CNBC's Inside India newsletter: Peaked, paused, and poised? India's market reboot at half-time
India's stock market was entering the year from a correction, and my conversations with market watchers were bleak, with many predicting a slowdown in earnings and lofty valuation multiples.
As we stand at the halfway mark of the year, it is safe to say that Indian equities have had a tumultuous six months marked by a bull run following U.S. President Donald Trump's wide-ranging tariff hikes, a sharp sell-off, and signs of a recovery.
Still, the MSCI India Index — which captures the performance of 157 large- and mid-cap stocks — has risen just 5.68% so far, nearly seven percentage points less than the MSCI Asia Pacific Index.
Meanwhile, the 50-stock Nifty 50 benchmark has added 8% so far this year, underperforming the 19.6% gains in Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index and the 29.4% surge in South Korea's Kospi index.
My conversations on what was not too long ago one of the world's top-performing stock markets, have transitioned from euphoria to cautious optimism in the short term.
"Indian markets peaked last September and then corrected all the way till February before bouncing back to peak levels now. However, quarter-on-quarter earnings have continued to slow, so we're back to square one," Pramod Gubbi, co-founder of Marcellus Investment Managers, told me.
Lower earnings aside, experts have also raised concerns over India's ability to withstand competition from regional peers, which boast cheaper multiples while also having favorable demographics that support consumption growth.
A strong contender is Hong Kong, which has seen a surge in listings and is reportedly attracting renewed interest from global funds.
Vivek Subramanyam, founder and CEO of investment bank and asset manager TH Global Capital, estimates that the Nifty 50 is trading at a 60% premium to the Hang Seng Index and a 70% premium to its emerging market peers in Asia.
"Regions like Taiwan and emerging Asia ex-China, with stronger growth prospects, could potentially outperform India," he said.
Still, Subramanyam expects Indian companies' earnings per share in 2026 to grow at around 15% or 17% higher than that of its peers in emerging Asia and double that of those on the Hang Seng index.
He expects Indian markets to "produce another single-digit gain" of up to 9% to 10% in the next six months.
A trade deal between the U.S. and India — which is expected very soon — would allow for growth to come in at the higher end of the range as it would indicate a reduction in India's protectionist policies, Subramanyam explained.
"India's valuations are certainly elevated compared to other emerging markets, and the short-term upside is limited. But I think the recent slowdown and ongoing recovery in growth make now a good time to selectively buy Indian equities in the medium to long-term," he added.
As investors take bets on India, Subramanyam cautioned on the need to be careful when picking stocks.
Subramanyam is looking out for companies with superior returns and what he calls "recurring revenues," which are predictable and sustainable over a 5-year period.
One such company is Home First Finance Company India, which offers home loans catering to India's low and middle-income strata.
"People are always going to need home loans. So, there is an inherent revenue stream for the company, which I think can compound in the next few years, given India's growing young population," Subramanyam explained.
Marcellus' Gubbi is similarly looking at companies with strong balance sheets and cash, which can easily be deployed for R&D, advertising or even productivity-enhancing initiatives for staff, which can eventually yield better performance and earnings growth.
I asked if he has a preference for value over quality stocks, and large- or small-cap names.
He said, "I think value and quality have pretty good representation across market cap spectrums. You can't really say that all large cap stocks are quality, small cap is value."
Large caps, Gubbi says, are trading at a discount to small caps as the latter have been seeing a "disproportionate amount of fund flows," partly because of investments by retail investors in domestic mutual funds.
He has a bottom-up approach to stock selection, which is agnostic to sectors and market capitalization.
Gubbi, however, added that flexi cap mutual fund managers are increasingly in favor of large caps over small-cap names when deciding allocations, "partly because valuations are still relatively lower."
My takeaway from speaking to Subramanyam, Gubbi and Kevin Carter, founder of EMQQ Global, is consistent: India is a long-term play.
Gubbi tells me that "predicting short term stock price moments is not just typical, it is futile to some extent."
India, Carter added, is a place where every emerging market investor should have their money in.
"India's population is bigger than all the other emerging markets combined, excluding China. So on paper, it is perfect. It's got the biggest population, the best demographics, the fastest growth, and that's driving consumption, so on paper, it's everything you could ever ask for," Carter added.
The investor — whose focus is primarily on new age tech companies — says that Indian internet companies offer stronger growth momentum and attractive valuations than their emerging market peers, despite being a tad more expensive.
Companies he is betting on include Eternal, the parent company of food delivery platform Zomato, travel platform Le Travenues Technology, also known as Ixigo, and recruitment and matrimony platform Info Edge.
These companies are in the early innings of their growth, Carter says, adding that they have huge potential to grow their revenues and profits as Indian consumers become more affluent and spend more over the next decade or two.
He foresees that Indian tech names will see a pickup in investor interest in the medium term, as investors look to rotate out of U.S. tech names, such as the so-called Magnificent Seven stocks, amid macroeconomic uncertainties and a weaker dollar.
"India has solid digital public infrastructure and the best leaders running tech companies. So it's a perfect place for global investors to invest in, especially for internet companies, which are set to see a compounding in its growth," Carter added.
Radhika Rao, senior economist at DBS, said there are positive signs that Indian markets could reach new highs. Rao is also optimistic that India can reach a deal with the U.S., but noted that New Delhi might not lower barriers on its agriculture sector too quickly.
Sanjay Mathur, ANZ's chief economist for Southeast Asia and India, said that even if a trade agreement with the U.S. does not pan out, the hit to New Delhi's economy might not be too significant because trade "is a fairly small part" of India's growth.'Sensitive stage' of U.S.-India trade negotiations. India is pushing back against the U.S.' demand to access its domestic market for genetically modified crops, sources told CNBCTV-18. If the talks crumble, 26% tariffs are "imminent," another source said.
Eight years of goods and service tax in India. Launched on July 1, 2017, the country's GST has transformed India's economy. CNBCTV-18 breaks down the various ways in which the tax has evolved since its inception and where it's headed in the future.
Indian investigators retrieve Air India crash data. Black boxes that contain the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder were recovered in mid-June. Investigators hope the information will provide insight into Air India's fatal crash on June 12.Indian markets were trading in positive territory on Thursday.
The benchmark Nifty 50 was up 0.22% while the BSE Sensex index had risen 0.18% as at 12.35 p.m. Indian Standard Time.
The benchmark 10-year Indian government bond yield had ticked up marginally to trade at 6.293%.July 4: India FX reserves
July 9: Educational consultant Crizac IPO, India M3 money supply
July 10: F&B consultant Travel Food Services IPO, U.S. Federal Open Market Committee minutes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Upturn
24 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
CLSA flags pressure on Indian equities as US tariffs, Russia ties raise geopolitical risk
By News Desk Published on July 31, 2025, 09:40 IST Global brokerage CLSA has warned that India's image as a geopolitical safe haven is under scrutiny following former U.S. President Donald Trump's move to impose a 25% tariff on Indian exports and announce penalties on trade with Russia. The developments, according to CLSA, could challenge India's delicate diplomatic balancing act between the two global powers and weigh on equity market sentiment. CLSA noted that Indian equities may come under greater pressure due to the tariff-related uncertainty and potential decline in foreign institutional investor (FII) inflows driven by rising geopolitical instability. The note pointed to energy-related vulnerabilities, highlighting that India's reliance on Russian crude imports could face disruptions, which in turn threatens the margin profile of Indian refiners due to supply risks and pricing volatility. On the sectoral front, exporters in electronics may see waning demand optimism from the U.S., while pharma and IT firms could come under tighter regulatory scrutiny amid shifting U.S. trade policies and broader scrutiny of overseas suppliers. CLSA concluded that India's strategic positioning between the U.S. and Russia is becoming increasingly difficult, and any further escalation in global trade tensions could hurt investor confidence and earnings visibility across several export-linked industries. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are based on brokerage reports and do not constitute investment advice. Please consult your financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Ahmedabad Plane Crash News desk at
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
