Pi Polyplex 29sep03

8/8/2019 Pi Polyplex 29sep03

1/20

1

Polyplex Corporation Ltd.

Mkt. Cap. : Rs 1.5 bn

Book Value : Rs. 64

Eq. Shares O/S : 14.7 mn. (F.V.Rs.10)

Med. Vol. (12 Mths) : 24,600 (BSE+NSE)

52 Week H/L : 104/25

BSE Scrip Code : 524051

NSE Code : POLYPLEX

Blomb. Scrip Code : PPC.IN

Reuters Code : PLYP.BO

Scrip Details

Sensex : 4402 Nifty : 1399 Current Price : INR 104 Recomm: BUY

Auditors : Lodha & Co.

Bankers : State Bank of Patiala

Chairman : Mr. Sanjiv Saraf

Head Office : B-37, Sector-1, Noida,

UP - 201301

Works : Udham Singh Nagar

Uttranchal

Website : www.polyplex.com

Company Details

Polyplex Corporation Limited (PCL), is a leading manufacturer of

BoPET (Biaxially Oriented Polyester) films in India with primary

focus on packaging, industrial and electrical film segments.Its

ongoing capacity expansion would ensure it a place amongst the

global league as the sixth largest (excl. magnetic media)

manufacturer of thin films.

PCL has two manufacturing facilities of 15,000 TPA each in India

and Thailand. The Thailand unit (a 100% subsidiary), is operating

above 90% capacity utilisation and expansion is underway to increase

capacity to 30,000 TPA. Upon implementation in April 04, this would

give PCL an effective capacity of 45,000 TPA.

PCL is the amongst the most cost competitive player domestically

as well as globally on capital and operational parameters. As a

result, its EBIDTA margin is higher than domestic peers by almost

500 bp and almost twice that of its global peers.

PCLs capacity expansion has fructified at an opportunate time as

BoPET prices have started hardening. The net realisations have

perked up from $1.25/kg (the lowest in last 7 years) to $1.8/kg at

present. However, this is still substantially lower than the peak of

$4 / kg during the boom times of CY 95-96. Indian players have been facing tariff barriers like anti dumping

and counter vailing duty from EU & US markets. These being the

largest markets, have put Indian players at a disadvantage.

However, with the Thailand facility going on stream, PCL is well

placed to tap these markets as well as the fast expanding ASEAN

markets.

We expect net revenues and profits to record a CAGR of 53% and

61% respectively, during FY 03-05. PCL is expected to post RONW

in excess of 25%, for the same period. On Enterprise Value based

valuations, PCL is available at forward EV/Sales of 1.5x and EV/EBDIT of 6.3x

Initiating Coverage

Indian Promoters 55.5 %

Banks/FIs & MFs 0.9 %

FIIs 1.0 %

Pvt. Corp Bodies 11.1 %

NRI / OCB 3.9 %Indian Public 27.6 %

Shareholding Pattern (30/06/2003)

Investment Highlights:

Riding the packaging boom with timely expansion.....

PIONEER

INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD.

September 29, 2003

Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 2003 2004E 2005E

Gross Sales 256 397 419 1,421 2,502 3,360

YoY Growth % -0.7 38.5 30.5 38.5 76.1 34.1

Op. Profits 96 87 103 373 574 825

Net Profits 37 42 42 163 286 432

Equity Capital 146 146 146

E.P.S(Rs) 9.1 19.5 29.5

P/E(x) 9.1 5.3 3.4

OP Margins (%) 22.0 22.9 24.5

ROCE (%) 52.8 33.2 46.4

RONW (%) 16.0 27.0 31.2

EV/Sales (x) 1.9 1.5 1.1

EV/EBDIT (x) 6.8 6.3 4.2

Key Financials

Rs MnQuarter Ended Year Ended (Cons.)

Scrip Performance vis-a-vis BSE Sensex

Analyst- Sachin Kasera

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sep-02 Nov -02 Jan-03 Mar-03 May-03 Jul-03

-

100

200

300

400

500BSE+N SE (Vol. ' 000s) PC L BSE (R ebased)

Note : Quarterly results are standalone figures, whereas yearly figures are on consolidated basis.


2/20

2

Introduction

Plastic films over the last 5 decades have evolved to become an intrinsic part and parcel of everyday life.

Their versatility and flexibility has enabled them to find wide usage in sectors like packaging, electrical insulation

& packing, magnetic & photographic media, decoratives etc.

These are manufactured from polymers like polypropylene, polyester, or polyamides and the product range iswide.

There are basically four families of polyester oriented films. The salient points of each of them are given below.

Biaxial Oriented polypropylene (BoPP): This comes with thickness range of 3 60 m and finds main

application as packaging material and also in technical applications such as capacitor film from 3 20 m.

Biaxial Oriented Polystyrol (BoPS): BoPS film is used for packaging, especially in the food sector as well

as for special thin film applications, e.g. labels, envelope windows, twist wrap.

Biaxial Oriented Polyamide (BoPA): BoPA is ideal for different applications in multilayer technology,

especially in the food-packaging field (e.g. for greasy and oily products).

Biaxial Oriented Polyester (BoPET): BoPET films are widely used in the current consumption era and thefeatures, which make them so popular, are:

Exceptionally high dielectric strength and volume resistivity even at high temperature. These properties

makes it an essential part of electrical and electronic components

High dimensional stability over a wide range of humidity and temperature. This property is the basic

requirement for packaging industry.

Very low absorption, excellent clarity and gloss.

Some of the multifarious applications of BoPET are given below:

Packaging: Processed foods, pan masala, soap and cosmetic wrappers, book binding, photo lamination,

tea chest film liners, pharmaceutical strip packaging, sweets and confectionery packaging.

Capacitors: Polyester film capacitors represent nearly 50% of the total plastic film capacitors. Electrical Insulation: BoPET is used as slot and phase insulation in electric motors, transformers, coils,

wires and special cables, and are used as substrate for manufacture of insulation tapes.

Printing: BoPET is used as a carrier for photographic emulsions and as a stable flexible base for

photogravure, photo litho and film make up.

Magnetic: Audio and video tapes, data storage tapes and Tapes & floppy discs Diskettes.

Others:Artificial zari, Photographic and X-Ray film, stamping foils, Tracing and drafting films, sun control

films, stickers, battery labels etc. are some of the other varied applications of PET films.

Manufacturing Technology And Process

The basic building block of BoPET films is DMT (dimethyl terephthalate/PTA( purified terephthalic acid)and MEG( mono ethyl glycol). These are combined to make PET Chips which is the immediate input for

BoPET film. Normally, most of the polyester film plants are integrated and have a PET chips manufacturing

line which feeds the BoPET film manufacturing facility. This enables manufacturer to have a tight and

composite control over its product profile.

In the process of manufacturing BoPET films, PET Chips are first melted and extruded through slit dies to

obtain a continuous film of the required thickness. This extruded film is dried and then subjected to a series

of drawing process at about 90C temperature in order to orient the PE molecules so that they lie within the

plane of the film. To obtain BoPET, the film drawing is carried out at right angles and in both directions.

During this the film gets stretched to the order of 250-300% of the original dimensions. Thereafter, annealing

is carried out to avoid shrinkage if heated above the drawing temperature.

The two common types of films are single layer films and coex films. Coex films are contemporary and are

made up of multiple layers and this gives flexibility in usage and can cater to high value specialized products,

as compared to plain films.


3/20

3

Films are classified on the basis of their physical properties and dimensions. For e.g. some have extra high

insulation (properties essential for usage in capacitors), while others may possess high tensile strength

(ideal for usage in magnetic tapes). In terms of dimensional thickness, BoPET films range from 0.5 m

ultrathin capacitor grade films to 350 m thick electrical insulation grade.

In Industry parlance, PET films are graded on the basis of their end uses such as packaging grade, audiotape

grade, electrical grade, photo film grade etc. Packaging material (e.g. corona treated, metallized film) and

technical applications, such as magnetic tapes are amongst the more sophisticated products.

BoPET films are also classified as thick (50 m) and thin films (


4/20

4

B) Mild Competition: In a certain segments BoPET film performance characteristics may not be needed.

These applications fall in the low end of the product range, where other plastic films (e.g., polyvinyl

chloride, polypropylene, cellophane, polystyrene and polyethylene films), paper, and aluminum or other

metal foils compete as lower-priced substitutes.

C) High Competition: Applications for which a variety of substitute products may exist are primarilypackaging and general-purpose industrial applications.

However in Indian context the most relevant competition is from BoPP, which has a high installed capacity.

BoPP, although substitutable in some specific end-use segments, is not a discernible threat to BoPET film

on a cost benefit basis as is brought out below.

Advantages of BoPET FILM

The Low density of BoPP (0.91 vs. 1.39 for PET)

sometimes makes it sometimes an alternative for

packaging. However, this advantage is offset bythe need to have a thicker film as compared to

BoPET for the same application. Illustratively, in

India, 18 micron BoPP film is used as against a

12 micron PET film. The economies of alternative usage are shown in table:

Certain products like coffee, tea and spices necessitate aroma retention and thus offer a market for

BoPET. Also, peculiar to India is the huge base of unsophisticated machines in the unorganized market,

which are unable to handle BoPP because of its temperature variations and the lack of heat stability.

BoPET, when stretched in both

directions gives excellent dimensional,

gas barrier, breakdown voltage properties etc.. However, BoPP

despite stretching remains a limp film

Thus, this results in demarcation of

segments in which each of the films

reign. The table compares the basic

features of the two films:

Applications in which BoPET film cannot be replaced are:

Magnetic Media Better tensile strength, mechanical properties and dimensional stability.

Cables Superior strength and high temperature resistivity and Break Down Voltage (BDV).

Electrical Motor Insulation Higher BDV and range of thickness above 125 micron.

Packaging segment Due to better gas barrier properties.

Photographic & X-Ray films, Graphic Arts.

Globally BoPP and BoPET have established their respective segments in the packaging arena and overlap

is insignificant. The level of substitution between the two is limited and comes into play only when there is

a wide / divergent movement in their prices, which is unusual given the common raw material base of both

i.e. petrochemical

Thus one can say that the addressable markets are clearly demarcated and there is no major overlap in

consumer industries of the films. Further it is the properties rather than the price, which is the guiding factor

while choosing between BoPET and BoPP.

BOPP PET

Micron 18 12Sq. Mtr per Kg. 61.4 59.3

Effective difference by weight 4%

Cost Benefit Analysis of BoPP V/s BoPET

Features BOPP PET

Water vapour barrier Excellent Fair

Gas barrier properties Poor Excellent

Break down voltage Poor Excellent

Machineability Fair Excellent

Printability Fair Excellent

Suitabilityfor metallising Poor Excellent

Density (gm/cc) Low (0.91) High (1.39)

Key Features of BoPP V/s BoPET


5/20

5

Polyester Film (BoPET) Market Dynamics (Global)

Demand Scenario

Globally, BoPET demand has been growing at a CAGR of 3.5% for the last decade. However, demand

has witnessed brief bouts of decline due to extrinsic factors like 9/11. There have also been boom periods like CY00 and 02, when demand growth was robust (11.8% and

8.6% respectively). Also ,the markets have witnessed strategic shifts in last five years, with demand tilting

in favor of packaging, electrical and industrial with magnetic & imaging applications slowly losing ground.

With a CAGR of 4.2% between CY9702, the world demand for PET films in 2002 is estimated to be

1.3 mn TPA, with CY02 witnessing a growth of 8.6%. Considering the historic growth rates, the demand

is expected to grow by 4% for the coming five years.

Demand from magnetic tape and imaging films, once key user of PET film, is expected to continue their

declining trend over the next five years. Packaging and other industrial end uses are expected to keep

growing at healthy rate. Within this, thin films is expected to grow at 6% and packaging, industrial andelectrical applications are expected to grow at 8%.

The share of US, Japan & EU, which once commanded a lions share, has come down from 70% to 58%.

Growth in Asia (excl. Japan) has been the highest and its share has increased by 10% to 37%. This trend

is expected to continue, as key user industries like packaging, industrial & electrical have been witnessing

robust growth rates.

297 319

99 99

286

246 418 135 123 308

214

440

131 95

309

194 517 155 90 336

189

574

182

84

371

182 611 189 80 393

167

651

204

76

416

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Magnetic Packaging Electrical Imaging Others

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 03 CY 04 CY 05

Trend of Segment Wise Consumption (000 MT / Year)

Source : Company, Industry

M ag.

11%Packg.

42%

Elect.

14%Others

28%

Im aging

5%

Im aging

7%

Others

26%

Elect.

12%

Packg.

40%

M ag.

15%

Im aging

9% Others

26%

Elect.

9%

Packg.

29%

M ag.

27%

Trend of Segment Wise Share in Global Demand

Source : Company Balance Sheet, Pioneer Estimates

CY 1999 CY 2002 CY 2005* Est

(Industrial)


6/20

6

Oth. Asia

16%

West. Eur.

17%

ROW

2%

N. Amer.

23%

Ot. Amer.

3%

Japan

18%

Korea

14%

India

7%

India

3%

Korea

13%

Japan

20%

Ot. Amer.

2%

N. Amer.

29%

ROW

1%

West. Eur.

21%

Oth. Asia

11%

Supply Scenario

The booming demand of mid nineties (CY95-97) triggered of an huge increase in capacity and expectedly

brought about a significant global oversupply. However, since then there has been a rationalisation of

production capacity on a global scale and this has restored the demand supply imbalance to a large extent.

Also, the slowly increasing demand has lead to an improvement in capacity utilization which has moved upto 85% from 75%, over a period of three years.

This sharp improvement has come on back of three key factors. Firstly, late nineties did not witness any

major capacity addition. Secondly, a number of small (10002000 TPA) and vintage (1960-1970) capacities

in EU & US have closed down the last five years.

The industry also witnessed large-scale consolidation. Five years ago, 55% of world of capacity was

controlled by top 10 players, and the same is down to 4 today. DuPont TeijinandToray Saehan are the

worlds largest producers of BoPET films with roughly 0.3 mn TPA of capacity each, while Mitsubishi

Polyester and SKC are at number three and four at 0.15 16 TPA each. The key benefit from the

consolidation is that it has led to rationalization and planned capacity additions.

Changing Regional Share in Global Demand

Source : Company Annual Report, Pioneer Estimates

Trend of Industry Consolidation from 1997-2000

Company/

Capacity (1997)

Restructuring

during

1998-99

Company/

Capacity (2000)

DuPont9.6%

ICI7.7%

Teijin4.1%

Toray10.1%

Hoechst8.5%

SKC7.4%

DuPont Teijin17.1%

Toray15.9%

Mitsubishi8.1%

SKC8.8%

Joint Venture

(50:50)

Acquisition

of Saehan

Acquired

by Mitsubishi

Note : Capacity is expressed as a percentage of the total global capacity

Source: Samsung Securities Report, Korea, Company Data, Industry Sources

CY 1997 CY 2002


7/20

7

However, there has been a marked move in Japan, Europe and USA of converting magnetic tape line to

packaging films. This is expected to add some supply. However it takes an estimated US$ 4-5 mn to

convert a 5,000 TPA magnetic line to packaging line and thus would not be a viable proposition for most

of the players at realisations lower than $2 / kg.

Regarding fresh capacity, the current prices of $ 1.8-1.9 / kg are markedly lower than the reinvestmentlevels of major EU & US players and is not viable for them to set up fresh capacity. This is evident from the

fact that large players like Dupont and Mitsubishi are incurring losses at current prices(despite a rise of

35% from the trough). Instead most of them are converting their magnetic tape line to packaging and

industrial lines, where the break even levels are lower as the capital investments for conversion are much

less.

In comparison, Asian players have a lower break even due to the lower cost of manufacturing. Of the

10-12 fresh lines ( with a combined capacity above 0.2 mn TPA) expected to come on stream by

2005, a large part is coming up in Asia (excl. Japan). This is expected to further increase the share of

Asian players in the production pie.

However the risk to this assumption is BoPET prices, which are currently in an uptrend (up by 50% in last

one year) and showing signs of firming up. In case they firm up further to US$ 2.5 / Kg, many of the large

and established players in US, EU and Japan could start investigating options of capacity additions either

through JVs or acquisitions in the low cost Asian countries so as to capitalise on their cost advantages.

However, it takes an average of 18 months to set up new capacity. Further in boom times the lead time forplant and machinery suppliers increases and this can delay projects by 5-6 months. Thus any major

capacity above the planned one is not expected to materialize before FY05. We expect the supply to

show a 3.5% CAGR addition over the next five years.

Margin & price Trends

The key factors governing the realizations of BoPET film is the demand supply position and raw material

prices (DMT / PTA and MEG). Film prices move in a band of a mark up over its raw materials cost and

the same normally constitutes 40-50% of its manufacturing cost. This holds true especially for the low end

or commodity products like 12 m. Thus most of the movement in rawmaterials gets reflected in the

BoPET prices with a time lag of 3-4 months. Thus an upswing in raw material prices, normally does not

alter the contribution in percentage terms, but could result in an increase in absolute margins i.e. $ / kg.

However, in times of depression the producers need to absorb part of the rise in raw material prices and

vice versa.

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

CY 99 CY 01 CY 03 CY 05 CY 07

70

75

80

85

90

95

Mer Cap (LHS) Global Demand (LHS) Cap Utlz (%, RHS)

Trend in Global Demand and Supply of BoPET Films (000 MT)

Source : Company Annual Report, Pioneer Estimates


8/20

8

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Q-I I 95 Q-I 96 Q-IV 96 Q-III 97 Q-I I 98 Q-I 99 Q-IV 99 Q-III 00 Q-II 01 Q-I 02 Q- IV 02

Far East Av g United States Av g Western Europe Av g

-

40

80

120

160

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

-

15

30

45

60

BOPET (LHS) MEG (RHS) DMT (RHS)

Thus the key to EBIDTA margin improvement is tight control over fixed and other variable costs like

power & fuel, stores and spares, salaries and SGA expenses. The key benefit from a booming marketapart from the higher contribution is high capacity utilization, which enables to apportion the fixed cost over

larger volumes and consequent reduction of fixed costs / kg of production.

With the petrochemical cycle being in the upswing, a steady increase in demand with stable supply scenario,

we expect BoPET prices to firm up in the short to medium term perspective. In fact recent moves to effect

price hikes of 12-micron PET film have not been resisted by consumers. We expect continued price

increase to take realizations to nearly US $2.8-3.00 / Kg by the end of 2003.

Polyester Film (BoPET) Market Dynamics (Domestic)

The domestic BoPET film market increased from 20,900 TPA in CY96 to 90,000 TPA in CY02, a

CAGR of 28%. BoPET demand growth rates have been stronger than other plastics because of the

increased substitution of BoPET for glass and other packaging materials. This growth emanates from

packaging, electrical and industrial segments. However unlike the global markets where the demand is

spread across different user segments, the Indian market is highly skewed towards packaging industry

because certain applications of industrial and electrical do not have acceptance here.

Relative Price Movement in BoPET Films V/s Raw Materials (Rs / MT)

International Price Trend of BoPET Films ($ / Kg)

Source : Company Annual Report, Industry Sources

Source : Industry


9/20

9

Pack.

87%

Magnetic

2%

Imaging

2%

Elect.

5%

Ind.

4%

-

40

80

120

160

200

CY 94 CY 95 CY 96 CY 97 CY 98 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 03* CY 04* CY 05*

Thin Thick

Ind.

10%

Elect.

3%

Imaging

10%

Magnetic

7%

Pack.

70%

Ind.

4%

Elect.

5%

Imaging

3%

Magnetic

3%

Pack.

85%

For e.g. the major electrical application in Indian is from insulation, whereas globally around 50% of

electrical grade demand is from capacitors. In industrial segment, applications like LCD, semiconductors

and thermal lamination are conspicuous by their absence in India or are at very small scale. Further

industries like imaging and photographic films, which are big users of BoPET, are still at a very nascent

stage in India and most of the requirements are imported. Hence, against the global norm of 40%, In

Indian packaging accounts for almost 75% of demand.

A large part of demand is concentrated in thin films, which at 68,000 TPA in CY02, accounted for 75%

of BoPET demand. This is also the fastest growing segment, with the last five years showing a CAGR of

20 % and has been growing rapidly mainly on account rising demand for flexible packaging from food and

personal care products sectors.

Thick films on the other hand account for 25% of the BoPET market. Demand growth in user sectors likeelectric motor insulation, cable wrap, magnetic media and imaging sectors has been relatively slow or

stagnant on account of industrial recession and technological obsolescence.

Supply side scenario

The mid nineties saw a frenzy to set up BoPET capacity guided by prices of Rs 140- 160 / kg. Thus

between CY95-97, the installed base for BoPET films in India quadrupled from 35,000 TPA to 120,000

TPA. Though demand had increasing at 20-25% pa, it was not sufficient to absorb these capacities. To

add to the woes, international prices declined resulting in a crash of domestic BoPET prices by nearly

60% to Rs 60 -70/Kg. Further, the gearing ratios of most of the players were high as most of the

expansions were funded by high cost debts. As a result, most of the domestic players faced financial crisisand huge decline in profitability, with some going into red.

CY 1999 CY 2002

Source : Company Annual Report, Pioneer estimates

Trend in Domestic Capacity


Domestic Trend of Segmental Demand

CY 2005*Est


10/20

10

Ester

16%

Polyplex

13%

Flex

20%

Jindal

18% SRF

4%

Garware

17%

MTZ

11%

Venlon

1%

Jindal

41%

Venlon

4%

Garware

55%

`

About PCL

Polyplex Corporation, promoted by Mr. Sanjiv Saraf in 1988, commenced operations by setting up a

BoPET film plant at Khatima, Uttaranchal. The initial capacity was 6,000 TPA with a capital outlay of

about Rs 400 mn. The capacity was increased to 15,000 TPA at a capital outlay of Rs 700 mn in 1994.

A PET chip plant to feed its production line was commissioned in 1996 followed by a forward integrationprogram for setting up a Metallizer in FY03.

Presently, a major expansion program is under implementation in Thailand. This project was earlier planned

to be located in UAE, but due to business and social uncertainty in the Middle East, PCL decided to

relocate the project.

The total project with a capacity of 30,000 TPA is being set up at a cost of US $ 60 million, in two phases

of $ 30 mn each. While the 1st phase of 15,000 TPA was completed in April 03, the second line along

with the PET chip like is scheduled to go on stream in April 04.

Polyplex has imported equipment from leading international suppliers such as Lindauer Dornier, Bruckner,

Barmag and Kampf, Germany; Nishimura, Japan; Nucleometre FAG, France; and Extrusion of Dies, US.

This, coupled with the technical skills and emphasis on quality control, has enabled it to produce films,which enjoy a premium position.

However, PCL diversification into solar energy has gone awry. The company entered into a 50:50 Joint

Venture with Global Solar Energy LCC for its PV Project. However the project failed to take off and had

to be shelved. Subsequently PCL wrote off its exposure to the project.

PCLs strengths over other domestic players

The Indian BoPET films market has around seven players. The largest player is Garware Polyester with a

capacity of 41,000 TPA followed by Jindal and Flex at 36,000 & 24,000 TPA respectively. PCL is the

fifth largest player with a capacity of 15,000 TPA. Other large players are Ester Industries (18,000 TPA)and MTZ polyester (12,000 TPA). Garware and Jindal have presence in both thick and films; while

players like Jindal and Flex are diversified with presence in segments like polyester yarn, BoPP, etc. On

the other hand, PCL is a pure thin film player focused on Packaging, electrical and industrial segments.

Though PCL is stands fifth in capacity, it is one of the most profitable players among all Indian players. The

reason for this are high EBIDTA margins and a very low debt to equity ratio.

High EBIDTA margins:

While the EBIDTA for PCL has averaged around 28-30% in last two years, the next best player Jindal

has an EBIDTA of 25%.

The key factors behind the substantially higher EBIDTA are, presence in high value products, efficient sourcing

of raw material, higher realisation, very high productivity & capacity utilization and low overhead costs.

Segmental Capacity of Major Players in India (CY 2002)

Source : Company Annual Reports, Industry

Thick

18%

Thin

82%


11/20

11

Conservative Fiscal Policy:

Further PCL has followed conservative financial policies and consistently maintained a low leverage most

of the time. It maintained a gearing of less than one even during the stressed periods of FY98-00. The

gearing of its domestic peers has been substantially higher for e.g. in case of Garware Poly and Ester Ind.

it has been in excess of two. This has enabled PCL to have a low breakeven level, and consequentlyhigher EBIDTA margins as compared to its peers.

Other domestic players were not been able to optimise their debt equity ratio mainly on account of incurring

high debt due to ambitious expansion plans which were out of sync with the the industry cycles. Also,

these debts were raised during the peak interest rate regime and ensured a high breakeven/utilsation level

for the players. This low cost of debt and low gearing enabled PCL to be only profit making ( and

dividend paying) pure BoPET company from FY98 to FY00.

Low capital Costs:

PCLs expansion plans in mid-nineties were notable for the fact that most of the same were implemented

on schedule and within the budgeted capital cost. Tight project management skills coupled with an optimal

cost structure have ensured that PCL is in a enviable situation to capitalise on the uptrend in the industry.

Other domestic players like Ester Ind, MTZ Polyester, Flex Ind and Garware started with the handicapof high capital costs, as is obvious from the above table. Consequently, even during the global recession,while

they posted huge losses, PCL was able to report profits and pay dividends,

Timing the cycles:

Being a archetype commodity, BoPET is susceptible to the draw backs of the same with the most important

being cyclicality. The edge that PCL has over others has been its ability to manage the cycles. PCL,

missed the last cycle as it increased capacity to to 15,000 TPA in CY96, when the cycle was at its peak.

However, circa 2000, PCL has adopted a conservative approach and used the recessionary phase of late

nineties to optimize its operations, strengthen the balance sheet and prepared itself to capitalize on the next

uptrend. PCL was able to time its 30,000 TPA expansion just when the cycle started to move up.

What aided PCL was its low debt equity ratio and operational costs. This enabled it to undertake large

capacity expansion during recessionary times and it could undertake the US$ 60 mn expansion without

straining the cash flows or an unduly high gearing. Incidentally, PCL has landed up with this increased

capacity, just when the cycle is turning up and the same is expected to generate robust cash flows in the

oncoming uptrend. This would help PCL bring back the debt equity ratio to comfortable levels (less than

one) by FY06.

PCLs Gearing Ratios V/s Other Players

PCLs Capital Cost V/s Other Players

AS ON 31.3.03 Film Capacity O/s Debt Debt/Equity Debt/Ton Debt / Prodn

(tpa) (Rs Mn) (Rs/ton) (Rs/kg)

Polyplex 15,000 1,354 1.4 29,000 29.8

Ester# 18,000 2,356 (14.7) 94,000 91.1

Garware 41,000 5,374 12.8 94,000 158.8

Flex 24,000 5,465 1.84 125,000 120.0

Jindal*# 16,000 2,000 0.83 70,500 89.02

Note: *Jindal debt includes preference share, #Jindal Ester & Flex data is for FY 02 Source: Annual Reports, Industry

Company Year Capacity Capital Cost Cost/Ton Difference with

(MT) (Rs / crores) (Rupees) Polyplex

Polyplex, Line II 1996 9,000 630 70,000 -

Garware, Line IV & V 1996 29,000 2,580 89,000 19,000Flex, Line I 1995 12,000 1,410 117,500 47,500Flex, Line II 1996 12,000 1,000 83,000 13,000Easter, Line II 1997 12,000 1,000 83,000 13,000

Jindal, Line I 1996 12,000 1,540 128,000 58,000


12/20

12

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

1987 1988 1989 1990 1999 2000 2001

Gros s Profit EBITDA Profit Before Tax

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

R

ealisation

Cost

ofGoods

Sold

GrossPft

Oper.Inc.(

Loss)

PBT

CashPft.

USA (Av g.) 2001 Poly plex 2001-02

Exports.... The Savior..

Over the last few years, domestic players, faced with a huge overcapacity in the local market, investigated

overseas markets as an option for survival. Around the same time, a number of old and uneconomic

capacities in US & EU downed shutters, thereby making these countries large importers of BoPET.

While US imports around 84,000 TPA (30% of demand), EU imports close to 70,000 TPA (33% ofdemand). Further Indian players like PCL enjoy a very high cost advantage vis a vis their counter parts in

EU & US. Accordingly, they could agressively price their products in most of the segments and in some

segments command a premium also. The advantages have been in the areas of low capital cost, higher

economies of scale, better asset quality, employee expenses and SGA costs.

Lower Capital Costs:

The lines set by Asian players are configured for the mass market segment, which they specifically address.

On the contrary the lines set up by developed country majors are highly sophisticated in terms of machine

customization and construction, additional features required for speciality products, controls, clean room

conditions etc. Civil costs in India and Thailand are also much lower than in other Developed countries.This results in substantial capital cost advantages to Indian players. For e.g. Mitsubishi set up a new

18,000 TPA thin film line in US in 1999 at an investment of US$ 100 mn, while Toray in 2000 spent US$

180 mn on 20,000 TPA (2 lines X 10,000) in Malaysia. In comparison PCLs capital cost for 30,000

TPA (2 lines X 15,000) is only around US$ 50 mn.

Lower Cost of Production:

The cost advantages of cheap labour enjoyed by Asian countries especially India, China and Thailand are

well known. Further, the outlay on sales & marketing, technical services and research & development are

much lower for the Indian manufacturers. So is the case with general administrative overhead, which tend

to move in tandem with the manpower compensation costs.

Better Asset Quality and Economies of Scales:

Global players like DuPont Teijin Films and Toray Saehan have capacities of 0.3 Mn TPA. In comparison,

capacity of Garware polyester, the largest Indian player is only 41,000 TPA. However the majors are

handicapped by the fact that this capacities are spread across a number of lines most of which would not

be markedly different from Indian players resulting in any significant economies of scale.

On the other hand Indian manufacturers have the advantage of working with high-speed lines most of

which have been installed in the 90s. In comparison, European and US manufacturers are still operating

several old lines of 60s and 70s vintage resulting in an adverse impact on productivity and costs.

Financial Performance of US Players Cost Structure of PCL V/s Global Majors ($ / Kg)

Source : Annual Reports, USITC


13/20

13

6%

6%

6%

6%

6%

0%

18% 2

0%

24%

20%

20%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Ester Flex Garw are Jindal MTZ Poly plex

ADD (EU) CVD (EU)

`

12

%

13%

4% 7

% 9%

19%

53%

30%

63%

0%

49%

37%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ester Flex Garw are Jindal MTZ Polyplex

ADD (US) CVD (US)

Savings on R&D Costs:

Another area where the players in EU & US invest huge sums is R&D. The strategy is to find new

applications, which fetch high margins. For e.g. realization in certain high end products like LCD etc. is

sometimes twice as much as that of normal 12 m films, the most commonly traded BoPET film.

However, the returns have not been commensurate to the investments in R&D, as the volumes for new

segments have not taken off in big way. Secondly, for a global player it is necessary to be cost competitive

in the commodity segments considering their huge capacities all of which can never be fully absorbed by

high-end applications. Indian players on the other hand do not invest much in the R&D, as they mainly

target the low-end (read commodity) segment to focus on the growth segments, improvement in productivity

and cost as also broad-basing the product portfolio through new product developments.

Adding up all the gains, in the final tally, Indian players enjoy an upper hand of around 50-55 cents / kg in

the commodity segments. Thus at the current prices of US$ 1.8-1.9 / Kg, even as most of the players in

US & EU are losing money, Indian players are showing healthy operating profits.

Anti dumping duty

To counter the growing threat from Indian and East Asian Players, US & EU players went in for appeal

subsequent to which tariff barriers like Anti-Dumping duties (ADD) and Counter Veiling Duty (CVD)

have been imposed on Asian players. However subsequent events reveal that the impact of most of these

orders have been much less than that envisaged earlier.

European Union

The normal import duty level on PET film imported into the EU countries from India is 4.30%. However

based on representations by European PET film producers, the European Commission (EC) levied CVD

towards the end of 1999 & ADD in May 00.

ADD: The applicable ADD rates for Indian players range between 9% to 63%. The ADD applicable to

PCL is 38.6%. However Indian manufacturers have given price undertakings which seek to neutralize the

ADD by stipulating minimum prices (at the Ex-factory levels) on a product-wise basis to be achieved by

each exporter on its export sales to the EU.

CVD: The applicable CVD rates for Indian players range between 4% to 19% with PCL being subjected

to a CVD of 19%. These CVD are applicable for a period of 5 years subject to administration review.

However these duties are expected to decline substantially due to structural changes in the export incentive

schemes over a period of time. PCL has also requested to extend the Price Undertaking to CVD which

is under consideration of EC.

ADD & CVD on Indian Players in US & EU



14/20

14

0

40

80

120

160

DuPont Teijin Toray Mitsubishi Kolon SKC Polyplex Toy obo Flex Nan Ya Terphane

United States

The US domestic PET film industry applied for an administration scrutiny to the United States Department

of Commerce (DOC) alleging dumping and subsidies from Indian players. Following this CVD and ADD

duties were announced in May 2002 as under:

CVD: The applicable CV rates for Indian players ranged between 18.43% & 24.48%. The applicablerate for PCL is 18.66%. However, unlike the E.U., the DOC has only set the cash deposit rate. The

actual duties would be recomputed based on the actual level of dumping or availing of subsidies as

established in subsequent annual reviews, and shortfall/excess would be collected / refunded with interest.

With the gradual reduction and proposed phasing out of the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB),

which forms the principal component of the alleged subsidies, the assessed level of subsidies would be

substantially lower than the findings for the period of investigation.The Petitioners have also appealed to

the Court of International Trade (CIT) against order. The first administrative review of the CVD order is

likely to be initiated shortly.

Antidumping (ADD) duties: The applicable ADD rates for Indian players range between 0% & 5.68%.

However no ADD was levied on PCL as the investigation concluded that there was no dumping by PCL.Further, PCL would also be excluded from the annual ADD administrative reviews.

Future outlook

Polyester film business has been slowly losing priority in the long-term business strategy of global majors.

This is mainly on account of weakening competitive edge difficulty for them to compete with Indian and

other East Asian low cost producers in the high volume, lower-end segments.

Further, Du Ponts intends to focus on biotechnology and integrated sciences, while Toray has identified

information and communication, life sciences and environment, safety & amenity as its growth areas. This

reflects the shifting away of focus from segments like BoPET.

Going forward, this is expected to result in a relatively lower dominance of the World majors and emergence

of cost competitive Asian players on the global platform, as is evident from recent spate of mergers and

acquisitions.

Rationale of Thailand Plant

PCL, has set up an operation in Thailand under the aegis of its

subsidary i.e Polyplex (Thailand) limited ( PTL). In order to

consolidate its position in the growing thin film segments of

packaging and electrical, PTL has embarked upon an ambitious

expansion program that envisages near trebling of its capacity(i.e. from 15,000 TPA to 45,000 TPA) by FY04. Coming up

in Thailand, the project is being implemented in two phases,

each costing US$ 30 mn, thus putting the total project size at

US$ 60 mn.

Key Project Details

PCLs Global Standing in Thin films ( excl. magnetic media)


$ mn Phase I Phase II

Cost 24 26

WC 6 4

Debt 20 20Equity 10 7.5

Inter. Accr. 0 2.5

Start Apr-03 Apr-04


15/20

15

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Ex p (Rs / MT) Dom (Rs / MT)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Ex p. MT Dom. MT

The first phase of project is for setting up a 15,000 TPA line at a cost of US$ 24 mn. Another $ 6 mn

would go towards working capital requirements. While PCL would contribute US$ 10 mn as equity, PTL

has raised US$ 20 mn in dollar loans from local banks. Planned for commissioning in July 03, the line went

on stream in April 03, three months ahead of schedule.

The second phase of project is towards a second line of 15,000 TPA and a 26,250 TPA PET chip at costof US$ 20 mn and US$ 6 mn respectively, with working capital requirements of around US$ 4 mn. Once

again being financed by US$ 10 mn of equity, PCL, India would contribute US$ 7.5 mn while PTL would

pour US$ 2.5 mn from internal accruals. The debt of US$ 20 mn, like the phase one would be raised from

local banks. The project is expected to kick off in April 04, but going by the past track record, PTL

should be able to commission the same ahead of schedule.

Growth in Markets

Polyplex is a focused player targeting packaging and industrial segments of thin film markets. These are

emerging markets and PCL is a well-entrenched player in it. In order to capture these market growth and

consolidate its position in the global markets, PCL has gone in for an aggressive expansion plan. While thePhase I (15,000 TPA) has placed PCL in the top ten players of thin films (excluding magnetic media), the

proposed phase II expansion would catapult PCL by another step as the sixth largest player.

Decline in Exportable Surplus from India

BoPET current enjoys a customs duty of 25%. This translated in to higher margins in domestic market as

compared to exports. Thus exports were more need based than by choice.

However the situation has undergone a sea change in the last couple of years. Domestic demand has

moved up to 85,000 TPA in CY02 (from 40,000 TPA in CY98), while capacity increase in the last

five years has been 24,000 TPA. This has narrowed the down the surplus in thin films to less than

30,000 tonnes in CY02( from more than 50,000 tonnes in CY98). With no major capacity expected

to come on stream in CY03, this gap is expected to further reduce to 16,000 tonnes. Needless to

say, most of the players are looking to capture this increase in domestic demand. Jindal Polyester

and SRF facilities are however expected to come on stream in CY04 and could partially satiate this

demand.

However with capacity utilisation of industry being close to 100% in thin films (PCL operating at

121%); the growth in domestic sales would have to come at the expense of export markets. Usuallyplayers did not have the flexibility of tapping those markets which were lucrative at a particular point

of time. Thus the setting up of additional capacities would enable Indian players to service either of

these markets, depending on the price trend of the same. This is relevant as most of the orders are

normally booked on a spot basis and long term contracts are not the norm of this industry .

Realisation & Volume Trend in Domestic Mkt. V/s Exports

Source : Company Annual Reports, Industry


16/20

16

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

India Thailand Reduction

Fin. Exp.

Salaries Wages

Admn / Selling

O'heads

Stores & Spares

Power & Fuel

Freight &

Packaging

Lack of Substantial Investments in Developed Countries

Going forward, the dominance of the world majors in the BoPET market is expected to reduce

considerably, as they are not able to compete with low cost Asian players (for details refer to our

section on global v/s Asian players). The current BoPET prices are also much lower than the required

RoI rate of majors. This has shifted the focus of these majors to higher end products and thus none

of them are expected to go in for any major expansion program in the low end segments. This being

the fiefdom of PCL, is expected to offer multifold opportunity, as the demand from these segments is

expected to keep growing at the steady rate of 4-5%. Thus one can say that it presents a very

promising opportunity for a low cost player like PCL to expand capacity to tap the same.

Strengthening of Polyplexs Competitive Position

While PCL, India is one of the most cost competitive players in domestic as well as global markets, Its

Thailand facility is expected to have even lower operational cost as compared to its Indian manufacturing

operations.

This stems from savings likely to emanate mostly from fixed costs like power, fuel & water, stores &

spares, salaries and admin costs. The Thailand plant is expected to offer a 10-12% cost advantage

as comparesd to the Indian plant.

Further since most of the debt for PTL is dollar denominated, there would be savings of around 4-

5% on operational cost. Thus in the final tally, the cost of production in Thailand is expected to be

cheaper by around 18% (excluding deprecation).

Cost Structure in India V/s Thailand ($ / Kg)



17/20

17

PE BandMedian PE Vs Daily PE

Valuations:

PCL is the most efficient player in the industry, as is reflected in its EBIDTA which has consistently been

the highest. It has managed to post profits even during the recessionary phase of CY98-00.

Its consolidated gearing, despite moving up from 0.5 to around 2 to fund overseas expansion, is low compared

to its peers. With full capacity expansion going on stream by CY03, PCL intends to utilise its cash flows toreduce debt over the next 2-3 years, thereby pruning its gearing to 1.5 & 1in FY05 & 06 respectively.

PCL, has traditionally enjoyed high ROCE (20% in FY03), on account of low project cost and high operating

efficiency. While its ROCE would come down to 14.6% and 16.4% in FY04 & 05 due to the steep increase

(nearly 300%) in capital employed on account of the capacity expansion. However, as Thailand operations

are expected to be profitable from the very first year of operations, the RONW is expected to increase from

16% in FY03 to 27% and 31% in FY04 & FY05 respectively.

Indian players are facing tariff barriers in the form of Anti dumping duty and CVD in EU & US, the biggest

destination for exports, thus depressing margins. With capacity available in Thailand, Polyplex is well placed

it can tap US, EU as well as ASEAN markets. This would help divert Indian capacity to the growing

domestic markets where the margins are relatively higher thus improving the consolidated margins.

The companys present valuations do not reflect the potential earnings of its on going expansion plan in

Thailand. While line I of 15,000 TPA has gone on stream in April 03, the second phase (line II of 15,000

TPA and PET chips of 26,500 TPA) is expected to go on line in April 04. While the plant I is currently

operating at above 90%, sales for large part of line II has also been tied up. This coupled with the recent

uptrend in BoPET cycle would result in PCL posting a robust growth in revenues and profits for FY04 &

FY05.

We expect PCLs consolidated revenues to grow from Rs 1.4 bn in FY 03 to Rs 2.5 bn and Rs 3.4 bn in

FY04 & FY05 respectively, a robust growth of 76% and 34% respectively. At the same profits would grow

by 101% and 51% to Rs 286 mn and Rs 432 mn respectively. The CMP of Rs 104 discounts the projected

EPS of Rs 19.5 and 29.5 by 4.6x & 3.1x respectively. We recommend a buy with one year target price of

Rs 184.

Rs mn 2002 2003 2004E 2005E

Net Profit 79 142 286 432

Discount rate (WACC- %) 9.6 8.5 6.8 7.1

One year forward NP discounted at WACC 72 131 268 403

Equity Shares Outstanding (Mn. nos) 15 15 15 15

EPS (one year forward dis. at WACC) (Rs.) 4.7 8.6 17.6 26.5

Median P/E (x) 3.1 3.4 5.0 6.0

Price based on DNP (Rs. ) 15 29 88 159

Median Prices (Rs. ) 17 33 101 183

Ratio of Median Price / DNP price (x) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

Valuation based on Discounted Net Profit (DNP) method

0

2

4

6

8

Apr-01 Oct-01 Apr-02 Oct-02 Apr-03

Daily PE Median PE

0

25

50

75

100

125

Apr-01 Oct-01 Apr-02 Oct-02 Apr-03

2x

6x

5x

4x

3x


18/20

18

2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004E* 2005E*

Gross sales 893 1,201 1,253 1,421 2,507 3,360

% Growth 11.4 34.6 4.2 13.1 76.6 34.1

Changes in stock in trade and WIP -18 4 15 -33 0 0

Raw materials 352 394 407 597 1,175 1,572

Wages & salaries 46 53 67 79 143 169

Manufacturing Expenses 188 216 248 237 365 524

Administration Expenses 50 70 87 120 147 152

Selling Expenses 61 68 58 61 83 93

Other Expenses 10 13 3 5 15 20

Cost of Sales 689 818 884 1,067 1,928 2,530

Operating Profit 204 384 369 350 574 825

% Growth -8.2 88.4 -4.1 -5.0 63.8 43.9

Dividend / Other Income 5 12 31 33 43 43

EBDIT 210 396 399 383 617 868( - ) Depreciation 80 85 88 92 147 207

EBIT 129 311 312 291 470 661

( - ) Interest & Finance charges 117 120 96 85 127 166

Profit Before Tax & Extra-ordinary items 12 191 216 206 342 495

( - ) Current Taxes 2 5 38 68 56 63

( - ) Deferred Taxes 0 0 24 -4 0 0

PAT(before extra-ordinary items) 10 186 154 142 286 432

( - ) Dimunition in value of long term investments 0 13 64 0 0 0

( - ) Loss on sale of Pref. Shares 0 117 0 0 0 0

( - ) Other exceptional itmes -2 0 -1 0 0 0

Profit After Tax 12 56 91 142 286 432

% Growth -65.9 346.7 62.5 56.9 101.2 51.0

Equity DPS (Rs.) 0.8 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

Equity Dividend 12 22 29 37 37 37

Dividend Tax 0 4 1 3 4 5

Dividend Payout Ratio(%) 94 46 34 28 14 10

Book Value 62 64 57 64 81 108

E.P.S.(Rs) 0.9 3.8 6.2 9.7 19.5 29.5

EPS Growth(%) -65.9 346.7 62.5 56.9 101.2 51.0

Figures in Rs. Mn.

Year Ended March

Financial Statements

INCOME STATEMENT

2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004E* 2005E*

ROACE(%) 8.5 19.5 20.9 19.8 14.6 16.4

ROANW(%) 1.4 6.0 10.2 16.0 27.0 31.3

Gross Sales/Total Assets 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8

Gross Sales/Net Block 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.0

Debt:Equity (times) 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.4 2.2 1.5

Current Ratio (times) 7.5 5.0 4.5 2.1 3.2 3.2

Interest Cover (times) 1.1 2.6 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0

Debtors (Days) 66 31 30 46 49 44

Inventory (Days) 77 65 51 72 56 56

Working Capital (Days) 195 96 102 86 93 88EV/Sales 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.1

EV/EBDIT 9.7 4.7 4.2 6.8 6.3 4.2

P/E(x) 125.7 7.6 14.7 9.3 4.6 3.1

P/BV(x) 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.8

KEY RATIOS


19/20

19

2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004E* 2005E*

Shareholders Funds

Equity Share Capital 152 152 152 152 152 152

Reserves & Surplus 757 787 685 786 1,032 1,422Networth 909 939 837 938 1,184 1,574

Loan Funds

Secured Loans 777 596 402 1,208 2,472 2,347

Unsecured Loans 2 0 30 145 145 0

Total Debt 779 596 432 1,354 2,618 2,347

Deferred Tax Liability 0 0 186 182 182 182

Minority Interest / Transitional Reserve 0 0 0 -7 -7 -7

Capital Employed 1,688 1,535 1,454 2,468 3,977 4,097

Gross Block 1,580 1,814 1,836 2,022 4,323 4,423

Less : Accumulated Depn 634 714 785 875 1,018 1,162

Net Block 945 1,100 1,051 1,146 3,305 3,262Capital WIP 169 15 4 983 15 15

Fixed Assets 1,114 1,116 1,054 2,129 3,320 3,277

Current Assets 549 402 463 645 949 1,188

Cash & Bank Balances 15 17 88 127 114 100

Receivables 159 105 106 178 342 411

Inventories 147 147 124 214 300 392

Loans, Adv & Deposits 227 133 146 127 194 286

Current Liabilities & provisions 73 81 104 313 299 370

Sundry Creditors 31 39 51 187 158 208

Other Liabilities 28 34 38 93 106 125

Provisions 14 8 15 32 34 37

Net Current Assets 475 321 359 332 651 818

Investments 98 98 41 3 3 3

Misc. Exp. 0 0 0 4 4 0

TOTAL ASSETS 1,688 1,535 1,454 2,468 3,977 4,097

Figures in Rs. Mn.

Year Ended March

BALANCE SHEET

CASH FLOWS

2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004E* 2005E*

Profit before tax & extra-ordinaty items 12 172 215 206 342 495

Depreciation 80 85 88 92 147 207

Bad Debts/Advances w/off 7 6 2 3 0 0

(Profits)/Loss on Sale of Investments 1 0 0 -1 0 0

(Profits)/Loss on Sale of FA -1 0 0 0 0 0

Misc Exp w/off 0 7 0 -4 0 4

Transitional Reserve 0 0 0 -7 0 0

Tax Paid -2 -6 -38 -68 -56 -63

Dividend Recd 0 -1 -1 0 0 0

Interest Provision 117 120 96 85 127 166

(Inc) / Dec in WC -79 68 51 20 -335 -246

Cash from Operation 135 452 414 327 226 563

Net Capital exp -89 -94 -48 -1,155 -1,334 -100

Net Investment 0 2 -14 54 0 0

Int / Div. Recceived (incl other inc) 10 1 1 6 0 0

Cash from Investing activities -78 -92 -61 -1,095 -1,334 -100

Issue of Shares 0 0 0 0 0 0Change in Loans 84 -183 -163 922 1,264 -270

Dividend paid (incl tax) -13 -28 -27 -30 -40 -41

Interest Paid -138 -132 -99 -87 -127 -166

Cash from financing activities -67 -343 -289 805 1,096 -478

Inc/(Dec) in Cash & Cash Equivalents -9 17 65 37 -12 -15


20/20

Disclaimer:This document has been prepared by the Research Desk of M/s Pioneer Intermediaries P. Ltd. and is meant for use of the recipientonly and is not for circulation. This document is not to be reported or copied or made available to others. It should not be considered to be taken as

an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security. The information contained herein is obtained and collated from sources believed reliable and

we do not represent it as accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. The opinion expressed or estimates made are as per the

best judgement as applicable at that point of time and are subject to change without any notice. M/s Pioneer Intermediaries P. Ltd. along with its

associated companies/ officers/ employees may or may not, have positions in, or buy and sell securities referred to herein

1218, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point,

Mumbai - 400 021

PIONEER

INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD.

Member : National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.Member : Mumbai Stock Exchange

Financial Securities LtdSMALL WORLD, INFINITE OPPORTUNITIES

1216, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point,

Mumbai - 400 021

Derivative Desk

Sandip Parekh- Head of Desk

[email protected]

(M) 9820283914

Sailav Kaji - Strategist

[email protected]

(M) 9820700193

Tel. : 91-22-22818636/7

Institutional Sales :

Jaykrishna Gandhi

[email protected]

(M) 9819019066

Rajesh Khanna

[email protected]

(M) 9892208563

Tel. : 91-22-56321903 / 22021171

Equity Desk

Strategist

Sandeep Shenoy - IT / Emerging Companies

[email protected]

(M) 9821123860

Analyst

Bhavin Chheda - Pharma / Cement / Metals

[email protected]

(M) 9821560607

Sachin Kasera -Auto / Oil/ [email protected]

(M) 9821417818

Abhijeet Kundu - [email protected](M) 9820012310

Tel. : 91-22-56321904 / 03 / 22021171

Dealing Desk:

Bhavik Broker/Raju Bhavsar/Manoj Parmar

Tel.: 91-22-56306690 / 22828390

Tel.: 91-22-22021171/22020206 Fax : 91-22-22049195

Notes

Documents

Pi Polyplex 29sep03