SMIDs vs bluechip: Make safer bets as experts see a deeper correction
MUMBAI
:
When US President Donald Trump spooked the markets with his tariff threat earlier this year, small- and mid-caps landed in bear territory, with the Nifty Smallcap 250 and the Nifty Midcap 100 correcting 25% and 21%, respectively, from their September peak by February end.
Now, markets have staged a comeback, so has the SMIDs vs bluechip dilemma.
Chasing high returns often requires investing in small- and mid-cap stocks for their explosive growth potential—a high-risk, high-reward strategy.
Also Read: Gold is back under pressure after a stunning surge. What's driving the dip?
However, according to market experts, it could be in retail investors' best interest to curb their enthusiasm because if earnings continue to underwhelm, SMIDs could see a deeper correction.
Low earnings, high valuations
The March quarter earnings have largely disappointed, with most companies in the BSE 400 failing to deliver meaningful growth, said Saurabh Mukherjea, founder and chief investment officer (CIO) at Marcellus Investment Managers, adding that valuations are once again creeping into expensive territory.
To be sure, the Nifty Smallcap 250 is trading at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 33.35, significantly lower than its about a decade-long average of 48.20, while the Nifty Midcap 100 is trading at a P/E of 33.38, well below its 10-year average of 45.65, according to Bloomberg.
He advised investors to trim exposure to small- and mid-caps and focus on high-quality large-cap stocks, warning of a potential deeper correction, possibly 30-40%.
The Nifty 50 is currently trading at a P/E of 21.88, slightly above its 10-year average of 20.89. Besides, the Nifty 50 has risen over 6% in 2025 against the Nifty Midcap 100's 4.34% gain and the Nifty Smallcap 250's 1.17% fall.
Harsha Upadhyaya, president and chief investment officer (CIO) at Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, agreed, saying the 2024-25 earnings story has not exactly played out as expected. 'We kicked off the year with hopes of 15-16% earnings growth for large-caps and around 20% for small- and mid-caps. But, actual numbers have fallen short."
Also Read: GE Vernova's impressive turnaround has stretched the stock's valuation
According to Kotak Mutual Fund estimates for 2024-25, the Nifty 50 earnings grew 6%, the Nifty Midcap 150 12%, and the Nifty Smallcap 250 16%.
Looking at the March quarter earnings, small-caps have had a rougher ride.
'If we split 4QFY25 performance in terms of market capitalisation, we see 31% of small-cap companies missed expectations, while the misses were lower in mid-caps and large-caps at 28% and 17%, respectively," said a 3 June report by JM Financial Institutional Securities.
Hopes of recovery
That said, the market is still holding on to hopes of a recovery across segments over the next couple of quarters. If that plays out, valuations might remain elevated. 'But if earnings continue to disappoint, small-caps could face a sharper derating."
The only thing that can support higher valuations of small-caps—and mid-caps in that order—is superior growth over large-caps, which was the case from 2020-21 to 2023-24, Upadhyaya said. During the period, the Nifty 50 earnings saw a compound annual growth rate of 25%, less than the Nifty Midcap 150's 41% and the Nifty Smallcap 250's 32%.
'In 2024-25, we haven't seen that kind of outperformance. If it returns, these pricey valuations may stick around. But if earnings momentum slips, the broader market could see a correction," he added.
Also Read: As India switches gears to renewable energy, these five switchgear stocks may benefit
Meanwhile, small-cap funds remain an investor favourite despite the concerns of a bubble. In 2025, they have consistently cornered the largest share of declining monthly inflows in equity mutual funds.
Sailesh Raj Bhan, CIO of equity investments at Nippon India Mutual Fund, noted that a systematic investment plan with a medium-term horizon is a reasonable strategy for mid- and small-cap stocks.
Though large-caps stand out as sensibly priced, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
ET Market Watch: Friday the 13th Crash: Sensex Sinks, Crude Spikes, Gold Nears Record
Transcript Welcome to ET Market Watch, your quick fix on the day's biggest market movers. I am Neha Vashisht Mahajan - your host of the evening. It's Friday, June 13. Today was a turbulent day for investors, both emotionally and financially. Let's start with the numbers. The Sensex fell 573 points to close at 81,118, while the Nifty50 ended 169 points lower, settling at 24,718. Earlier in the day, markets were in freefall — with the Sensex down over 1,300 points and Nifty hitting an intraday low of 24,473. So, what triggered the sell-off? Reason #1: Israel strikes Iran In a dramatic escalation of Middle East tensions, Israel launched a preemptive military strike on Iran's capital, Tehran. The airstrikes reportedly targeted nuclear sites, missile factories, and top Iranian commanders, including Revolutionary Guards chief Hossein Salami, whose death has been confirmed by Iranian state media. A state of emergency has been declared in Israel, and markets fear retaliatory attacks. Washington has distanced itself from the strike, calling it a 'unilateral action.' This geopolitical flashpoint shook global markets — and India wasn't spared. Reason #2: Crude oil prices spiked Brent crude surged over 6.6% to $74.15, after hitting $78.50 — the highest since January. WTI crude wasn't far behind, rising 7.3% to $72.91. Markets are worried that if Iran retaliates by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, oil supply could be severely restricted. And we've seen this story before — back in 2022, similar fears sent energy prices soaring. Reason #3: Global sell-off The ripple effect extended beyond oil. Asian markets tumbled — Japan's Nikkei, South Korea's KOSPI, and Hong Kong's Hang Seng all lost over 1%. In Europe, the DAX, CAC 40, and Euro Stoxx followed suit. The mood? Risk-off. Safe-haven rally As panic set in, investors fled to safety. Gold shot up to $3,416 per ounce, approaching its all-time high. The Swiss franc and Japanese yen gained. US 10-year Treasury yields dropped to a one-month low of 4.31%. And the Dollar Index climbed 0.5% — classic flight-to-safety. Closing Thought: The BSE's market capitalisation dropped by ₹2.17 lakh crore, wiping out a chunk of investor wealth in just a few hours. It's a reminder that in today's connected world, geopolitics and markets move hand in hand. That's all for today on ET Market Watch. We'll keep watching the numbers — and the world behind them.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Walk away if deal is lopsided, US can't cut tariffs: Former officials, experts write to govt
India should resist signing a trade deal if the Donald Trump-led US administration demands disproportionate concessions, as it is not legally permitted to reduce tariffs and can therefore offer no substantial trade-related concessions in the near term, as many as 20 experts and former senior government officials have said in a letter to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on Friday. This comes as the US is seeking greater market access in a range of sensitive sectors, including agriculture, and has raised objections to India's restrictions on politically sensitive genetically modified (GM) products and regulations requiring that imported dairy come from animals not fed blood-based feed. 'If excessive or disproportionate concessions are demanded on India's hardest interests, India should take equally hard positions and resist – even at the cost of not securing a deal. In these circumstances, the costs of no deal — navigating a US market walled off by high tariffs in the short-to-medium term — may still be lesser than the longer-term costs of an unequal pact,' the memorandum said. The signatories to the document include K M Chandrasekhar, former Cabinet Secretary; G.K. Pillai, former Home Secretary; Ujal Singh Bhatia, former Member and Chairman, WTO Appellate Body; Amarendra Khatua, former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; and Sanjaya Baru, author and former adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The letter said it was important to acknowledge that the ongoing negotiations with the US could not be seen as business-as-usual, and that their exceptional nature must be recognised. It said that the proposed BTA may be aimed more at mitigating escalatory tariff action by the US and reaching an acceptable compromise — 'balancing the equation', as it were — rather than actually resolving trade issues with the US. The Trump administration in its trade deal with the UK retained the 10 per cent baseline tariff — which Trump said is the lowest country-specific tariff that will be applied to trading partners, giving concessions only on the escalatory tariffs that Trump had announced on countries globally since assuming office in February this year. Experts such as Ajit Ranade, Senior Fellow, Pune International Centre; Badri Narayanan Gopalakrishnan, economist; Prabhash Ranjan, professor, OP Jindal Global University; R V Anuradha, partner, Clarus Law Associates; Anand P. Gupta, former professor of economics, IIM Ahmedabad; and Pradeep S. Mehta, Secretary General, CUTS International, also supported the letter to the ministry. 'It is also important to mention here that, in the absence of a valid Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the current US administration is not legally permitted to reduce tariffs and can therefore make no substantial trade-related concessions in the near term. The tariff discussions in the BTA negotiations are accordingly expected to be restricted only to the executive tariffs levied by the current administration. This also raises questions regarding the durability of any deal reached,' the letter said. The memorandum further said hat careful thought must be given to the legal architecture of the BTA, as it remains to be seen whether the agreement will take shape as an interim arrangement leading to a conventional GATT Article XXIV-type regional trade agreement, which would require a roadmap towards finalisation and preferential trade liberalisation on 'substantially all trade', interpreted qualitatively. 'In any event, care must be taken to ensure that the contours of any negotiated outcome are compliant with India's existing obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework. In the face of the US' blatant disregard for the rules-based multilateral trading system (MTS), with the WTO at its core, India, as an ascendant global power, should also call out US actions,' the letter said. A Commerce and Industry Ministry spokesperson in response to a query said: 'The negotiations are being held along the lines outlined by the two leaders, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, in their meeting in Washington'.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
