector due to years of underperformance. Yet, this very pessimism may be the soil from which future multibaggers emerge.

As prices begin to firm up, even a modest rise in average realization can result in massive operating leverage for producers. An industry that has cut capex, cleaned up balance sheets, and become lean is well-positioned to benefit. When market cycles turn, they often catch everyone off guard — especially when the turn comes after a decade-long winter.

Conclusion: The Power of Extremes

Enantiodromia isn’t just an abstract idea — it’s a practical lens for spotting inflection points. When sectors are abandoned and left for dead, they often contain the seeds of powerful reversals. The Indian tea sector, having suffered prolonged underperformance, is showing early signs of that shift. Investors who recognize the pattern may be able to steep themselves in rich returns, brewed over years of patience and conviction.

So, the next time you sip a cup of Assam or Darjeeling, remember: in every bitter bottom lies the potential for a sweet comeback.

---

Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. Always do your own research before investing.

U.S Govt Structure

What is Congress in the USA?

Congress is the law-making body of the U.S. government.
It’s like the Parliament in India.

---

🔹 Congress has two parts:

1. The Senate (like Rajya Sabha)

2. The House of Representatives (like Lok Sabha)

Together, they’re called "The United States Congress."

---

1. The Senate:

• Total of 100 Senators (2 from each of the 50 states).

• They serve 6-year terms.

• Seen as the "upper house."

• More powerful when it comes to approving big decisions like:

  • Supreme Court judges

  • Treaties

  • Cabinet members (like Ministers)

---

2. The House of Representatives:

• Total of 435 members.

• Number from each state depends on population (e.g., California has more than Wyoming).

• Serve 2-year terms.

• This is the "lower house" but very important.

• Controls budget, taxes, and can start impeachment.

---

💼 What Does Congress Do?

• Makes laws

• Approves budgets

• Checks the President’s power

• Can impeach the President (House starts it, Senate decides)

---

🧠 Simple Analogy:

In India	In USA
Parliament	Congress
Lok Sabha	House of Representatives
Rajya Sabha	Senate
Prime Minister	President (elected separately)

What Happened During Tulip Mania?

Tulip Mania is one of the most famous speculative bubbles in history. It took place in the Dutch Republic (now the Netherlands) in the early 17th century, reaching its peak in 1636-1637 before crashing dramatically.

Timeline of Tulip Mania:

• Late 1500s - Early 1600s: Tulips were introduced to Europe from the Ottoman Empire. Their bright colors and unique petal patterns made them highly desirable.

• 1620s: Tulips, especially rare varieties with unique color patterns (caused by a virus), became luxury items for the wealthy.

• 1634-1636: The speculative bubble began, with traders and even common people entering the market, expecting prices to keep rising.

• Winter of 1636-1637: The peak of the mania. Some rare tulip bulbs were reportedly being sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled worker.

• February 1637: The crash. Buyers failed to show up for a major tulip auction in Haarlem, causing panic. Prices collapsed within weeks, leaving many in financial ruin.

How High Did Tulip Prices Go?

At the peak:

• A single Semper Augustus bulb (the most prized variety) was reportedly sold for 5,500 guilders.

• To put this in perspective, a skilled worker earned about 150-200 guilders per year, and a luxurious canal house in Amsterdam cost around 5,000 guilders.

• In today's money, estimates vary, but 5,500 guilders could be worth around $250,000-$500,000 in modern dollars.

Why Did It Happen?

1. Scarcity and Perceived Value: Rare tulip bulbs took years to grow and were unpredictable in their color patterns due to a viral infection, making them even more valuable.

2. Social Status and Luxury Appeal: Wealthy Dutch merchants flaunted rare tulips as a status symbol, much like fine art or luxury watches today.

3. Market Speculation: People started buying tulips not to plant them but to sell them at higher prices. This led to a futures market where bulbs that had yet to bloom were being traded at extreme prices.

4. Easy Credit & Leverage: People started using loans and collateral (even houses and land) to speculate on tulips.

5. The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO): Many jumped in just because they saw others getting rich quickly.

Why Was It So Obvious Yet People Still Fell for It?

• Human psychology in speculative bubbles tends to ignore fundamentals when prices keep rising. People believe "this time is different."

• Just like the Dot-com bubble (1999-2000) or Bitcoin at $60,000+, people thought tulip prices would never fall.

• The idea that "someone else will pay even more later" (the Greater Fool Theory) fueled the frenzy.

• Many people got rich early in the bubble, reinforcing the belief that tulips were a legitimate investment.

Lessons from Tulip Mania

• Markets driven by speculation, rather than fundamentals, are bound to collapse.

• Scarcity alone doesn't justify sky-high valuations if there's no true economic utility.

• Once confidence breaks, liquidity dries up instantly, causing a rapid price crash.

This pattern has repeated across history—South Sea Bubble (1720), Railway Mania (1840s), Roaring '20s stock market, Dot-com bubble, Crypto booms—showing that speculation cycles are deeply tied to human behavior.

Railway Mania (1840s) vs. Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000) – A Detailed Comparison

 Both Railway Mania and the Dot-Com Bubble were driven by revolutionary technologies that changed the world. However, they also saw massive speculation, unrealistic valuations, and an eventual crash. Let's break them down across multiple parameters:

---

1. The Core Technology Behind the Boom

Parameter	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Main Tech Revolution	Railways, steam locomotives, and faster transportation networks.	The Internet, digital connectivity, and online businesses.
Core Value Proposition	Faster movement of goods and people, reducing travel time by 90%.	Instant access to information, digital commerce, and global connectivity.
Actual Impact	Railways reshaped economies and made industrialization much faster.	The Internet changed communication, shopping, finance, and business forever.

---

2. Stock Market Hype & Valuation Stretch

Parameter	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Stock Price Surge	Railway stocks rose 5x-10x in a few years.	Tech stocks rose 10x-50x in just a couple of years.
Valuation Stretch	Some railway stocks were trading at 100x+ earnings, assuming all railways would be profitable.	Many dot-com companies had zero earnings but still traded at 100x+ revenue.
Craziest Stock	Great Western Railway (GWR), London & Birmingham Railway.	Pets.com, Webvan, AOL, Amazon (survived).
Common Speculation Pattern	"Every town will need a railway, and we must invest now!"	"Every company must go online, so all dot-coms will succeed!"

---

3. Who Got Rich & Who Got Wiped Out?

Parameter	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Early Winners	Early railway investors (wealthy industrialists, landowners, and financiers).	Venture capitalists, early tech founders, investment bankers.
Late Losers	Middle-class investors who bought railway stocks at the peak.	Retail investors and traders who bought tech stocks at absurd prices.
Wealth Wiped Out	£80 million invested (~£10 billion today) mostly disappeared.	$5 trillion in market cap vanished in two years.

---

4. The Crash & Aftermath

Parameter	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Crash Timeline	Peaked in 1845, collapsed by 1847.	Peaked in March 2000, collapsed by 2002.
Stock Decline	Many railway stocks fell 70-90%, some went to zero.	Many dot-com stocks fell 90-100%, went bankrupt.
Major Bankruptcies	Many railway companies failed or merged.	Pets.com, Webvan, eToys, and hundreds of dot-com startups vanished.
Economic Impact	Banking crisis, financial ruin for many investors.	U.S. recession, massive job losses in tech, capital dried up.

---

5. The Long-Term Winners

Parameter	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Biggest Survivors	London & North Western Railway (LNWR), Great Western Railway (GWR).	Amazon, Google, eBay, PayPal, Apple.
How They Survived?	Built profitable routes, better engineering, and scale advantage.	Focused on real businesses, cash flow, and long-term growth.
Massive Long-Term Success	Railways revolutionized global trade and remained the backbone of industry for 100+ years.	The Internet reshaped business, and today’s biggest companies are tech giants.

---

6. Lessons for Investors Today

Lesson	Railway Mania (1840s)	Dot-Com Bubble (1999-2000)
Just because it's revolutionary doesn’t mean every company will win.	90% of railway companies failed. Only a few survived.	90% of dot-com companies failed, but a few became trillion-dollar giants.
Overpaying for hype can wipe you out.	Investors who bought rail stocks near the peak lost everything.	Buying overhyped tech stocks at peak valuations led to huge losses.
Long-term winners were well-run and had real earnings.	LNWR and GWR survived because they were operationally strong.	Amazon and Google survived because they had real value and revenue.
Be careful of "New Economy" narratives.	"Railways will make everyone rich" was a flawed idea.	"Clicks over profits" in dot-coms led to a collapse.

---

Final Thought: The Cycle Always Repeats

• Railways → Dot-Com → Crypto → AI?

• Speculative bubbles will always exist, and history repeats itself in different forms.

• The key lesson is to identify true long-term winners rather than chasing hype.

Investment Thesis: Goodricke Group Ltd. - A High-Conviction Bet on the Indian Tea Sector Turnaround

Investment Rationale

The Indian tea sector is at an inflection point after a decade-long downturn. Government interventions, supply constraints, and rising domestic demand indicate that the cycle is turning. Goodricke Group Ltd., backed by the multinational Camellia Plc, stands out as one of the few well-managed, high-quality tea producers in India. With a strong balance sheet, premium tea gardens, and high promoter holding (74%), Goodricke presents a compelling investment case for significant capital appreciation.

---

Why the Indian Tea Sector is Poised for a Turnaround

1. Supply Shortage Already Visible:

   • Over 100 million kg of tea production has been cut in 2024.

   • Total supply (domestic production + imports) is expected to be 1,300 million kg in 2024, while total demand (domestic + exports) is 1,400 million kg, creating a deficit of 100 million kg.

   • Further supply reduction is likely in 2025, with potential production dropping to 1,250 million kg, exacerbating the deficit.

2. Structural Issues Have Weakened Competition:

   • Many established players have exited plantations, reducing competition:

     • Apeejay Group has exited plantations.

     • Dhunseri Group has acquired multiple gardens.

     • McLeod Russel, once the largest tea producer, has gone bankrupt and is struggling to find buyers.

     • James Warren Tea and Warren Tea have also sold assets.

   • With few strong players left, the survivors stand to benefit from industry consolidation.

3. Government’s Role as a Change Agent:

   • The Indian government has taken a proactive stance, similar to its intervention in the sugar industry in 2018-19, which led to a multi-year rally in sugar stocks.

   • The focus is on eliminating low-quality tea from the market, raising the base price and improving industry-wide realizations.

   • Higher export incentives and production support could further tighten the domestic supply situation.

4. Rising Domestic Demand:

   • India’s tea consumption is growing by 20 million kg annually, further tightening the demand-supply equation.

   • As the deficit deepens, price realization for quality tea should increase substantially.

---

Why Goodricke Group?

1. Premium Tea Gardens & Strong Management:

   • Unlike many struggling peers, Goodricke owns high-quality tea estates in Assam, Darjeeling, and Dooars.

   • As a subsidiary of Camellia Plc, it benefits from MNC-grade corporate governance and operational expertise.

2. High Promoter Holding – 74% Ownership Ensures Stability:

   • The high stake by the parent company reflects long-term commitment and reduces risks of governance issues.

3. Undervalued Despite Industry Tailwinds:

   • Goodricke’s stock has fallen from ₹350 to ₹170 in the past six months, largely due to general market weakness rather than fundamental issues.

   • With tea prices expected to surge, a multi-year earnings expansion could lead to a substantial re-rating of the stock.

---

Valuation & Return Expectations

• Historical Precedent from Sugar Stocks:

  • The sugar industry, once deeply distressed, saw stocks rally 10x to 20x when the cycle turned.

  • Tea stocks, currently at a similar inflection point, could follow a comparable trajectory.

• Potential Upside for Goodricke:

  • If tea prices rise in response to the supply deficit and government support, EBITDA margins should expand significantly.

  • Given Goodricke’s premium product portfolio, it is well-positioned to benefit disproportionately from price hikes.

  • A conservative 3-5x re-rating from current levels is achievable over a 5-year horizon.

---

Risks to Monitor

1. Execution Risk:

   • While the government has initiated reforms, actual implementation will determine sector-wide impact.

2. Weather Dependence:

   • Unfavorable climatic conditions, such as excessive rainfall or drought, could impact tea yields.

3. Global Tea Prices & Competition:

   • Sri Lankan and Kenyan tea exports influence global prices. If their production rebounds sharply, it could moderate price hikes.

---

Conclusion

Goodricke Group presents a highly asymmetric risk-reward opportunity in the Indian tea sector. With supply constraints worsening, industry consolidation playing out, and government reforms underway, the tea cycle appears to be turning after a decade of pain. Goodricke’s premium gardens, strong parentage, and high promoter holding make it an ideal bet to capitalize on this structural shift. If the thesis plays out, returns could be multi-fold over the next 3-5 years.

Hinduja Group's Ashok Leyland Share Pledge - A strategic move?

The Hinduja Group has pledged around 30 crore shares of Ashok Leyland (mkt cap ~ 60k crores), the group's flagship company in India. The pledge was created through Hinduja Automotive, a UK-based holding company and a key part of the Hinduja Group, which serves as the primary vehicle through which the Hinduja family holds its stake in Ashok Leyland.

As of 31 December 2024, promoters held 51.10% stake in Ashok Leyland. Hinduja Automotive held 34.72%.

As of 31 December 2024, the promoter had pledged 15.38% of its stake. On 26 March 2025, the company created an additional pledge of 10.21%, taking the total pledge to 25.59%.

The Hinduja Group’s decision to pledge Ashok Leyland shares while already having a significant portion of their IndusInd Bank stake pledged raises interesting strategic possibilities. 

1. Is This to Unpledge IndusInd Bank Shares?

It’s highly possible that Hindujas are looking to reduce the pledged stake in IndusInd Bank, especially since:

• Stock has fallen ~50% in 6 months, making it vulnerable to further margin calls.

• Lenders may demand higher haircuts or additional collateral due to recent price volatility.

• Short sellers are attacking because of pledged shares, worsening the situation.

• Unpledging IndusInd shares could restore investor confidence, preventing further forced selling.

By pledging Ashok Leyland, which is a relatively more stable and liquid asset, they may:

• Raise funds to reduce reliance on IndusInd pledges and strengthen their position.

• Avoid selling IndusInd shares at depressed valuations, protecting their stake.

• Show confidence in IndusInd Bank’s recovery by actively managing collateral risk.

2. Reliance Capital Acquisition is Done – What’s Next?

The Hindujas have spent ₹9,650 crore acquiring Reliance Capital, and:

• Some of the funds could have been from pledged IndusInd Bank shares.

• Now that the acquisition is complete, they might want to rebalance collateral sources.

• If they expect IndusInd to recover sharply, they may want to free up its pledged stake before sentiment improves.

3. Are Lenders Forcing a Collateral Shift?

• Given the fall in IndusInd’s stock, lenders may be demanding extra collateral.

• Instead of pledging more IndusInd shares (which could cause further panic), they may have chosen to pledge Ashok Leyland shares as a less risky alternative.

• This move could be aimed at calming lender nerves while waiting for IndusInd’s stock price to recover.

4. Market Sentiment & Short-Seller Pressure

• Pledged shares are always a weak point for short sellers, as they know margin calls can force sales.

• By moving some collateral away from IndusInd, Hindujas may be removing an overhang that short sellers are exploiting.

• If they can stabilize the situation, shorts might exit once the stock stops falling.

Conclusion: A Strategic Move for Stability?

The Hinduja Group is too seasoned to be caught off guard by market pressures.

• Pledging Ashok Leyland instead of IndusInd seems like a deliberate attempt to reduce forced selling risk.

• If this move helps unpledge IndusInd shares, it could set the stage for a big recovery rally once clarity emerges.

• It also signals confidence in IndusInd, suggesting they are managing the situation rather than reacting in distress.

Uncertainty Vs. Risk

Investing is often seen as a game of numbers, but it is just as much a game of psychology. One of the biggest lessons that long-term investors learn is that 

markets tend to overreact to uncertainty rather than to actual risk. This distinction is critical because uncertainty creates opportunities for those who can see beyond short-term noise and focus on long-term value.

Understanding the Difference Between Risk and Uncertainty

• Risk is measurable; it can be quantified and hedged against. For example, if a company operates in a cyclical industry, investors can analyze past cycles to gauge the extent of earnings volatility.

• Uncertainty, on the other hand, is when there isn’t enough information to make a precise assessment. It causes markets to react with fear, often leading to excessive pessimism.

Investors who can differentiate between the two and take advantage of overreactions to uncertainty often unlock massive wealth creation opportunities.

Case Studies of Market Overreaction

1. Nestlé’s Maggi Crisis (2015)

• When the Indian government banned Maggi noodles due to safety concerns, Nestlé’s stock price fell sharply.

• The uncertainty was immense—investors feared permanent brand damage.

• However, Maggi bounced back after a few months, regaining market share, and Nestlé’s stock went on to hit new highs.

2. Tata Motors DVR Discount (2020)

• Tata Motors’ Differential Voting Rights (DVR) shares saw their discount to ordinary shares widen to 60%.

• Despite being entitled to the same economic benefits, DVR shares were massively undervalued.

• When Tata Motors restructured and absorbed the DVR shares, the valuation gap closed, leading to huge gains.

3. IndusInd Bank’s Recent Derivative Concerns (2024-2025)

• Investors have punished the stock due to uncertainty around its derivative exposure.

• Despite solid earnings power, a strong balance sheet, and a professional management team, fear has driven valuations abnormally low.

• If history repeats itself, once clarity emerges, the stock could see a strong re-rating.

Why Overreaction to Uncertainty Creates Alpha

1. Mispricing Opportunities: Stocks that are temporarily punished due to uncertainty often rebound when normalcy is restored.

2. Limited Downside, Asymmetrical Upside: If a business has strong fundamentals but is undervalued due to short-term fear, the downside risk is usually limited, while the potential upside is substantial.

3. Time Arbitrage: Most investors seek immediate gains, while those with patience can benefit from delayed but outsized returns.

4. Psychological Edge: Those who can withstand short-term volatility and remain rational amid uncertainty will outperform those who react emotionally.

How to Apply This Philosophy in Investing

• Look for Strong Business Models: Companies with durable moats and strong cash flows are better positioned to recover from uncertainty-driven sell-offs.

• Evaluate the Balance Sheet: Avoid highly leveraged firms that may face solvency issues.

• Assess the Market’s Fear: Ask yourself—Is this reaction due to genuine risk, or is it an overreaction to uncertainty?

• Be Patient: The best returns often require waiting for sentiment to normalize.

Conclusion

Investors who can recognize when uncertainty is mistaken for risk hold the key to outsized returns. The ability to buy when fear is high but risk is low is what separates average investors from great ones. While short-term noise will always exist, those who focus on long-term business fundamentals will eventually be rewarded. The markets may overreact, but your ability to stay rational is your biggest edge.

What made IndusInd bank a great franchise? Is that franchise lost?

IndusInd Bank has historically been admired in the banking industry for several reasons, making it one of the standout franchises in Indian banking. Here’s why it earned that reputation:

1. Strong Leadership & Execution:

• The bank was transformed under Romesh Sobti’s leadership (2008-2020), who built a high-growth, high-profitability banking model.
• Sobti and his team (ex-ABN AMRO executives) focused on risk-adjusted lending, superior underwriting, and niche market dominance.

2. High Return Ratios & Profitability:

• IndusInd consistently maintained a Return on Assets (ROA) of 1.8%-2% and Return on Equity (ROE) of 15%-18%, putting it in the premium banking league.
• Pre-COVID, its Net Interest Margins (NIMs) were strong (3.8%-4%), indicating high pricing power.

3. Robust Liability Franchise & CASA Growth:

• While it was once a weak deposit franchise, it significantly improved its CASA (Current Account, Savings Account) ratio, reducing funding costs over time.
• It successfully built strong customer relationships with affluent, SME, and corporate clients, improving its low-cost deposit base.

4. Diversified & Profitable Lending Mix:

• Unlike many private banks heavily reliant on corporate or retail loans, IndusInd had a well-diversified loan book:
  • Vehicle finance (CV, CE, cars, two-wheelers, tractors, etc.) – One of the largest players, commanding strong pricing power.
  • Microfinance (Bharat Financial acquisition) – Leading presence in rural credit.
  • Mid & large corporate lending – Well-structured, high-margin loans.
  • Retail lending expansion – Grew credit cards, personal loans, and affordable housing.

5. Strong Risk Management (Pre-2020):

• Before the COVID period, IndusInd had a reputation for conservative risk-taking, avoiding major infra/NBFC risks that troubled Yes Bank, RBL, and others.
• While some aggressive lending segments (microfinance, vehicle finance) carried inherent risks, the bank’s provisioning policies were seen as prudent.

6. Digital & Tech-Driven Approach:

• IndusInd was one of the early adopters of digital banking, fintech tie-ups, and AI-driven credit underwriting.
• It leveraged big data, AI, and machine learning to refine credit risk assessment, helping maintain superior asset quality.

7. Superior Cost Efficiency & Operating Leverage:

• IndusInd had one of the best Cost-to-Income ratios (~42-45%), reflecting its efficiency compared to PSU banks and even some private peers.
• It managed to scale the franchise while keeping costs under control, leading to high operating leverage.

8. Acquisitions That Strengthened Franchise:

• The Bharat Financial Inclusion (BFIL) merger gave it a leadership position in the microfinance space.
• Earlier, it had acquired Deutsche Bank’s credit card portfolio, helping it gain a foothold in the unsecured lending business.

What Changed? Why Did the Market Lose Faith?

While IndusInd built a strong franchise, some concerns emerged over time:

1. COVID-19 & Microfinance Stress – Its exposure to microfinance (BFIL) created asset quality concerns during lockdowns.
2. Aggressive Growth Perception – Some investors worried about aggressive lending to certain risky sectors, reminiscent of Yes Bank/RBL Bank.
3. Corporate Governance Issues – Allegations of evergreening microfinance loans in 2021 dented its credibility.
4. Derivative Exposure Concerns (2024) – The recent issue around derivative contracts created fresh panic in the market.

Is the franchise lost?

The IndusInd Bank franchise is not lost, but its perception has been damaged, leading to valuation derating. However, the bank still retains its core strengths, and if execution improves, it can regain industry admiration.

Here’s a balanced view on whether the franchise is lost or just going through a rough phase:

---

What Has Been Lost?

🔻 Premium Valuation & Market Confidence

• Earlier, IndusInd traded at 3-5x P/B (Price-to-Book); now it’s barely around 1x P/B due to concerns over corporate governance, aggressive lending, and recent derivative losses.
• Institutional investors, who once saw it as a best-in-class private bank, have turned cautious.

🔻 Perceived Risk-Adjusted Lending Model

• Earlier, the bank was seen as a well-managed, high-growth yet prudent lender.
• The microfinance stress (2021-2022), derivative concerns (2024), and previous evergreening allegations dented this perception.

🔻 Leadership Reputation Hit

• Under Romesh Sobti (2008-2020), the bank was admired for stable execution, risk control, and high profitability.
• Post Sobti, the bank lost its premium execution aura, as concerns over risk management and governance crept in.

---

What Is Still Intact?

✅ Core Banking Franchise & Competitive Position

• Still has industry-leading margins (4.2-4.3% NIMs) and strong business segments (vehicle finance, microfinance, corporate banking).
• CASA ratio has improved (~42%), and deposit growth remains solid.

✅ Earnings Power & Profitability

• ROA of 1.8-2% is still achievable, which means the bank remains fundamentally strong.
• Even in the worst periods, the bank has been able to generate ~₹8,000-₹10,000 crore annual profit.

✅ Balance Sheet Strength

• Capital adequacy is at 16-17%, which means it is well-capitalized and not in distress.
• PCR (Provision Coverage Ratio) remains high, indicating buffer against NPAs.

✅ Institutional Comeback Possible

• The F&O ban has kept institutions away, but once clarity emerges, they may return.
• Large investors love high ROA, high NIM franchises, and if IndusInd executes well, a re-rating can happen.

---

So, Is the Franchise Lost?

🚫 Not permanently. IndusInd still has the DNA of a strong, high-margin bank.
💡 But the perception has taken a hit, and the bank needs to rebuild trust through better governance, stable earnings, and execution discipline.

If the bank delivers strong execution over the next 2-3 years, the franchise can regain its lost glory, much like ICICI Bank did post-2018 or Axis Bank post-2020.

Conclusion: Why the Franchise is Still Strong

Despite these setbacks, IndusInd still retains key strengths:

• Strong capital adequacy (~16-17%)
• Stable deposit franchise with improving CASA ratio (~42%)
• Industry-leading NIMs (~4.3%)
• Consistently high profitability (~₹8,000-₹10,000 crore PAT expected in FY25-FY26)
• ROA expansion back to 1.8-2% trajectory as per management guidance

If IndusInd successfully navigates the current uncertainty and improves its governance perception, it has the potential to reclaim its premium valuation and industry admiration.

Key Markers to Track Over 2 Years:

1. Microfinance Stability – If rural stress eases and BFIL delivers solid disbursement growth without NPA spikes, the market will re-rate it.

2. Liability Franchise Growth – Watch CASA ratio and deposit growth. If IndusInd strengthens its deposit base, cost of funds will come down, improving NIMs.

3. Derivative Clarity – If no further shocks come from the derivatives book and risk stabilizes, fear will subside.

4. Leadership Transition – If a new CEO comes in with a solid reputation and continuity in strategy, the market will appreciate that.

5. Market Narrative Shift – Once people stop comparing it with RBL/Yes Bank and start discussing its earnings power, a re-rating will be imminent.