NMDC Steel FY26: Ramp-Up Year Turns Profitable, Multiple Frozen in Place

General information and entertainment, not investment advice. The author is not a SEBI-registered adviser or research analyst. No recommendation, no promised returns. Markets carry risk including loss of capital. Figures may not be current. Consult a registered adviser before acting.

1. At a Glance

A greenfield steel plant that started commercial operations in mid-2023 just posted its first full-year profit: ₹58.72 Cr on ₹13,641.81 Cr revenue. The trajectory is sharp—sales up 60.4% YoY, and operating profit swung from negative ₹1,788 Cr loss to positive ₹1,518 Cr. But the math remains tight: a 0.43% net margin, ROE of 0.45%, and ROCE of 3.06% mean the equity is still barely earning its cost of capital.

The stock trades at 242x FY26 earnings. The peer median P/E sits at 19.9x.

One anchoring question: does a ramping plant with a SAIL offtake agreement merit this multiple, or is the gap the cost of watching from the sidelines?

2. Introduction

NMDC Steel Limited emerged from the demerger of the Nagarnar steel plant from NMDC Ltd in October 2022. The entity is 60.79% held by the Government of India, with NMDC Ltd as parent. The plant is an integrated facility with captive iron ore supply from parent NMDC mines, a feature that was baked into the greenfield design from inception.

August 2023 saw first hot metal production. October 2023 marked commercial operations commencement. FY24 and FY25 were loss-making ramp-up years—the company burned through ₹1,560 Cr in FY24 and ₹2,374 Cr in FY25 as capacity utilisation inched upward. December 2024 brought a two-year offtake agreement with SAIL (Steel Authority of India) for 30,000 tonnes per month minimum, which has already driven 67% of 1HFY26 revenue.

The disinvestment clock is ticking. GoI has signaled intent to divest 50.79% to a strategic buyer, retaining the option to offer 10% to NMDC Ltd post-sale. No bids have been announced yet.

3. Business Model: WTF Do They Even Do?

The Nagarnar plant is a fully integrated steel mill, rare for a greenfield in India’s recent build wave. It runs:

A 3 MTPA crude steel capacity driven by a 4,506 m³ blast furnace. Two 175-tonne BOF converters feed a thin-slab caster that produces hot-rolled coil (HRC) in thicknesses from 1mm to 16mm. A 2RM+4FM hot strip mill capable of 2.9 MTPA sits downstream.

The product mix centres on low-carbon, HSLA (high-strength low-alloy), and dual-phase grades. These roll into LPG cylinders, bridges, ships, large-diameter pipes, railway wagons, and pressure vessels. The plant is also positioned for eventual entry into automotive-grade and specialty steel, which sit three tiers above commodity HRC in margin.

Raw material is a closed loop. Iron ore comes from NMDC mines at assured cost structures; coking coal is procured via central PSU procurement channels; captive power generation covers 35–40% of load, the rest from the grid. MECON Limited oversees operations and maintenance.

The model is low-cost by design. But in a commodity market where pricing is set at the margin, low-cost is only a shelter, not a fortress.

4. Financials Overview

Figures are consolidated, in ₹ crore.

Annual Results (Full Year)

Quarterly Q4 (Mar 2026)

Revenue hit ₹3,879 Cr, the strongest quarter on record. Operating profit turned ₹805.75 Cr, a 20.7% operating margin—the cleanest unit economics since launch. Net profit came in at ₹391.91 Cr, catapulting the quarter to a 10.1% net margin. This reversal is visceral: from ₹758 Cr loss in Q3FY25 to ₹392 Cr profit in Q4FY26.

What changed? Capacity utilisation reached 76% by 1HFY26 (it was 50% in FY25, 29% in FY24). SAIL offtake began December 2024, locking in a 30,000-tonne monthly floor. Sales realisations (blended ASP) recovered to ₹35,462 per MT from a trough of ₹31,147 per MT in FY25. Volume scaled: total sales rose to 2.73 Mn tonnes from 753 k tonnes a year prior.

Cost absorption also improved. Fixed costs (interest, depreciation) are spread across higher volumes. Interest expense dropped to ₹486.64 Cr from ₹651.94 Cr—a 25% fall thanks to scheduled debt repayment (₹523.80 Cr of NCDs redeemed in August 2025).

The outlier: no dividend. Payout is 0%, retained entirely for debt reduction and working capital.

5. Market Expectations & Historical Multiples

This section describes how the market is currently pricing the company and how that compares with its own history and peer group. It is descriptive, not predictive.

The market currently pays 242x earnings here, versus a peer median of 19.9x. The gap—over 12x—is the largest in the sector.

What appears to be priced in: a two-year minimum offtake from SAIL; structural improvement in ROCE and ROE as the plant scales toward nameplate capacity; the public sector parentage and moat via captive ore; and the disinvestment as a potential re-rating event should a strategic buyer emerge with growth ambitions.

What is not reflected: the reality that ROCE of 3.06% sits below the cost of capital (the firm’s WACC is estimated at 8–9%). Until ROCE and ROE climb above these hurdles, the company is destroying shareholder value by economic definition, even as accounting profit rises.

The multiple has stayed flat despite the dramatic operational swing from loss to profit. This suggests the market is pricing stagnation risk—the fear that the company peaks here and never breaks out of the commodity cycle.

6. What’s Cooking

SAIL Offtake Agreement (December 2024, 2-year term). Minimum 30,000 MT/month, indexed to a formula. Already delivering: 1HFY26 saw SAIL contribute 67.2% of revenue, above the minimum. The margin on SAIL sales is tighter than on merchant sales, but certainty is the point.

Debenture Redemption (August 2025, ₹523.80 Cr principal). Non-Convertible Debentures carrying 9.05% coupon (revised from 7.30% post-demerger). Repaid in full with interest and TDS adjustment. Removes a bullet obligation and reduces gross debt.

Rupee Term Loan Repricing (April 2025). SBI term loan reset from 12.45% p.a. to 8.70% p.a. (3M MCLR + 425 bps). This repricing will save ₹60–80 Cr annually in interest expense if sustained. The bank’s downgrade of the company’s credit rating from ‘A-‘ (post-demerger) to ‘A-/Negative’ to now ‘IND A-/Stable’ (as of December 2025) locked in this repricing mid-trajectory.

Capacity Debottlenecking Roadmap. India Ratings, in its December 2025 report, flagged management’s intent to ramp hot metal to 3.1 MT and HRC to 2.7 MT via blast furnace optimisation. This is within the 3.31 MT capacity ceiling—a 3–7% uplift.

Working Capital Facility. Sanctioned limit is ₹4,100 Cr (₹2,600 Cr fund-based, ₹1,500 Cr non-fund-based). Utilisation as of end-Mar 2026: ₹1,306.25 Cr fund-based, ₹992.96 Cr non-fund-based. The buffer is tight—66% and 68% of limits, respectively.

GST Litigation Carve-out. ₹111.10 Cr in show-cause notices from FY17–21 audits. Company accepted and paid ₹8.45 Cr; ₹45.90 Cr dropped; ₹56.40 Cr in litigation before Bilaspur High Court. The pre-demerger portion means NMDC Ltd is defending on appeal.

7. Balance Sheet

The balance sheet is structurally weak in one way and strong in another. Assets equal liabilities (validated), but current liabilities at ₹12,195 Cr against current assets of ₹6,459 Cr leaves a working capital deficit of ₹5,736 Cr. The current ratio is 0.53x—below the comfortable 1.0x–1.5x band.

Inventory sits at ₹3,897 Cr (160 inventory days), the long tail of commodity steel stockpiling. Trade payables are ₹6,001 Cr, a three-month float. This negative working capital is deliberate—suppliers and the parent provide the float—but it’s also fragile if suppliers lose patience.

Equity base is growing, albeit slowly. Reserves added ₹59 Cr in FY26, a rate that won’t scale the problem. Borrowings fell by ₹1,296 Cr, thanks to the NCD redemption and term loan amortisation. Net debt is ₹3,813 Cr (Borrowings ₹4,613 Cr minus Cash ₹800 Cr), a leverage of 0.29x over equity. By peer norms, this is pristine. But against the company’s own EBITDA of ₹2,559 Cr, the ratio is 1.49x—not alarming, yet not trivial for a company still scaling.

The company has zero pledged shares. Directors own no skin. The government does, but the government doesn’t sell on conviction.

8. Cash Flow: Sab Number Game Hai

Operating cash flow turned positive in FY26 at ₹1,795.5 Cr, after the shock of FY24’s ₹2,825 Cr outflow. The recovery was driven by improved earnings (₹75.78 Cr PBT) and working capital discipline: inventory decreased by ₹840.55 Cr as sales volume ramped relative to stock held, and trade payables increased by ₹1,212 Cr as the company negotiated extended terms.

Capex (investing cash outflow) was modest at ₹271 Cr, well below depreciation. CWIP (capital work-in-progress) fell from ₹717 Cr to ₹570 Cr—the plant is substantially built. The company is in maintenance mode, not expansion.

Financing cash flow was a negative ₹1,902.4 Cr, entirely debt repayment (NCD redemption ₹523.80 Cr + term loan amortisation ₹447.75 Cr + working capital repayment ₹847.95 Cr). No new debt was drawn.

Free cash flow (OCF minus capex) was ₹1,525 Cr, a genuine cash generation story. But the company elected to return it all to lenders, not shareholders. Dividend yield is 0%.

9. Ratios: Sexy or Stressy?

ROE of 0.45% is a red siren. It means a rupee of shareholder capital earned 0.45 paise in the year. The cost of equity—the return shareholders must earn to stay invested—is typically 7–8% for a large-cap PSU. The company is making less than 6% of what it owes. This will haunt ROCE expansions until volumes scale enough to fix it.

10. P&L Breakdown: Show Me the Money

FY24 was the commissioning year; losses were expected. FY25, the first full operating year, was a trainwreck. Capacity was at 29%, costs were fixed and high, and the blended ASP of ₹40,478 per MT was under pressure. The company burned ₹2,374 Cr.

FY26 reversed this dramatically. Revenue more than doubled to ₹13,641.81 Cr; EBITDA swung from a ₹1,788 Cr loss to a ₹2,559 Cr profit—a ₹4.3 Bn turnaround. But the net profit line remained hobbled: from ₹2,374 Cr loss to a mere ₹58.72 Cr profit. Why? Interest and depreciation ate up most of the EBITDA gain. Interest was ₹486.64 Cr (down from ₹651.94 Cr but still hefty), and depreciation was ₹1,041.78 Cr—a massive fixed charge on a plant with ₹19.4 Bn of tangible assets.

The math is brutal: at 0.43% net margin, the company must sell ₹232 Cr to net ₹1 Cr. Scaling requires not just volume but also ASP support (which SAIL provides at a discount) and cost discipline.

11. Peer Comparison

NMDC Steel is the smallest by revenue and second-smallest by PAT (ahead of only Sarda Energy). The P/E gap is disorienting: NMDC trades at 242x, while JSW Steel trades at 35x on 325x the revenue. Tata Steel, with 4.6x NMDC’s revenue, trades at 22x.

The ROCE gap is just as wide. NMDC’s 3.06% is one-third of SAIL’s 7.79% and one-quarter of JSW’s 10.90%. Even allowing for ramp-up curves, NMDC lags by a generation.

The outlier multiple suggests the market is pricing pure speculative upside: a future where the company scales capacity to 2.7–3 MTPA, achieves 40–50% margins (via specialty steel or export pricing), and ROCE normalises to 12–15%. But that future is three to five years out and unguaranteed. Current valuations leave no margin for disappointment.

12. Miscellaneous: Shareholding & Promoters

The Government of India holds 60.79%, unchanged for four quarters. LIC holds about 13.47% of the domestic institutional base, the single largest institutional holder. The public float is 18.50%, thin for a ₹14,190 Cr market cap.

The promoter (GoI) has never pledged shares. The board is entirely government-appointed: a Chairman & Managing Director, Directors for Finance, Production, Personnel, Commercial, and Technical—a typical PSU governance structure. No independent directors as of March 2026, a compliance gap flagged in the auditor’s report.

The disinvestment process remains at the “Expression of Interest” stage. No strategic buyer has been named. Until that process completes or stalls, the Government remains an unconstrained holder, unable to sell on valuation signals and obligated only to Parliament.

13. Corporate Governance: Angels or Devils?

Auditors: M/s. Sharad & Associates issued an unqualified opinion on FY26 results. No material misstatements flagged. Statutory audit is complemented by supplementary audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), standard for CPSEs.

Board Composition: The company lacks the required number of independent directors as of March 2026, a violation of Section 149 of the Companies Act and Regulation 17 of the Listing Regulations. Consequently, the Audit Committee composition is also non-compliant with Regulation 18. Management flagged that appointment of independent directors is pending nomination by the Central Government.

Related-Party Transactions: NMDC Ltd (parent) provides working capital finance on flexible terms (no restrictions on amount or duration) and is the exclusive raw material supplier (iron ore at cost-plus) and the exclusive distributor of NMDC Steel’s output (though this distributor arrangement was signed in May 2024 and hasn’t been meaningfully utilised).

Resignations & Management Changes: K. Raj Shekhar (Director, Finance) ceased office on 31 March 2026. Anurag Kapil appointed as Director (Finance) w.e.f. 31 March 2026 for a five-year term. Krishna Kumar Thakur appointed Director (Personnel) on 19 March 2026 for five years. These changes occurred after FY26 close, so their impact is forward-looking.

Tax Disputes: GST liabilities totalling ₹111.10 Cr from the pre-demerger period (FY17–21) remain under dispute, with ₹56.40 Cr pending litigation before the Bilaspur High Court. The company’s responsibility is limited to amounts it directly caused; NMDC Ltd is defending on appeal for the pre-demerger portion.

14. Industry Roast & Macro Context

India’s steel sector is a feast-or-famine game anchored to two cycles: global commodity pricing and domestic demand. NMDC Steel’s launch coincided with the post-COVID recovery (2021–2023), when commodity prices peaked and demand was feverish. Then came the slowdown (2024 onwards), and the company faced the headwind of a softening ASP while capacity utilisation was still climbing.

Pricing wars are endemic. JSW Steel, Tata Steel, and SAIL compete on cost, technology, and customer relationships. NMDC’s advantage—captive ore and PSU funding—is structural but not decisive. Imported HRC costs roughly ₹35,000–38,000 per MT; NMDC’s blended realisations of ₹35,462 per MT in FY25 and ₹31,147 per MT (suggested from FY25 data) indicate it’s already pricing at commodity rates, not at a premium.

Regulation is a minor factor. The sector is no longer protected; tariffs are low. Environmental compliance (ESG) is tightening—the plant runs under the “Perform, Achieve and Trade” (PAT) scheme—but no material capex surprises are flagged.

Distribution is where PSU plants struggle. NMDC Steel lacks the sales network of JSW or Tata. The parent’s distributor role is meant to fix this, but uptake has been nil. Merchant sales (outside SAIL) go through traditional channels and are harder to scale.

The disinvestment process is the wild card. If the Government clears the path for a strategic buyer (ArcelorMittal, Nippon Steel, or a domestic large-cap), the new parent could invest in specialty steel, exports, or M&A. If the process stalls and the Government remains owner indefinitely, growth will be constrained by PSU governance norms.

15. EduInvesting Verdict

The central tension: A factory with structural cost advantage (captive ore, integrated plant, PSU funding) is ramping toward profitability, yet earning returns far below its cost of capital. Operationally, FY26 was a success—losses vanished, volumes scaled, SAIL secured a beachhead. Financially, it was a mirage—a 0.43% net margin and 0.45% ROE mean the company is still working off its debt, not earning returns on behalf of shareholders.

The multiple of 242x is priced for breakout: the belief that FY27–FY28 will see ROCE normalise to 10%+, ROE to 8%+, and net margins to 4–5%. That’s not impossible—capacity is there, SAIL is lifting volumes, and interest costs are falling. But it’s also not certain. Commodity volatility, the pending disinvestment, and the absence of specialty steel revenues (still years away) are wildcards. The company is credible, not compelling.

The market is bidding on the plant’s potential. The plant is delivering on the ramp. But the gap between potential and current cash generation—between a 242x multiple and a 0.45% ROE—is the cost of waiting for the plant to grow into its promise.