Yeah that’s true and maybe a bit concerning but there have been multiple (Infact, numerous) cases/examples where the public holding is almost 100% but the stocks have been huge multibaggers (some examples being Vantage knowledge, Harshil Agrotech, KKrrafton Developers, Bridge Securities etc. to name a few). This proves that while promoter holding is often seen as a sign of confidence in the company’s future, it’s not a decisive factor for success or stock performance.

Many companies with a broad public shareholding have thrived because their growth was fueled by solid fundamentals, clear strategic direction, and operational success. These companies often avoid concentration risk associated with promoter-led decisions, which can sometimes skew in favour of personal interest rather than shareholder value.

Also generally, from my understanding, for NBFCs, like Srestha, the dynamics of capital requirements and the nature of the business differ from traditional manufacturing or service sectors. NBFCs are capital-intensive businesses that rely heavily on external funding, whether through debt or equity, to fuel their lending operations. As a result, having lower promoter ownership may actually be a conscious decision to maintain capital liquidity and invite institutional investors for better governance (they have also raised funds very recently and in the past as well, if you go through their announcements). In the financial sector, particularly for lending-focused businesses, the trust of credit-rating agencies, institutional investors, and regulators is often more critical than promoter holding. Therefore, a well-managed NBFC with diversified funding sources, clean governance, and strategic partnerships (like Srestha’s Felix Industries partnerships for renewable energy lending) can perform just as well or better with high public ownership.

@Abhinav_007
what you have mentioned is market estimation of value based on growth prospects but what i am asking is about NAV estimation done by the company itself which has no connectivity with public or private and growth of 5% or 0% which company also cannot predict. Even if they predict such growth prospects for 15-35 years, it is bogus.
The NAV is estimated based on 2 critical factors.

1. guaranteed future cash flows based on contracts signed already
2. discount rate.
   I hope you got my point.

Any update on Styrenix considering the reason for your investment was auto sector demand. Lately we are seeing a different picture about autos with inventory levels going up. You think you still would continue to hold or add more ?

Update:

I’m pretty bullish about the prospects. For a trading company at the end I believe FY27 it’s available at forward 8 EV/EBITDA, so not completely cheap. But a potential distribution market leader is available at 4000 crs EV. It technically is a market leader already however I would consider a company market leader when they gain meaningful % of market share.

And if things go right they should make 4000 crs Cumulative EBITDA in the next 7-10 years

As upstream steel capacity comes up, steel itself market will grow 14% annually for next couple of years.

Execution is not the problem here, and WC is also not a problem which is generally the issue with distribution companies. Margins however will remain paper thin.

Value proposition comes from consistent pricing for small players as well as larger ones.