Waiver of AGR dues to help Vodafone Idea stay afloat in telecom sector: Ambit Capital
NEW DELHI: A potential Central government decision to waive interest on unpaid adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues, penalty and interest on penalty would enable
Vodafone Idea
(Vi) to raise bank debt, enabling India's third-largest telecom carrier to carry out capital expenditure (capex) and hold on to its nearly 200 million subscribers, said
Ambit Capital
.
'The government has consistently maintained its intent to maintain a 3+1 structure in the telecom industry. With the Supreme Court now providing clarity on potential relief, the government has no choice but to act,' the brokerage said in a research note Friday, which ETTelecom has reviewed.
'Waiver of interest on unpaid AGR dues, penalty and interest on penalty would help the company raise bank debt, giving VI an opportunity to expand its network, carry out capex and hold on to its ~200 million users,' it said.
According to Ambit, with the government unwilling to increase its stake in the telco beyond 49% and promoters unable to commit additional capital, the conversion of Vi's dues into equity is an 'unviable alternative'.
It said deferring dues would 'merely postpone the issue' without resolving it. Should the government choose this route, Vi may struggle to secure bank loans essential for funding its growth capex.
ET, in its May 23, 2025, edition, reported that Vi has revived debt-raising talks with banks that had stalled over uncertainty around the telco's regulatory dues.
The telco has been discussing fundraising with lenders since 2024, but the pace has picked up particularly after the Supreme Court on May 19 dismissed the company's plea seeking a ₹45,000 crore waiver on penalties and interest linked to its ₹83,400 crore adjusted gross revenue (AGR) liability.
'Without AGR relief, our calculation confirms what Vi argued in the SC. Repayment of current statutory dues would lead Vi to run out of its cash reserves by March 2026,' Ambit said. 'Thus, supportive action before the payment date of March 2026 is the most likely outcome.'
Vi plans to invest ₹50,000-₹55,000 crore in capex through FY28, mainly in 4G modernisation and 5G roll-outs, which is crucial for the struggling telco to bolster its networks and prevent subscriber port-outs to its stronger rivals,
Reliance Jio
and
Bharti Airtel
.
Between March 2024 and February 2025, the telecom joint venture between India's Aditya Birla Group (ABG) and the UK's Vodafone Group Plc, raised around ₹26,000 crore via equity, including ₹4,000 crore from vendors.
Vi has previously said it has been in discussions with lenders for over a year to secure ₹35,000 crore in bank financing, including ₹10,000 crore in non-fund-based credit.
Ambit Capital estimates that despite tariff hikes in July 2024, Vi's annualised 3QFY25 cash EBITDA of ₹9,800 crore isn't sufficient to pay off ₹16,900 crore due in FY26.
'In June 2025, Vi will likely receive ₹64bn (₹6,400 crore) equity funding from Vodafone PLC as an indemnity payment. But the same isn't sufficient for Vi to raise bank loan funding of Rs250bn (₹25,000 crore), which is necessary for the company to carry out its target ₹500-550bn (₹50,000-55,000 crore) FY25-28 capex,' the brokerage said.
As of December 31, 2024, Vodafone Idea's bank debt was ₹2,330 crore. At the same time, government dues related to spectrum and AGR liabilities were at ₹2.15 lakh crore, excluding interest. Under the 2021 telecom relief package, large repayments were deferred until October 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
30 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Aaditya Thackeray seeks Shinde's sacking over cancellation of MMRDA's 2 big-ticket projects; calls for probe
On Friday, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) told the Supreme Court that it was scraping two tenders associated with the Gaimukh-Ghodbunder-Bhayander project and said it would start the process of inviting bids anew 'to safeguard larger public interest'.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Vodafone Idea's net loss widens to Rs 7,166 crore in Q4, revenue slips
Mumbai: Vodafone Idea has reported a wider net loss of Rs 7,166.1 crore for the fourth quarter ended March 31 (Q4 FY25), compared to a loss of Rs 6,609.3 crore in the previous quarter (Q3 FY25). This rise in losses comes despite some year-on-year improvement, as the loss had stood at Rs 7,674.6 crore in the same quarter previous fiscal (Q4 FY24), according to its stock exchange filing. The telecom company also saw a decline in its revenue from operations, which dropped slightly to Rs 11,013.5 crore in Q4 from Rs 11,117.3 crore in Q3 -- a decrease of around 0.93 per cent. Total income also slipped by about 1.22 per cent quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) to Rs 11,228.3 crore. At the same time, total expenses rose to Rs 18,396.4 crore from Rs 17,973.6 crore in the previous quarter, reflecting a 2.35 per cent increase. While Vodafone Idea reported a year-on-year (YoY) revenue growth of 3.8 per cent in Q4, that was not enough to offset its rising costs and ongoing financial stress. The average revenue per user (ARPU) increased to Rs 175 in Q4 FY25 from Rs 153 in Q4 FY24, driven by tariff hikes and customer upgrades. The company's financial struggles remain deep. For the full fiscal year ended March 2025, Vodafone Idea reported a total loss of Rs 27,383.4 crore, and its net worth stood at a negative Rs 70,320.2 crore. The total outstanding debt continues to loom large. It owes Rs 2,345.1 crore to banks and has deferred spectrum and AGR-related payments of Rs 1.95 lakh crore, which will be due over the next two decades. Vodafone Idea's board has approved a fundraising plan of up to Rs 20,000 crore, subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals, in an attempt to ease the burden. The company also said it remains in dialogue with the government for possible relief on its long-standing AGR dues, even after the Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea for waiver of interest and penalties. Despite these challenges, the company said it is preparing its financials on a going-concern basis, expressing hope that with government support, successful fundraising, and operational cash flow, it can continue its business in the coming year.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Why the president must not be lexicographer-in-chief
ON MAY 28TH a specialist American court for international trade struck down many of Donald Trump's tariffs. It did so on several legal grounds, including linguistic ones. As in so many cases, the two sides in the case presented different views on what several words mean. The next day another court temporarily stayed the decision. The tariffs remain in effect but the legal question remains. Many of the tariffs rest on a law Congress passed in 1977, giving the president the authority to 'regulate" aspects of American trade 'to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat". The first court found that 'regulate" did not include the power to impose tariffs. Tariffs are not mentioned anywhere in the relevant parts of the law. The Trump administration naturally disagreed. Under such a view 'regulate" would mean what the president says it does, a worrisome precedent. The case will probably land with the Supreme Court. The high court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has repeatedly held that the president must have almost unconstrained executive power to carry out his constitutional duties. But those duties do have constraints: taxation is squarely Congress's remit, not the president's, in the constitution. The 'emergency" law lays out specific conditions under which the president can temporarily wield the power to 'regulate". Even if regulation included taxation, the president has not passed other crucial tests. Reconsider 'any unusual and extraordinary threat". The 'and" makes clear that both tests of 'unusual" and 'extraordinary" must be met. Are America's trade deficits either? They are not: America last ran a trade surplus in goods when Led Zeppelin were at the height of their powers, in 1973. The worst years for the trade balance, as a share of GDP, were in the middle of the George W. Bush administration, two decades ago; the deficit has shrunk as a share of the economy since. Today's trade balance meets the definition of 'unusual" under no conceivable standard. If the Supreme Court decides that not only does 'regulate" (which could at least arguably include tariffs) mean what the administration argues, but 'unusual" does too, they would hand him extraordinary power (though they could strike the tariffs down for other reasons as well). Mr Trump has already made another lexicographical power-grab. He has deported Venezuelans the administration accuses of being gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This grants the power to eject people from the country without legal proceedings 'whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government". That 'whenever" clause forbids the arbitrary use of this power. So Mr Trump declared Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, to be a group directed by the Venezuelan government, and conducting an 'invasion". His intelligence agencies found otherwise—whereupon some of the top spies who had so concluded were sacked. Presumably Mr Trump will now promote some who will tell him an invasion is what he says it is. Statutes are meant to be precisely drafted so that it is clear what they forbid, require and permit. But legislators are not linguists and they leave in mistakes and ambiguities all the time. This is why lawyers spend so much time arguing about the meaning of terms used in the laws. As for the judges themselves, they have several ways of determining what a term means. You might think of 'the dictionary", but there are dozens of quality dictionaries, and judges can sometimes go dictionary-hopping to find the one that defines a term the way they want it to be for some other reason. Another problem is that dictionaries themselves are today nearly all descriptive, meaning that they try to portray how a word actually is used, not how the lexicographers think it should be. They use large archives of citations of real text to that end. So judges are ultimately getting the conclusions of bookworms at Merriam-Webster and Oxford University Press about how words are ordinarily used. This tricky descriptive task, carried out by fallible human beings, is not ideally suited to being such an important part of lawmaking. Today, briefs submitted by amici curiae ('friends of the court": ie, outside parties) sometimes include research by linguists who can use their own big-data sources. For example they can use statistical techniques to see how frequently the word 'regulate" occurs in sentences also including 'tariffs". They have done so with a big body of founding-era texts to conclude that the phrase 'bear arms" occurred nearly always in a military context when the constitution was written, and therefore that the Second Amendment was about militia service, not personal self-defence. (The Supreme Court, before that research was done, held otherwise.) Such developments are a welcome improvement on dictionary-hopping. Pinning down what a word means is far harder than most people realise. Dictionaries will never be perfect. Big data is better but will be subject to argumentation and interpretation. But the simple fact is that the arbiter of meaning cannot be the president, himself also a litigant in so many cases. If the Supreme Court's justices grant any president such authority, they would hand over not only Congress's power but much of their own, with dire consequences.
