Alerts will be sent to your verified email
Verify EmailSALASAR
- The thesis comes alive if expanded EPC capability converts into billed projects on schedule, utilization improves, and Q2 FY27 results confirm the modeled conversion and margin path.- The bull path requires successful EPC conversion and higher Steel Structures utilization, while the bear path is driven by conversion failure, weaker utilization, execution delays, and margin pressure.
Executive Snapshot:
Competitive Position: Wide Moat (Network Effects) — The platform holds a dominant liquidity advantage with 222K paying suppliers and 42M active buyers. However, the moat is Stable rather than widening. While network effects protect against new entrants, they are not currently driving new usage velocity at the bottom of the pyramid (Silver tier churn is high), indicating saturation or value-proposition mismatch for smaller SMEs.
| Scenario | Probability | Key Drivers |
|---|---|---|
| Base Case | 55-60% | Supplier base grows 3-4% CAGR; Revenue growth driven by 8-10% ARPU hikes; Margins stabilize ~35% due to reduced acquisition spend. |
| Bear Case | 25-30% | Elevated risk. Triggered if Standalone Collections growth stays <10% for 2 more quarters OR if entry-level churn forces price rollbacks. (See Section 5). |
| Bull Case | 15-20% | Requires specific breakout in 'Busy Infotech' scaling (>30% CAGR) AND successful stabilization of Silver bucket churn leading to >6K net adds/quarter. |
Base case probability is anchored by the persistent disconnect between management's aspiration (20%+ growth) and actual delivery (12% Consolidated Revenue growth in Q2 FY26). The Bear case is elevated above standard 20% because the core standalone engine shows signs of saturation (net additions were negative in Q3 FY25 and only modestly recovered to +2.8K in Q2 FY26).
Note: Base Year FY25 Actuals used. FY26 estimates annualized based on H1 FY26 actuals (Q1+Q2).
| Metric | FY25 (A) | FY26 (E) | FY27 (E) | FY28 (E) | FY29 (E) | FY30 (E) | CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (Rs. Cr) | |||||||
| - Base Case (55-60%) | 1,388 | 1,585 | 1,805 | 2,055 | 2,340 | 2,665 | 13.7% |
| - Bear Case (25-30%) | – | 1,550 | 1,675 | 1,810 | 1,935 | 2,050 | 8.1% |
| - Bull Case (15-20%) | – | 1,620 | 1,945 | 2,330 | 2,800 | 3,360 | 19.3% |
| EBITDA (Rs. Cr) | |||||||
| - Base Case (55-60%) | 523 | 555 | 650 | 780 | 915 | 1,065 | 15.2% |
| - Bear Case (25-30%) | – | 535 | 550 | 580 | 600 | 615 | 3.8% |
| - Bull Case (15-20%) | – | 580 | 740 | 930 | 1,150 | 1,410 | 22.0% |
| EBITDA Margin | 37.7% | 35.0% | 36.0% | 38.0% | 39.1% | 40.0% | |
| PAT | 551 | 580 | 675 | 810 | 960 | 1,120 | 15.2% |
| PAT Margin | 39.7% | 36.6% | 37.4% | 39.4% | 41.0% | 42.0% | |
This section breaks down the total projected revenue increase (Base Case) into its component drivers.
ARPU Expansion & Tier Migration (~60% / Rs.648 Cr)
Net New Supplier Volume (~20% / Rs.216 Cr)
Accounting Software (Busy Infotech) (~15% / Rs.162 Cr)
Other Income/Adjacencies (~5% / Rs.54 Cr)
4.1 Revenue Growth Assumptions
4.2 Margin Trajectory Rationale
4.3 Key Risks to Estimates
4.4 Execution/Credibility Note
4.5 Data Limitations
Bear Case (FY30 Revenue Rs.2,050 Cr, 25-30% Prob):
Bull Case (FY30 Revenue Rs.3,360 Cr, 15-20% Prob):
Report is AI-generated and may contain inaccuracies. Analysis based on regulatory filings up to 2 hours prior to request.
Positive for this company
Neutral for this company
Negative for this company
Insufficient data to analyse
Salasar Techno Engineering in India offers customized steel fabrication solutions for Telecommunication Towers, Transmission Towers & Substation Structures, and Solar Module Mounting Structures, providing comprehensive services from engineering to deployment.
Salasar Techno Engg. major competitors are Bajaj Steel Inds., Taneja Aerospace, Mallcom (India), Integra Engineering, Mazda, TAAL Tech, International Convey.
Market Cap of Salasar Techno Engg. is ₹977 Crs.
While the median market cap of its peers are ₹649 Crs.
Salasar Techno Engg. seems to be less financially stable compared to its competitors.
Altman Z score of Salasar Techno Engg. is 1.79 and is ranked 8 out of its 8 competitors.
| 2026 | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual Report | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 | FY23 | FY22 | FY21 | FY20 | FY19 | FY18 | FY17 | FY16 | FY15 | FY14 | FY13 | FY12 | FY11 | FY10 | ||
| Earnings Release | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Jun Dec | Sep Dec | Mar | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Sep Dec | ||||||||||||
| Investor Presentation | Feb | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Jan Mar Jun Sep Dec | Feb Mar May Jun Aug Sep Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Jun Sep Dec | ||||||||||
| Conference Call | Jun | Mar Jun | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Mar Dec | Mar Jun Sep Dec | Jun Sep Dec | |||||||||||||
|
Conference Call SummaryCon Call Summary
|