VKS Projects IPO: CRISIL‘s rating speaks enough!
VKS Projects's revenue has grown at a CAGR of 106% between fiscal 2007 and 2011, from Rs 3.31 crore to Rs 60.25 crore, and profit after tax registered a CAGR of 150%, from Rs 8 lakh to Rs 3.16 crore.
By VS Fernando, IPO Analyst at India Aarthik Research
VKS Projects: CRISIL’s rating speaks enough!
OFFER AT A GLANCE
VKS Projects Ltd
91.7 to 100 lakh shares of Rs 10 each
% on Total Equity
53.4% to 55.6%
Rs 55 to Rs 60
Rs 55 cr
100 & Multiples of 100
1 out of 5
BSE and NSE
The Navi Mumbai head-quartered VKS Projects Ltd (VPL) is making an initial public offer (IPO) of Rs 55 crore with a price band of Rs 55 to Rs 60 (Rs 10 paid-up). The issue quantum between 91.7 lakh to 1 crore shares - amounts to 53 to 56% of the post-issue capital.
The IPO is being made through the book-building route wherein up to 50% of the issue should be allotted to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) failing which the full subscription monies would be refunded. Not less than 35% is reserved for retail investors. The shares are proposed to be listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE).
The objects of the public issue are: To procure Construction Equipment and Key Machinery worth Rs 23 crore; To set up Engineering Design Studio/Office and Training Centre in Chennai, Cochin, Delhi, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad at a cost of Rs 10 crore and meeting long-term working capital requirements Rs 15 crore. However, none of the proposed plans has been appraised by any external agency.
CRISIL has assigned a grade of "one on five" to the proposed IPO indicating that the fundamentals of the IPO are poor relative to the other listed equities in India. CRISIL has cited many negative factors for the dismal rating.
The company was originally promoted by V K Sukumaran and K Unnikrishnan. The stake held by Unnikrishnan & family was transferred to Sukumaran’s spouse in 2005 and she was subsequently inducted in to the board. Sukumaran (46) holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and has more than two decades of experience in the EPC business. He has been instrumental in shaping the company’s growth till date.
Incorporated in February 1998, VPL has been undertaking Engineering Procurement and Construction contracts for the past 14 years. The company claims to have core competency in fabricating/erecting reaction vessels, vacuum tray driers, storage tanks and heat exchangers for industries such as refinery, petrochemicals, dyestuff, pharma and bulk drugs, metallurgy, power and textiles. It also undertakes civil and land development contracts.
During FY07-09, the company undertook projects with an average ticket size of Rs 2-3 crore. Post FY09, it started taking relatively higher value projects. It claims to have received recently an order worth Rs 45 crore from PACL India and another worth Rs 49 crore from Lanco Infratech for civil work.
The company’s revenue has grown at a CAGR of 106% between fiscal 2007 and 2011, from Rs 3.31 crore to Rs 60.25 crore, and profit after tax registered a CAGR of 150%, from Rs 8 lakh to Rs 3.16 crore. In the first nine months of fiscal 2012, revenue grew 62% to Rs 97.55 crore and net profit amounted to Rs 5.63 crore against the equity capital of Rs 8 crore.
Although VPL has in the past bagged orders from prestigious clients such as Reliance, Themax, Deepak Fertilizer, RCF and IG Petro, it has not been able to get repeat orders of large magnitude from these clients. Further, as of June 2011, VPL’s order book backlog stood at Rs 97 crore which translated into 1.6 times of FY11 revenue which is very low as compared to other EPC players. Given the current unfavourable business climate faced by the EPC industry and the slowdown in the investment cycle, the low revenue visibility could have an adverse impact on growth in the near term.
Also, the company is yet to place orders aggregating to Rs 23 crore for the construction equipments and key machineries proposed to be purchased from the Issue proceeds. Any delay in their procurement or change in the assumptions or market conditions may delay the implementation schedule which could affect the cost, revenue and profitability.
Infra Construction or EPC Contracting industry does not command a great discounting in these days. Whereas the composite market P/E is more than 14x today, many an EPC scrip has P/E in single digit. When well known peers yielding attractive dividend returns are available at a cheep discounting, why should one risk in a non-dividend paying company like VPL at a higher P/E? The promoters’ average cost of holding is less than Rs 9 per share.
How VPL compares with select
Rel Indust Infra
VPL’s IPO is lead-managed by Aryaman Financial which has a pathetic record to speak about. Though the investment banker has successfully managed as many as 65 IPOs since 1995, hardly a tenth is quoting above the offer price today. In fact more than 40 IPOs have vanished from the scene.
Among the most recent ones managed by Aryaman, Swajas Air failed to pass the muster and Midvalley Entertainment is currently languishing at 90% discount! The fixed-priced BCB Finance is struggling to hold above the offer price despite the market maker’s best effort.
Performance of recent Aryaman-associated IPOs
-Promoters new to investors and non-dividend paying company asking for a hefty share premium
-Yet to place orders for the entire construction equipment and key machinery aggregating to Rs.22.64 crore and yet to identify the office spaces estimated to cost Rs.10 cr
-Negative cash flows from operations for the past five years
-Low order book constraints revenue visibility and the company is unable to win large repeat orders
-Exposed to high concentration risk as orders from two new clients reportedly accounted for 97% of the order book.
-Shifting away from core competency - large portion of order book related to civil constructions
-Largely promoter-driven company and dependence on promoter-director is very high
-CEO does not have any experience in construction or engineering activity
-Co-promoter (main promoter’s wife) is reportedly not actively involved in the business and lacks technical experience yet draws unjustifiable remuneration from the company
-Promoters’ cost of holding is less than one-sixth of the IPO price
-Pathetic track record of the IPOs handled by the investment banker