IPO Review - Discussion until listing

Currently Shareholders get 5% profit and 95 % to policyholders. Thats their practice from the 1956 , since inception. But IRDA in 1999, while privatisation, has given a limit of 10% profit to shareholders and 90% to Policyholders. If LIC starts following IRDA act, then it can change to 10%.
Also currently policies are two types

  1. participating policies, where profit is shared with policyholders as bonus
  2. Non-participating policies, where profit is not shared with policyholders as bonus like Term Insurance, annuity plans, cancer cover plans.

till now, Lic shares profit earned on all policies whether participating or no-participating with 5%::95% Ratio…
but going forward,it will share profit of only Partcipating polcies with policyholders…

what it means to shareholders =

  1. their profit share will increase to 10%
  2. their profit share will increase as all non-participating policy profit share will go to only shareholders…
4 Likes

amazing insight… thank you !!

But i guess the impact may be marginal (i don’t have numbers… just a feeling based on LIC agents dissuading Term policies and nearly 2x cost of Term policies compared to others)

If any member has data on proportion of non-participating in the entire mix. will be helpful.

I have a basic IPO application query. Can I apply in two different quota from a single PAN to increase chance of allotment? For example 1 lot under policyholder quota and 1 lot under retail quota? Is it allowed or from a single PAN one must apply in any one of the quota ?

1 Like

Well i don’t think that’s possible you can apply 13 or 14 lots from one pan card which is fixed and you can apply that from different brokers or from one broker no problem but yes if you have multi demart account linked with different pan card then surely your chances of getting allotment increases!

Yes. you can apply

  1. Policyholder quota price discount Rs 60
  2. Retail Quota Price discount Rs 45
    in each you can apply till 2 Lakhs each…so in total 4 lakhs under single Pan number.
1 Like

Any views regarding Paradeep Phosphates IPO. It’s valuation and business model of the company looks good.

1 Like

Goodday! Anybody has views on Garuda Aerospace IPO ?

Syrma SGS Technology Ltd - IPO Note_August’2022.pdf (887.3 KB)

excessive valuations in this IPO are going to take the retail investors on a lumpy ride.

1 Like
1 Like

Mankind Pharma IPO will open for subscription on April 25 and close on April 27. Stock will be listed on exchanges on May 9.

The company has set the price band for its IPO at Rs 1,026-1,080 per share, valuing the company at Rs 43,264 crore at the top end of the band. It will raise as much as Rs 4,326.36 crore at the upper band of the price range.

IPO consists of a pure offer for sale of upto 40.06 million shares by its existing shareholders and promoters.

Mankind Pharma has a strong focus on the domestic market. 97.60% of its total revenue in the FY22 is from India. Sales from tier II-IV cities and rural areas contributed 47% to Mankind Pharma’s domestic sales.

Mankind Pharma used to be the market leader in domestic prescription medicine for long, only to be toppled by Sun Pharma last year. The company has developed 36 brands in the pharmaceutical business and boasts one of the largest networks of medical representatives in the Indian pharmaceutical market.

Apart from its popular Manforce Condoms, Prega News, and Unwanted-72 brands, Mankind Pharma has also established a range of consumer healthcare brands in categories such as antacid powders (Gas-O-Fast), vitamin and mineral supplements (Health OK brand), and anti-acne preparations (AcneStar brand), among others.

Mankind’s consumer healthcare segment makes for 9% of its topline.

Return on net worth (RoNW) for Mankind stood at 23.29 percent in FY22.

8 Likes

Summary of Mankind’s RHP -

SUMMARY
Mankind Pharma was incorporated in 1991 by promotors Rajeev Juneja, Ramesh Juneja & Sheetal Arora. The company is engaged in manufacturing & marketing diverse range of formulations and several consumer healthcare brands like manforce, prega news etc. Although having entered consumer healthcare only in 2007, ManKind has managed to be category leader in male condoms (ManForce), pregnancy detection kit (prega news), & emergency contraceptive pills (unwanted 72).

If one calculates with the FY22 reported numbers, the business is generating ~70% Gross Margins, ~28% EBITDA Margins, and is generating RoCE [EBIT(1-Tax)/ (Total Debt + Total Equity)] of 22%. Its earnings have been on an increasing trend & have grown at 18% CAGR from FY15 to FY22. However, investors investing in this issue should be mindful of certain points discussed below, that might have artificially increased the return rations.

Earnings for 9MFY23 have been lower compared to 9MFY22. At the upper price band of Rs 1080, its post issue implied market capitalization would be ~Rs 43266 crores and its asking valuation is ~32x FY23E PE.

Although pharmaceutical business is highly competitive in India, many of the players are making good returns on capital employed. Mankind’s asking valuations is at par with other listed players with similar returns profile. Currently, the gray market premium (“GMP”) is around 10%, which is indicating muted listing expectations from this issue.

Entire IPO is offer for sale wherein up to 2.5% stake would be sold by promotors & remaining would be sold by early investors such as Cairnhill & Beige. Around ~97.6% revenue comes from India operations & as per the management, this would continue as they are upbeat about Indian Pharmaceutical Market.

An investor investing in this issue should be aware of the below mentioned points –

  1. There had been impairment of loans given to related parties – Casablanca Securities & Indu Buildwell Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs ~17.7 crores in FY21 which was later reversed in FY22. However, going forward an investor should consistently follow the “loans to related parties” account.
  2. There is a negative capital reserve of ~909 crores created due to several acquisitions such as Relax Pharma Pvt Ltd, Medifore Healthcare Pvt Ltd & others. This negative capital reserve has artificially increased the return ratios to some extent.
  3. Inventory as a % of COGS has increased to ~73% in FY22 from avg of ~50%.
  4. Although not significant, one of the members of the promotor group Greesh Juneja has not provided his consent to be identified as the Promotor Group.

MANAGEMENT
Ramesh Juneja is the promotor & founder of the company with over 31 years in the Pharma Industry. He is the chairman & the whole-time director.

Rajeev Juneja is also the promotor of the company with over 29 years of experience in the Pharma Industry. He is the Vice Chairman & Managing Director and has been associated with the company since 1992.

Sheetal Arora is CEO & whole-time director of the company. He is also the promotor & is associated with the company since 2007.

INVESTMENT THESIS
Mankind’s track record provides comfort on execution capabilities of the management. Keeping aside huge success that they have had in scaling consumer healthcare brands such as manforce, prega news etc., one notable execution is when they launched their synthetic hormonal drug “Dydroboon” in 2019. Prior to mankind’s entry into this category, “Duphaston” the signature drug of Abbott India used to dominate the market. However, within only ~2.5 years of entry, mankind’s Dydroboon has now captured market share of close to ~22%.

19 brands out of their 20 best selling brands are ranked amongst the top 3 in their respective molecule groups. The company also has one of the largest on ground pan India marketing presence with a field force of 11691 medical reps, & 3561 field managers. Due to the sheer size of on ground reps marketing mankind’s products, it is likely to aid faster adoption of all new products that the company launches. Examples include – when they leveraged their existing presence for faster rollout of a Vildagliptin & Dapagliflozin tablets.

As per the details furnished in the RHP, Mankind’s manufacturing facilities are fairly underutilized & therefore going forward, there shouldn’t be significant capex towards setting up new facilities. Higher utilization would also allow room for operating leverage to kick in.

As of Dec 2022, Mankind was the most prescribed pharmaceutical company in India having ~15% share of prescriptions. Having a leadership position in prescription creates a circular network effect, where doctors prescribe partly based on what they believe pharmacists stocks, and pharmacists in turn favor brands that they believe doctors will prescribe or that patients would prefer.

Management guides on increasing their market presence in Chronic Therapies such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases. Company has filed 1 INDA (Investigative New Drug Application) for a novel G protein coupled receptor target for treatment of type 2 diabetes which is in phase 1 clinical trials. Increased presence in Chronic Therapies modes well as chronic therapeutic patients have a higher lifetime value. As they are planning on increasing their presence in Chronic Therapeutic areas, they have acquired one dermatology brand “Daffy” & one respiratory brand “Combihale” from Dr Reddy’s in Feb 2022.

They manufacture their own API for certain of their own products which includes their flagship products such as Telmikind & Dydroboon. This provides vertical integration which helps in maintaining margins.

ANTI THESIS
Regulatory & Compliance risk is a risk which is inherent to almost entire Pharmaceutical Industry. One cannot mitigate this risk however it is very important for investors investing in this issue to keep in mind the risk of bad observations by USFDA & other regulatory bodies.

The entire issue is Offer for Sale (OFS) wherein the company would not receive any monies from the proceeds of the IPO.

As of Dec 2022, products manufactured by third party manufacturers contributed to ~25% of entire revenue from operations. This includes medicines such as Entromax Suspension, Electrokind – L Liquid, Racigyl – SB Sachet etc.

Although currently only ~17% of Mankind’s products are under National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM), if there is any increase by the government, this would impact profitability & pressure margins. As of now, company’s 213 products are listed on NLEM, any further price caps from the government would impact margins.

Cash conversion days has increased from 106 days in FY18 to 155 days in FY22.

Particulars 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
D/E Ratio 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.14
EBITDA Margins 22.0% 19.6% 26.4% 29.5% 28.3%
Gross Margins 66.2% 65.4% 68.0% 71.3% 68.9%
Net Profit Margins 13.9% 12.1% 17.8% 20.8% 18.7%
Post Tax RoIC 27.1% 25.2% 34.9% 33.8% 26.9%
Post Tax RoCE 21.7% 20.8% 29.6% 26.5% 21.5%
Before Tax RoCE 31.7% 29.4% 40.1% 34.6% 29.0%
4 Likes

27th June23 —Cyient DLM --IPO opens today --CNBC :
Interview with Krishna Bodanapu :
–Biz is currently Build-to-Print where essentially the client gives the design & we are the contract Mfers. This is 99% of the biz

–This will continue to happen for the next 1/2 yrs , the whole intent is going forward as per order book, we see that we will have a lot more Build-to-Specifics work ( where the design and mfers is our own ) , this will be in the next couple of yrs.

–This Build to Specs biz will be mostly 20/25% of the biz in a steady -state

–Margins on Build to Specs is higher as when we design something we have a control on what parts we use , therefore we can optimise based on parts/ availability of parts & mfring processes

–As Build-to-Spec gets larger we have a large head-room on margins

–Build to Print & Build to Specs difference in margin is 3/4% higher in Build to Specs

–Build to Specs is difficult to crack as most clients dont want to share the IP & give control to a 3rd party. 2nd Reason --Its a matter of time and these industries are mature and lot of what we design is already been designed many yrs ago. Now we are at inflection point where the design itself will change with the new innovations in Semi-conductors and AI based new innovations

–In 2yrs time we will not see this change , it will change in the next 3/5 yrs time frame

–We are at 11% Margin , the expectation is 12% as we have made lot of investments in last year in leadership / supply chain / tech —we will see 12% in the next 12/18 months.

–We have a run-way on supply chain optimisation / utilization given that we are running at 1/3rd capacity , there are no. of levers which will help us get to 13/15% margins in the next 24 months. The head-room is beyond that.

–2 drivers of this Margin expansion is increase in capacity utilization & 2nd is investments we have made, 3rd is pricing of the order book for newer orders.

4 Likes

Why are these investors are divesting their holdings in NSDL ??

Simple, markets are at a place where it can handle large exit liquidity. Given the lucrative valuation CDSL and BSE are enjoying, NSDL early investors wanted to join the party and cash out on some chips on valuations that would melt faces. NSE too would have listed by this year, if not for the C-suite shenanigans.

1 Like

Anyone studied Utkarsh SFB IPO opening tomorrow?

Hi. Will be good for listing gains. Although not a great franchise as compared to Equitas or Ujjivan but overall market sentiment is v positive for small fin banks. Utkarsh Micro finance exposure is high, CASA is low, Loan book not diversified.

1 Like

Litigation against Utkarsh
Litigation against the company

  1. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Upadhyay has filed a lawsuit against The Bank, accusing its branch manager, area manager, regional manager, and an IT personnel of physical assault, hostage-taking, and confiscation of his personal belongings, including his mobile phone, motorbike, and ₹20,300 from his purse. He alleges that he was forced to resign, and his salary for June 2019 and travelling allowance for April and May 2019 were withheld.In response, The Bank has denied these allegations in a written statement. They claim that Mr. Mahesh Kumar Upadhyay had embezzled ₹153,470, which he had collected from debtors, and resigned when questioned about it. The Bank states that his employment was not terminated, and the final decision regarding his salary and termination will be made following the Bank’s rules. They also mention that an FIR was filed against him for embezzlement, and a charge sheet was issued based on the investigation.The matter has been transferred to the Labour Court in Gorakhpur for further proceedings. The court will assess the evidence presented by both parties and make a decision based on the merits of the case.

  2. The Bank received a show cause notice from the RBI expressing their displeasure regarding the non-compliance with certain circulars and letters related to automation processes and provisions in banks. The RBI advised the Bank to conduct an audit and submit a compliance certificate. The Bank responded by providing updated information on the compliance status and submitted an audit certificate as requested. Subsequently, the RBI conducted an on-site verification to assess the Bank’s compliance.Additionally, the Bank received a show cause notice from SEBI regarding the downselling of NCDs to multiple investors. The Bank filed a settlement application stating that they were unaware of the downselling and followed proper procedures for a private placement. They also mentioned that the RoC’s order confirmed their adherence to Companies Act provisions. However, SEBI rejected the settlement application and scheduled a personal hearing.To facilitate the early redemption of NCDs issued to Karvy Capital Limited, the Bank sought exemptions from certain regulations and obtained approval from SEBI. The RBI also provided a no-objection letter for the redemption. As a result, the Bank deposited the outstanding principal and initiated the redemption process.

  3. The Bank received a show cause notice from SEBI alleging various violations of the Listing Regulations and a SEBI circular. The notice accused the Bank of non-compliance in several areas, including the appointment of a share transfer agent, submission of compliance certificates, submission of investor complaint statements, and timely disclosure of information. It also cited failures related to fundraising, board meetings, and submission of financial results.In response, the Bank filed a settlement application, acknowledging some inadvertent lapses and taking steps to rectify them. The Bank highlighted its efforts to enhance internal controls and compliance systems, as well as its engagement with advisors. It emphasized that it had met its financial obligations regarding NCDs and had not received any complaints from NCD holders. The Bank stated that its actions had no market-wide impact and did not harm investors’ interests.The Bank proposed to settle the allegations and requested SEBI to consider the settlement application favorably. The Bank assured SEBI of its commitment to comply with regulations and resolve any inadvertent errors. The settlement application aimed to address the issues raised by SEBI in a fair and lenient manner
    Matters against the director

  4. A notice dated April 19, 2023, was issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Promoter pertaining to an FIR registered with Cantonment Police Station, Commissionerate, Varanasi for offenses under sections 419, 420, and 409 of IPC. The investigating authority alleges that the Promoter availed a ₹250 million loan from Micro Units Development & Refinance Agency Limited (“MUDRA”) and distributed the amount among themselves and their associates.In response, the Promoter submitted a reply dated May 23, 2023, stating that they had availed a ₹250 million refinance facility from MUDRA in Fiscal 2017. They further explained that the loan was extended to eligible financial institutions, and they disbursed the loans to 20,000 women beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme. The Promoter claimed that the refinance facilities were closed by repaying the principal and interest in full, supported by a ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by MUDRA on March 30, 2019.To clarify the utilization of funds, the Promoter provided audited balance sheets for the financial years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, along with the independent auditor’s report approved by the RBI.Regarding the request to furnish details of loans and customers, the Promoter asked the investigating authority to instruct, under the signature of the appropriate authority, for sharing customer details. They stated that they would be unable to disclose this information as mandated by various acts.The matter is currently pending.

  5. A complaint was filed before the Labour Court, New Delhi, against the Promoter by Mr. Dev Nayak Mishra, an ex-employee, seeking full and final settlement of his dues, including encashment of earned leaves, sick leaves, casual leaves, and bonus. The complaint was filed following the termination of Mr. Mishra’s services by the Promoter on May 13, 2015.The Court issued an ex parte order on January 15, 2019, as the Promoter did not provide representation or written statements in the proceedings. The order allowed the proceedings to proceed based on ex parte evidence.The Promoter filed an application before the Court to set aside the ex parte order and requested permission to submit written statements. They claimed that the summons were served on the commercial branch of the Promoter instead of the branch responsible for legal matters.The Promoter disputed Mr. Mishra’s claims and stated that his appointment was terminated due to his actions that deviated from his assigned duties. They also mentioned issuing multiple warnings and intimation letters to Mr. Mishra before terminating his services.

  6. A complaint was filed before the Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, against the Promoter by Mr. Ved Prakash, an ex-employee. Mr. Prakash alleged that the Promoter forced him to resign and subsequently terminated his services. He claimed that the Promoter did not pay him ₹40,735 as compensation for encashed leaves, bonus, and three days’ earned salary. Mr. Prakash sought an order from the Court to direct the Promoter to pay him 10 times the amount due as compensation and litigation costs. The Promoter responded that Mr. Prakash resigned without completing the mandated two months’ notice period and refuted the claim of non-payment of three days’ salary. The Court has reserved its order in the matter.

2 Likes