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.
| Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter |
