Aditya Khemka on US tariff threat over pharma and what to bet on there
, Fund Manager,
InCred Asset Management
, says a possible 200% tariff looms over pharma exports to the US though investors are currently not reacting to the proposed tariff. Pharma companies exporting to the US may face earnings downside. InCred Asset Management avoids US-facing generic companies which may face earnings challenges in the next two years. On the other hand, Khemka likes domestic pharma companies with strong brands are experiencing double-digit growth and are using their cash flow wisely to create more inorganic growth opportunities for themselves. He also likes asset-light hospital companies
What is your take on Divi's Lab because for today, the stock is in focus on the back of the setback coming in from Novartis and of late, we have seen the stock reacting sharply to that. But it is one of those strong candidates that even after negative news flows continues to trend higher. How does this news impact the earnings and the outlook for the company?
Aditya Khemka:
Entresto is a very key product for Divi's, and will be a substantial part of their earnings. Once Entresto goes generic, some of those earnings will evaporate. But let us not forget Divi's has done a substantial amount of capex over the last four-five years and that capex probably still has some steam left in terms of monetisation. As and when the incremental capex gets monetised, the earning growth might still not be a challenge for Divi's.
Play Video
Pause
Skip Backward
Skip Forward
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:00
Loaded
:
0%
0:00
Stream Type
LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
1x
Playback Rate
Chapters
Chapters
Descriptions
descriptions off
, selected
Captions
captions settings
, opens captions settings dialog
captions off
, selected
Audio Track
default
, selected
Picture-in-Picture
Fullscreen
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text
Color
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Text Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Transparent
Caption Area Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Transparent
Semi-Transparent
Opaque
Font Size
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
300%
400%
Text Edge Style
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop shadow
Font Family
Proportional Sans-Serif
Monospace Sans-Serif
Proportional Serif
Monospace Serif
Casual
Script
Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values
Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
장현성이 선택한 '인권팔찌', 이유가 있어요
국제앰네스티
지금 받기
Undo
Having said that, from a valuation standpoint, we are very cautious on stocks like Divi's where valuations are overstretched compared to their historical averages. These stocks are trading 40-50% higher than their historical average valuation multiples and we will continue to sit out this one. For us the downside seems to be higher than the upside and hence we are not owning the company.
Let us move away from the Divi's news flow for a bit right now and talk about the tariff implication on the entire pharma space. There's a 200% tariff possibility even though it is over the next 12 to 18 months. So, how feasible or how realistic is this 200% because it seems too high for tariffs on the entire pharma space? Secondly, what kind of impact do you think it could have on the overall sentiment in the pharma space?
Aditya Khemka:
Earlier it was 25% and then it is 200%, I do not think investors at this point are paying any heed to the tariff percentage that the Trump administration is talking about. It remains to be seen if they will at all have any kind of tariffs on the pharmaceutical space. These may be more of an arm-twisting tactic and the Street sees it as a sort of an arm twisting tactic and realistically they may not end up imposing any kind of tariffs.
Having said that, if you look at the pharma companies that export to the US, even if some tariff is imposed, then there is a significant downside to the earnings of these pharma companies and that means higher risks for an investor in the space. We at InCred Asset Management, do not hold any US generic companies or companies that sell to US markets substantially and hence our portfolio is relatively immune to this kind of a situation.
Live Events
You Might Also Like:
Markets in pause mode as tariff uncertainty lingers: Sudip Bandyopadhyay
But yes, I agree that earnings are at risk. We do not know what percentage tariffs can come out. It can be 20%, it can be 200%, it can be zero for all we know. But the risk in these stocks have definitely gone up. I have not seen the reward going up.
What are your earning projections because in the last quarter, we have not seen the companies performing that well. There are concerns over the lower contribution from g-Revlimid. The pricing is not that supportive even for the Indian markets. The data suggest that we are still in that low single-digit growth number. What is your own sense with respect to the earnings and what factors could be at play?
Aditya Khemka:
For the US generic stocks, earnings for the next two years will be a challenge. Many of these companies have got g-Revlimid, others have got other interesting products that they have launched over the last two years and these products will get incremental competition in 2026 or 2027. Hence, earning growth for the majority of these stocks will be a challenge. We are looking at single-digit CAGR numbers in terms of earnings from here and hence the valuation multiples that these stocks trade do not justify that kind of an earnings growth and we will definitely see some downside in these stocks if the earnings growth is in single digits.
On the broader US generic space, we are very cautious and pessimistic on the outlook. In the domestic pharma space though average growth is in single digit, the good pharma companies, the pharma companies with good brand presence are growing in double digits and using their cash flow judiciously to acquire smaller companies and add inorganic growth on top of it. So, we remain bullish on those companies that are more focused on India, the branded market, and are using their cash flow wisely to create more inorganic growth opportunities for themselves.
What is your view on the diagnostic space? There was some recent news flow that Amazon is now foraying into that quick diagnostic space offering at home services. What impact do you think this will have on the entire diagnostic space?
Aditya Khemka:
The Indian diagnostic market is growing at 10% at a market level and then 85% of the diagnostic market is unorganised. So, I would say there is more and enough space for competition to come in. We have already seen Tata 1mg, Reliance Netmeds, come in and do this online discounted pricing model that Amazon will probably try now, but it does not work that well in the diagnostic space or in the healthcare space broadly speaking because healthcare is a matter of trust, matter of presence, matter of brand which cannot be built overnight, which cannot be justified by over pricing.
You Might Also Like:
View: India has negotiated well with Trumpian policy, but it may have to take a stand soon
Diagnostics companies that are format companies that we own, will continue to do well regardless of how many new entrants come in on the online format because the online format one lacks the trust of the patient and the doctor and two, there is more than enough space for each and every player to come and sort of get share from the unorganised players given that only 15% of the market is organised and 85% of the market is unorganised.
Tell us about the overall healthcare and the hospital chains rather because we have seen consolidation in that particular sector. The companies have been announcing their capex and even the stock prices and the investors were getting rewarded because of that. Do you believe that with the kind of capex, the growth projections, and the growth on ground, the valuations are justified? What is your overall sense of the hospital chain sector?
Aditya Khemka:
It has to be very stock specific. Max Healthcare trades at 100 times trailing cash flow. Apollo is trading at 60 times trailing cash flow. Whereas Healthcare Global, is 24-25 times trailing cash flow. So, I cannot really make a statement on the entire hospital space because each individual hospital stock has a different valuation metric and is at a different spectrum altogether in terms of those valuation metrics.
I would rather summarise that we are very gung-ho on the hospital space. India has a lot of scope for hospitals to grow, especially when they follow the asset light model where they lease the land and building and they do not really own the land and building. So, there is a lot of space to grow. But there are certain
hospital stocks
that are very expensive and may not make money for investors in the medium term. Then, there are also extremely cheap hospital stocks which can make a substantial amount of money for investors over the next three to four years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
29 minutes ago
- NDTV
Jane Street Reenters Indian Markets After $567 Million Deposit: Sources
India's markets regulator has allowed Jane Street to restart trading after the US high-frequency trading firm deposited $567 million, two sources aware of the matter said on Monday. The regulator sent an email to the firm on Friday in which it said that following the deposit of the money, the restrictions imposed by its interim order are no longer applicable, said the sources, who declined to be named because they are not authorised to speak to the media. In an interim order issued on July 3, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had barred the firm from buying and selling securities in the Indian market and froze $567 million of its funds. Jane Street could resume trading if an equivalent amount was deposited in an account that gives the regulator rights over the money until its investigation is complete, the order stated. Email queries sent to Jane Street and SEBI were not answered immediately. The country's stock exchanges, the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd and BSE Ltd, have been directed to closely monitor the activity of the US-based quant trading firm, the sources said. The two exchanges are yet to facilitate Jane Street's buying and selling of Indian securities, said one of the sources. "While the firm has been allowed to resume trading in India, it has given an undertaking to SEBI that it will not trade in options. The firm also does not intend to trade in cash till it has explained its trades to SEBI," the second source said.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's settlement plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran — brother of Byju Raveendran — seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against Byju's and to consider the settlement between the beleaguered edtech company and the BCCI. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadeven refused to interfere with the April 17 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had ruled that since the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of Committee of Creditors (CoC), it required the approval of the lender's body under the provisions of section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Earlier in February 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed the petitioners to place their settlement offer before the new CoC, in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes $1.2 billion, is a member. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was initiated in July last year by the NCLAT, admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from the BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was also appointed in this matter. Later, a settlement was reached between the parties, and Byju Raveendran approached the NCLAT. The appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024, after approving a dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in 2019. This was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Court. A Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud halted the NCLAT order and directed the BCCI to deposit the amount in question in a separate escrow account till further orders. Meanwhile, Byju's Alpha, a special purpose financing vehicle established by Byju's in the US to receive proceeds of a $1.5 billion Term Loan B, has sued Byju Raveendran, co-founder and his wife Divya Gokulnath for "orchestrating theft of $533 million". Byju's Alpha said that following the $533 million judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Riju Ravindran and Byju's ultimate corporate parent in India, the company has now filed a lawsuit against Byju Raveendran, his co-founder and wife Divya Gokulnath, and his consigliere (advisor), Anita Kishore. The lawsuit states that each of them co-orchestrated and executed a lawless scheme to conceal and steal $533 million of loan proceeds (the 'Alpha Funds'), according to a press release. They further stated that "it is clear that Byju, Divya, and Anita deliberately hid the assets of Byju's Alpha and repeatedly were deceptive about the location of the money in order to steal funds rightfully owed to the Lenders".
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Viceroy rebuts former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its Vedanta report
Mumbai: US-based short-seller Viceroy Research has disputed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its allegations of financial misconduct and misrepresentation against Vedanta Group. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion did not answer questions raised by it with regards to dividend payments and alleged financial mismanagement at the mining and minerals conglomerate. Justice Chandrachud's opinion 'fails to refute, investigate, or even engage with a single substantive financial allegation in our reports,' the short-seller said in a report on Monday, 21 July, its eighth note on Vedanta in 13 days. Vedanta has consistently denied Viceroy's allegations, terming the accusations baseless. Justice Chandrachud in his legal opinion to Vedanta, which was made public on Friday, said Viceroy's first report on billionaire Anil Agarwal's group, published on 9 July, lacked credibility, and the researchers behind the report had 'dubious credentials'. He said he relied on information shared by Vedanta to arrive at this opinion since Viceroy's website had no information in this regard. The former Chief Justice also highlighted Viceroy's interest in profiteering from a possible rout in Vedanta Resources' commercial papers as a result of the short-seller's reports. He also said he suspected the timing of the report, coming just as India-listed Vedanta Ltd is headed for a demerger. In April, Viceroy Research took a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources Ltd, the London-based unlisted holding company of the Vedanta Group, according to Fraser Perring, founder of Viceroy Research, who didn't disclose the quantum of his firm's exposure. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion relied entirely on 'management representations without questioning', the short-seller said, adding that the opinion failed to dispute any of its findings, conclusions, or concerns. 'When faced with serious allegations backed by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with a character assassination attempt dressed in legal language,' the short-seller said in its latest report. Viceroy also claimed Vedanta had to pay for a legal opinion to defend its parent company against claims of stealing money or misusing the subsidiary's funds. Vedanta Resources holds a majority stake in India-listed Vedanta Ltd through several intermediaries. Hindustan Zinc Ltd is a subsidiary of Vedanta Ltd. Justice Chandrachud declined to comment on the matter. He explained that his role was professional in nature and the opinion given was protected by professional privilege. 'It is inappropriate to discuss anything pertaining to it in the public realm,' he said. Vedanta Group did not immediately reply to Mint's emailed queries on Viceroy's rebuttal. In his legal opinion, Justice Chandrachud said the transactions disclosed in financial statements and regulatory filings by Vedanta showed there was transparency and compliance with regulations. Such disclosures should be presumed legitimate unless there was clear evidence to prove otherwise, he opined. To this, Viceroy argued that mere disclosure did not confirm legality of the transactions. Justice Chandrachud also said Viceroy Research's report contained serious allegations tarnishing the Vedanta Group's image and reputation. 'The report contains serious imputations such as 'ponzi scheme' and 'parasite', which have caused harm to querist's (here Vedanta Ltd) business and reputation,' he said, adding that Vedanta was well placed to seek legal remedies under such circumstances. Former trial court judge Rishabh Gandhi said dismissing Chandrachud's report as just an opinion was reductive and misleading. 'A legal opinion—an opinion rendered by a legal expert based on applicable law and the facts presented—when issued by a highly regarded authority like the former Chief Justice of India, carries considerable legal and institutional credibility,' said Gandhi, who is also the founder of law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates. Gandhi explained that most legal opinions are based on a detailed review of documents, statutory interpretation, and precedent, primarily to confirm legal compliance, and enforceability of corporate actions such as dividend declarations, inter-company transactions, or board resolutions. Gandhi, however, clarified that while Chandrachud's legal opinion likely affirmed the legal permissibility of Vedanta's transactions and dividend policies under Indian corporate law, it did not address the broader concerns around financial prudence, related-party dynamics, or cash flow impact. 'If Vedanta wishes to credibly address Viceroy's allegations and rebut the perception that the legal opinion is merely a public relations exercise, it would be prudentto commission an independent financial or forensic audit,' Gandhi said. Viceroy has accused Vedanta Group of alleged financial misconduct and misrepresentation, making empty promises to shore up share prices, manipulating asset values, raising off-balance sheet loans, and corporate governance lapses, Mint reported on 9 July. At Vedanta's annual general meeting on 10 July, shareholders reposed their confidence in the company. 'Different investors have different concerns as they view things differently,' said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern. 'Viceroy is a short seller and has a thesis and a short position. Other investors and stakeholders may have a different thesis.' If investors were truly concerned about Viceroy's allegations, Vedanta's stock would have seen a sharp decline, which hasn't happened, he said. On 9 July, when Viceroy published its first report on the mining conglomerate, Vedanta Ltd shares declined as much as 8% intraday to ₹ 420.65 apiece before recouping some of the losses following a clarification from the company to settle at ₹ 441.30, down 3.29% on the NSE. The shares have since recovered. On Monday, Vedanta ended 2% higher at ₹ 454.90 per share.
