Apollo Finvest Q2 FY26: Revenue Contraction and Margin Volatility Raise Concerns

The quarter's performance reveals a troubling pattern for the Mumbai-based NBFC, with revenue hitting its lowest level at ₹5.12 crores amongst recent quarters. The company's financial trajectory has deteriorated significantly over the past year, with the stock delivering a dismal return of -48.48%, substantially underperforming both the Sensex's 4.62% gain and the NBFC sector's 19.74% advance. The current proprietary Mojo score of 23 out of 100 places Apollo Finvest firmly in "Strong Sell" territory, reflecting deep-seated concerns about its operational momentum and financial health.

Financial Performance: Revenue Contraction Amid Margin Volatility

Apollo Finvest's Q2 FY26 financial performance presents a mixed picture characterised by revenue weakness and erratic margin behaviour. Net sales declined 1.73% sequentially to ₹5.12 crores from ₹5.21 crores in Q1 FY26, representing the lowest quarterly revenue figure in recent periods. On a year-on-year basis, the contraction is more pronounced at 27.68%, down from ₹7.08 crores in Q2 FY25. This revenue decline follows a sharp 35.04% sequential drop in Q1 FY26, indicating persistent top-line challenges.

Despite the revenue headwinds, operating margins excluding other income surged dramatically to 66.21% in Q2 FY26 from 38.58% in Q1 FY26, suggesting improved operational efficiency or cost control. However, this margin expansion appears unsustainable given the sharp decline in other income from ₹1.99 crores in Q1 FY26 to just ₹0.04 crores in Q2 FY26. The PAT margin compressed to 33.98% from 44.34% sequentially, reflecting the impact of reduced other income on overall profitability. Interest costs declined to ₹0.70 crores from ₹0.83 crores, providing some relief, whilst employee costs remained stable at ₹0.93 crores.

The quality of earnings remains questionable, with the company's dependence on other income creating volatility in reported profitability. The sharp swing in other income between quarters—from ₹1.99 crores in Q1 FY26 to ₹0.04 crores in Q2 FY26—highlights the unpredictability of this revenue stream. On a full-year basis for FY25, Apollo Finvest reported net sales of ₹30.00 crores with a PAT of ₹7.00 crores, representing a PAT margin of 23.33%. However, the five-year sales growth rate stands at a dismal -0.03%, underscoring the company's struggle to achieve sustainable top-line expansion.

Operational Challenges: Weak Capital Efficiency and Declining Profitability

Apollo Finvest's operational metrics reveal significant challenges in capital efficiency and return generation. The latest return on equity (ROE) stands at 10.65%, substantially below the company's five-year average of 17.57%, indicating deteriorating profitability relative to shareholder capital. The current return on capital employed (ROCE) of 14.43% also reflects modest capital productivity for an NBFC, particularly when compared to the company's historical performance and sector peers.

From a balance sheet perspective, Apollo Finvest maintains a relatively conservative leverage profile with average net debt to equity of 0.40, indicating low financial risk. Shareholder funds stood at ₹67.34 crores as of March 2025, up from ₹60.11 crores in March 2024. The company carries no long-term debt, which provides financial flexibility but also suggests limited appetite or ability to leverage the balance sheet for growth. Current liabilities increased significantly to ₹41.08 crores from ₹14.88 crores year-on-year, driven by a rise in other current liabilities from ₹7.84 crores to ₹4.76 crores.

The cash flow statement for FY25 reveals operational stress, with cash flow from operations turning sharply negative at -₹25.00 crores compared to -₹35.00 crores in FY24. This negative operating cash flow primarily stems from adverse working capital changes of -₹39.00 crores, indicating potential challenges in collections or business model execution. The company generated positive cash flow from investing activities of ₹1.00 crores and financing activities of ₹24.00 crores, resulting in a net cash inflow of ₹1.00 crores for the year. The closing cash position improved to ₹7.00 crores from ₹6.00 crores, providing limited liquidity cushion.

NBFC Sector Context: Underperformance Amid Industry Tailwinds

The broader NBFC sector has demonstrated resilience and growth over the past year, with the sector delivering a return of 19.74%. This performance starkly contrasts with Apollo Finvest's -48.48% return over the same period, representing an underperformance of 68.22 percentage points. The divergence highlights company-specific challenges rather than sector-wide headwinds, as most NBFCs have benefited from robust credit demand, improving asset quality, and favourable interest rate dynamics.

Apollo Finvest's micro-cap status (₹167.00 crores market capitalisation) places it at a significant disadvantage relative to larger, more diversified NBFCs. The company lacks the scale, distribution reach, and product breadth of established players, limiting its ability to compete effectively. Additionally, the regulatory environment for NBFCs has become increasingly stringent, with higher capital adequacy requirements and enhanced governance standards, which disproportionately impact smaller entities with limited resources.

Peer Comparison: Valuation and Quality Metrics

When compared to its peer group within the NBFC sector, Apollo Finvest presents a mixed valuation picture. The company trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 22.12x, which is below the sector average of approximately 27x, suggesting a relative valuation discount. However, this discount appears justified given the company's weak growth profile, declining profitability, and operational challenges.

Apollo Finvest's ROE of 17.57% (five-year average) compares favourably to most peers, though the latest quarterly ROE of 10.65% has declined materially. The company's price-to-book value (P/BV) ratio of 2.36x is reasonable relative to peers, with some trading at higher multiples (KIFS Financial at 3.15x, Som Datt Finance at 4.85x) and others at lower levels (Thacker & Co. at 1.13x, Upsurge Invest. at 1.61x). The debt-to-equity ratio of 0.40 is amongst the lowest in the peer group, indicating conservative leverage but potentially underutilised balance sheet capacity.

Despite these relative metrics, Apollo Finvest's fundamental challenges—including negative sales growth, declining profitability, and operational cash flow difficulties—differentiate it negatively from peers. The company's micro-cap status and minimal institutional holdings (0.34%) further limit its investment appeal compared to larger, more liquid alternatives in the NBFC space.

Valuation Analysis: Attractive Entry Point or Value Trap?

Apollo Finvest's current valuation has been assessed as "Very Attractive" by proprietary grading metrics, transitioning from "Attractive" on October 15, 2025. The stock trades at a P/E ratio of 22.12x, below the industry average of 24x, and a P/BV of 2.36x, which appears reasonable given the company's book value per share of ₹180.44. The EV/EBITDA multiple of 15.19x and EV/Sales of 6.04x suggest moderate valuation levels relative to earnings and revenue generation capacity.

However, attractive valuation alone does not constitute an investment case when fundamental deterioration persists. The stock's 53.25% decline from its 52-week high of ₹909.00 to the current price of ₹425.00 reflects market recognition of the company's operational challenges. The absence of dividend yield and limited earnings growth visibility further diminish the investment appeal. With a PEG ratio unavailable due to inconsistent earnings growth, traditional growth-at-a-reasonable-price (GARP) frameworks cannot be applied.

The valuation discount appears to be a "value trap" rather than a genuine opportunity, as the company lacks clear catalysts for operational turnaround or revenue acceleration. The five-year sales decline of -0.03% and deteriorating quarterly trends suggest that the low valuation multiples are warranted rather than anomalous. Until Apollo Finvest demonstrates sustainable revenue growth, margin stability, and positive operating cash flows, the current valuation discount is unlikely to attract meaningful investor interest.

Shareholding Pattern: Stable Promoter Base, Minimal Institutional Interest

Apollo Finvest's shareholding pattern reveals a stable promoter holding of 70.71% across the past five quarters (September 2024 to September 2025), indicating strong promoter commitment and alignment with minority shareholders. The promoter group, led by Anju Ramesh Innani (28.26%), Mikhil Ramesh Innani (21.22%), and Diksha Dinesh Nangia (21.22%), maintains control without any pledging of shares, which is a positive signal regarding financial stability and confidence in the company's prospects.

Institutional participation remains negligible, with FII holdings at just 0.31% (a marginal increase of 0.08% in Q2 FY26), mutual fund holdings at 0.02%, and insurance holdings at 0.00%. The total institutional holding of 0.34% reflects minimal institutional interest, likely due to the company's micro-cap status, limited liquidity, and weak operational performance. Non-institutional investors hold 28.95%, down slightly by 0.08% quarter-on-quarter, suggesting marginal retail investor exits.

The absence of meaningful institutional ownership is a significant red flag, as sophisticated investors typically conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital. The lack of institutional sponsorship also contributes to poor liquidity—the stock's average daily volume is extremely low, with just 420 shares traded on November 7, 2025. This illiquidity creates challenges for investors seeking to enter or exit positions, further limiting the stock's appeal to a broader investor base.

Stock Performance: Severe Underperformance Across All Timeframes

Apollo Finvest's stock performance has been dismal across virtually all timeframes, with the company significantly underperforming both the benchmark Sensex and its NBFC sector peers. Over the past year, the stock has plummeted 48.48%, whilst the Sensex gained 4.62%, resulting in a negative alpha of 53.10 percentage points. The underperformance relative to the NBFC sector, which returned 19.74%, amounts to a staggering 68.22 percentage points.

The stock's risk-adjusted returns paint an even grimmer picture. Over the past year, Apollo Finvest delivered a risk-adjusted return of -0.82 with a volatility of 59.10%, classifying it as a "High Risk Low Return" investment. The Sharpe ratio is negative, indicating that the stock has failed to compensate investors for the substantial risk undertaken. In contrast, the Sensex achieved a risk-adjusted return of 0.37 with volatility of just 12.35%, highlighting the relative safety and stability of the broader market.

From a technical perspective, the stock is in a confirmed bearish trend, having changed to "Bearish" on October 24, 2025, at ₹469.95. All technical indicators—MACD, RSI, Bollinger Bands, Moving Averages, and KST—signal bearish momentum on both weekly and monthly timeframes. The stock trades below all key moving averages (5-day, 20-day, 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day), with immediate support at the 52-week low of ₹390.50 and resistance at the 20-day moving average of ₹452.40. The stock's beta of 1.50 indicates high volatility, amplifying losses during market downturns.

Investment Thesis: Limited Upside, Significant Downside Risks

Apollo Finvest's investment thesis is challenged by multiple headwinds, including persistent revenue contraction, declining profitability, negative operating cash flows, and weak technical momentum. The company's proprietary Mojo score of 23 out of 100 places it firmly in "Strong Sell" territory, reflecting the confluence of negative factors across valuation, quality, financial trends, and technical indicators.

Whilst the stock's valuation appears attractive on a standalone basis—trading at a P/E of 22.12x and P/BV of 2.36x—the underlying business fundamentals do not support a bullish investment case. The five-year sales growth of -0.03% and declining quarterly revenues indicate structural challenges rather than cyclical weakness. The company's below-average quality grade, driven by weak long-term financial performance, further undermines confidence in a turnaround.

Key Strengths and Risk Factors

Outlook: What to Watch