&w=3840&q=100)
Paytm waits on mkt cap rule to ramp up UPI: MD & CEO Vijay Shekhar Sharma
He added that consumer and merchant payments continue to present a growing opportunity, with the model's viability driven by merchant discount rates on select payment instruments and subscription-based revenues.
'…we've restored the high UPI success rates that Paytm has long been known for. This has been made possible by the deep integration with our partner banks, our focus on technology, and the continued support from the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI)… Once the market share caps are imposed, we are ready to move faster and go deeper on market expansion,' Sharma said in a letter to shareholders.
The reference to a market share cap comes as NPCI, the apex retail payments body, has extended the deadline to implement a 30 per cent cap on third-party UPI apps by two years, until December 2026.
NPCI is seeking to introduce a market cap to address potential concerns such as concentration risks among top players. PhonePe and Google Pay continue to dominate the UPI ecosystem, with both entities controlling more than 80 per cent of UPI transactions in volume terms.
Sharma said that the Noida-based digital payments and financial services company was committed to being artificial intelligence-first in terms of its offerings and processes.
As of June 2025, Paytm's market share was recorded at 6.9 per cent, according to data from the NPCI website. Sharma indicated that the company would continue to expand internationally.
'Our international expansion will be deliberate, with a long-term view and a 1,000-day commitment to meaningful results,' he said. This comes on the back of building 'value-accretive services' for the company's merchants to grow and retain customers.
'These are products that extend our stack and unlock monetisation beyond transactions. These solutions are already showing promise in India, and we're beginning to explore international opportunities where small businesses remain underserved,' he explained.
At its meeting in March, the company's board of directors, based on the recommendations of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee, approved a fixed annual remuneration of ₹4 crore for Sharma, along with other company benefits, for the period from April 2025 to December 2027.
His remuneration for 2024-25 (FY25) stood at ₹4.47 crore.
One97 Communications, the company that operates the Paytm brand, reported a turnaround with a consolidated profit of ₹122.5 crore in the first quarter (Q1) of 2025–26, against a net loss of ₹838.9 crore in Q1FY25. Paytm had posted a net loss of ₹539.8 crore in the fourth quarter of FY25.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a few seconds ago
- The Hindu
Russia is not Iran, India can't cancel oil imports on U.S. demand: experts
India cannot cancel oil imports from Russia as it did six years ago with Iran and Venezuela, given the difference in the scale and importance of the relationship, said experts, warning that the U.S.'s actions against India were damaging the relationship built over decades. In 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump had in his first term, demanded that India 'zero out' its oil imports from Iran and Venezuela. India had eventually complied with the demand before the deadline in May 2019. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order levying a 25% penalty on top of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, unless India cut energy purchases from Russia, which currently make up more than 35% of its oil imports. The penalty would kick in by August 27 unless Russia stops the war in Ukraine. The threat is expected to add pressure on both India and Russia ahead of a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir Putin next week, and the upcoming visit by Mr. Putin to India for the annual summit with Mr. Modi. 'At the global level, Russia is not Iran,' former Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Arun Singh told The Hindu in an interview. 'We want Russia, as one of the major powers in the international context, to be an important partner of India, and there's a memory in India of Russia in the past having provided political support [and] ...defence technology that nobody else was willing to provide,' he added, also warning that if India were to cave in to Mr. Trump's demands, this would only increase the U.S.'s appetite to demand more concessions from India. According to scholar Brahma Chellaney, the U.S. move on Russian oil is a cover to strong-arm India into accepting trading terms the U.S. wants, including market access for agricultural products. '[Mr.] Trump is weaponising Russian oil purchases to force a largely one-sided trade deal on India,' said Mr. Chellaney, who is a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin. He pointed out that technically, the U.S. has not sanctioned Russian oil, nor has it subscribed to the European Union's latest price cap on it. Mr. Trump had also not penalised China, which is the world's largest importer of Russian oil. 'Cutting Indian purchases of Russian oil is unlikely to make him back off. He wants a trade deal on his terms,' Mr. Chellaney added. Until recently, India imported about 2 million barrels a day, and is the second largest importer of Russian oil. Mr. Singh pointed to the past 25 years as a period of building trust between the two countries, and a steady improvement in relations after the previous era, where India had seen the U.S. as a 'coercive and an unreliable partner' for its backing of Pakistan, the 1971 Bangladesh War intervention, and the 1998 sanctions on India for its nuclear tests. Since 2008, after the U.S. helped India win exemptions at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group for doing nuclear trade, he said this perception seriously changed. He also said that the U.S. had supplied drones and winter clothing to support Indian forces during the India-China stand-off at the Line of Actual Control at 'short notice'. 'But because of what President Trump has done in India, there's a resurrection of the old and bitter memories of the U.S.,' Mr. Singh who is a Senior Fellow at Delhi-based Carnegie India and a Professor at Ashoka University. 'So President Trump and the U.S. may feel that they are putting some penalties on India, high tariffs, I would say that they are putting high tariffs and penalties, less on India, and more on the U.S.-India relationship. It will take some time for the relationship to come out from this shock that has been generated', he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a few seconds ago
- Business Standard
Wall Street and AI startups are fighting over entry-level quants
At a rooftop bar on Manhattan's Lower East Side, roughly 150 quant researchers met with employees at the artificial-intelligence startup Anthropic who implored them to consider a life away from Wall Street. Over plates of potstickers and popcorn chicken, they rubbed shoulders at the June mixer with former hedge fund quants-turned-Silicon Valley evangelists who encouraged them to apply for jobs at Anthropic, according to the company. This month, the San Francisco-based firm is going global with another quant 'social hour' in London. The recruiting campaign mirrors similar efforts by rivals OpenAI and Perplexity AI. And a number of leading figures in the AI industry already come with quant backgrounds, including OpenAI Chief Research Officer Mark Chen and Perplexity co-founder Johnny Ho. But quants lured by dreams of building AI models and tools instead of profit-seeking algorithms for traders — often for lofty pay and benefits comparable to the world of finance — also face the risk of disappointment. 'The pitch is 'come and build the machine god,'' said Agustin Lebron, a former Jane Street trader who now works at a systematic trading startup. 'But I suspect that, for a lot of those people, it'll end up being 'come and figure out how to make people buy things from ads.'' Still, the AI industry's competition with finance is noticeably heating up. For Wall Street, it's an unwelcome wrinkle in an already-brutal war for quant talent. Unlike financial firms, AI companies aren't covered by the non-competition agreements that keep many of these researchers from easily switching jobs. 'I'd estimate we've seen a 40–50% increase over the past 12–18 months in AI-native and software companies specifically asking for talent with quantitative finance backgrounds,' tech recruiter Mike Doonan said. Entry-level quants are eligible for base salaries of as much as $300,000, based on external job listings, but that doesn't include what can be considerable bonus targets. AI firms today can offer comparable base salaries, with compensation packages bolstered with equity rather than bonuses. Next Big Thing According to an analysis of LinkedIn announcements, social media posts and company news sites conducted by employment tracking company Live Data Technologies, firms including Jane Street and Citadel Securities have lost quants to AI firms over the past year. Aron Thomas and Charles Guo both left Jane Street earlier this year to join Anthropic. In an interview, they praised their former firm as a great place to work but said they were drawn to the excitement of being part of the next big thing. 'It became very clear quite quickly that AI is going to change a lot of things and drive many changes in the world, and it seemed pretty important to be involved,' said Guo. Jane Street declined to comment for this story. Citadel also declined to comment on personnel matters, but pointed to growing interest in the firm's own internship program, which saw 108,000 applicants for this summer, up 20% from last year. While OpenAI also declined to comment, its chief executive officer Sam Altman touted quant-focused recruitment events in an April post on X. Noam Brown, an ex-quant and top researcher at the company, weighed in, noting that recruits don't need to take a pay cut anymore. Perplexity's Ho said the company pays $200,000 base salaries but makes up the difference somewhat with equity. He stressed that the firm's pitch to quants isn't mainly financial, though. Instead, it was the opportunity to take on 'new and more exciting challenges,' said Ho, who previously worked at Tower Research Capital. Quant Skills Quants are uniquely adept at minimizing latency in algorithms, which makes them desirable to AI developers competing to ensure users get responses as quickly as possible from the large language models that power generative AI tools such as ChatGPT. And much like AI research, quantitative trading involves sifting through vast amounts of unstructured data. What's more, firms like Anthropic and Perplexity are pushing more into financial services offerings. For its part, Anthropic said in a statement that it's after 'the rigorous analytical thinking and empirical research methods' that quants possess. Such skills have 'substantial overlap with the technical challenges of developing safer and more capable AI systems,' the company said, adding that it's going to keep hiring people with specialized backgrounds as it scales. Quant firms have occasionally sued employees departing for rivals. But litigation is unlikely for quants moving to AI labs, which don't directly compete with financial firms. Moreover, California — where most big AI companies are based — largely prohibits non-competition agreements. Ho said Wall Street has hurt itself with non-competes. 'They are becoming more and more secretive,' he said. There are signs that Wall Street is attempting to hit back against the poaching attempts of AI companies. For example, Iain Dunning, who oversees AI at Hudson River Trading, posted on X in May: 'Are you a researcher at OAI/Anthropic/etc and tired of overhiring, the orgchart chaos, the lowered talent bar, want to move to NYC, or just want to do something different?'
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Coca-Cola's $9-bn US tax appeal may shape India's transfer pricing rules
In August 2024, Coca-Cola announced it would appeal to the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the US Tax Court's 2020 decision in favour of IRS' determination of $9 bn of transfer pricing adjustments and validity of IRS' blocked income regulations. With Coca-Cola finally filing its brief in March, the oral argument is expected soon. If the judgment is affirmed, the US will have the most senior judicial endorsement yet of the proposition that routine advertising by low- risk foreign affiliates cannot conjure up 'non-US intangibles'. In 'Coca-Cola v. Commissioner', the Tax Court rejected the company's bid to recast its foreign concentrate plants as 'marketing investment points'. Coca- Cola argued that enormous local ad budgets had created foreign trademarks, entitling those plants to higher residual profits and rendering IRS' comparable-profits method unreliable. Judge Albert G Lauber disagreed on three grounds: The plants bore no downside risk, because inter-company contracts guaranteed stable margins. Legal ownership of trademarks remained in Atlanta in the absence of any cost-sharing agreement. Neither the plants' ledgers nor the group accounts booked a foreign intangible. So, none could be assumed. The outcome was a $9 bn adjustment in favour of IRS. So, why would an Atlanta ruling matter in Delhi? Risk Indian transfer-pricing Rule 10B already asks who shoulders market and credit risk. The US court's motto, 'no risk, no asset', gives revenue officers a ready answer when distributors with fixed gross margins claim their AMP (advertising, marketing and promotion) outlays create local intangibles. Legal title Indian law, like US regulations, starts with the registered owner of an intangible, and shifts the return only if a written cost-sharing or buy- in exists. Absence of such contracts was fatal to Coca- Cola's investor theory. It can be equally fatal to Indian taxpayers who rely on informal understandings. Accounting proof Under Ind AS 38, a self-created intangible must be capitalised once technical feasibility and future benefit are demonstrated. If no marketing asset appears on the balance-sheet, Atlanta logic says the taxpayer's 'implicit trademark' story lacks substance. Methods The US Tax Court accepted a profit-based method, even though marketing intensity differed across entities, showing that India can defend TNMM (transactional net margin method) or CPM (comparable profits method) without resurrecting the discredited bright-line test. Taken together, these points form the 'Atlanta playbook': Start every audit with inter-company contracts and marketing guidelines and approvals. Map risk. If margins are contractually locked in, the spend is a service. Demand trial balances and fixed-asset registers to see whether any brand asset has been booked. Benchmark overall margins and, where necessary, give credit for any super-normal distribution profit already earned. Applying this playbook would answer the very criticisms levelled by some recent Indian judgments. Delhi High Court's decision in March 2025 to quash the ₹35-cr adjustment in 'PCIT v. Beam Global Spirits', for instance, insisted that a large spend plus a group relationship does not, by itself, make an 'international transaction'. In this case, the court objected that the tax officer never proved an associated enterprise (AE)-directed arrangement. Contract extracts and HQ marketing approval letters would have met that threshold. But armed with the 'Atlanta playbook', officers can go to court with documents rather than ratios, answering the judiciary's repeated demand for substance over arithmetic. Now, should the US Eleventh Circuit affirm the 2020 Tax Court decision, the world's most influential common-law tax bench will have endorsed the very principles Indian courts say they respect: documented risk allocation, legal-owner primacy and ledger evidence. And that endorsement could weigh heavily when the Supreme Court finally hears the combined appeals in the Sony Ericsson, Canon, Maruti Suzuki and PepsiCo cases here in India. Judges love international harmony. The prospect of a US appellate stamp on the risk-and-ownership approach could prove irresistible background music when our judges deliberate. MNCs anxious about double taxation after an Eleventh Circuit affirmation will have fresh incentive to settle India risk through bilateral APAs (advance pricing agreements). At that point, the 'Atlanta playbook' may move from helpful precedent to guiding standard. And India's AMP scoreboard could potentially look very different. The writer is former principal DG, income-tax (administration), New Delhi.
