Thank you, and a very warm welcome to all on our Q4 and FY26 earnings conference call. I'm joined by Mr.

Raviraj Karia, CFO, and SGA, our Investor Relations advisors. We have uploaded our results and investor presentation on stock exchanges and company's website, and I hope everybody had an opportunity to go through the same.

Let me start with a brief recap of FY26, followed by way forward and financial performance, post which we will open the floor for Q&A. FY26 was a challenging year for Concord, and we had faced some industry headwinds, coupled with geopolitical headwinds and supply chain disruptions, just to highlight further.

In FY26, procurement activities by our customers, particularly for the US, slowed during the first half of the year, while prospective customers refrained from altering their existing supply chains amid uncertainty surrounding US tariff measures and the broader complex geopolitical environment. However, conditions gradually improved in the second half, leading to increased procurement activity and renewed engagement with our new customer pipeline.

With greater clarity emerging on the tariff situation, customers are now increasingly focused on de-risking their supply chain and shifting business towards us, supported by strong capabilities, capacities, global approvals, and customer references that Concord possesses. During the year, we also faced challenges related to obtaining written confirmation approvals from CDSCO, which restricted our supplies to the European region for nearly 3 months, representing approximately 1/3 of the financial year.

While this did not result in permanent loss of revenue, the impacted supplies were deferred to subsequent periods. It is important to note, however, that this was not a case of pent-up demand where all deferred supplies could be immediately executed upon resumption.

Instead, the recovery was gradual, with supplies normalizing towards the end of the financial year. Another challenge was related to our supplies to Middle East region amid uncertainties arising from the ongoing war and broader geopolitical conditions.

A major tender in the region remains in abeyance, which adversely impacted our revenues during the year. Nevertheless, we remain confident of resuming supplies under this tender once the same is open.

In addition to the tender business being on hold, other API supplies to the region were also constrained due to prevailing uncertainties. As part of an interconnected global market, these developments had a direct impact on our revenues during the year.

We are now witnessing improved visibility and gradual resumption of supplies to the Middle East in current financial year, particularly as these are chronic therapies where supply disruptions cannot persist for an extended period. During the second half of the year, customers adopted a differentiated procurement strategy, shifting from bulk purchases to a more staggered quarter-on-quarter procurement approach compared to previous year.

As a result, revenues were distributed more evenly across periods rather than being concentrated within a particular quarter. This should therefore be viewed as a timing spillover into subsequent periods rather than a permanent loss of revenue.

Lastly, in Q4, our US Veterans Affairs business was impacted as the related tender had not been finalized during the year and continues to remain on hold, resulting in lower sales during the second half of the year. The factors mentioned above were largely beyond our control and were not related to lower demand, loss of market share, or pricing pressure.

While we have encountered similar situations individually in the past, this year, multiple challenges coincided within the same period. Having said that, we believe these issues are temporary in nature rather than structural, and we remain optimistic about a normalized and a stronger performance in FY27.

Now speaking about our resilience and positive developments during FY26: During the year, we strengthened our regulatory filings and have successfully completed USFDA, EU GMP, Russian GMP, NAFDAC, and WHO GMP inspections across multiple facilities, which reinforces our global compliance standards and supports uninterrupted international supplies. Our injectable facility was successfully commenced operations and completed its first year of manufacturing.

With the WHO GMP certification now in place, we are well positioned to enter the domestic market through our own brands and contract manufacturing opportunities, as well as participate in government supply contracts. This has significantly enhanced the visibility and growth prospects of our injectable business for the current period.

Speaking of our customer acquisition for API sales, CDMO, and second source opportunities, we have commenced supplies of our APIs to two innovator companies. We've made steady progress with customer acquisitions in Nystatin, which was launched last year.

We have also commercialized manufacturing of Fusidic acid, which is having limited competition, especially from the European region. We've increased the second source opportunities across multiple products, enabling us to grab a larger share of the business over time.

We are in active discussion with CDMO customers, which are in advanced stages as we speak. We have also invested in growth platforms like our entry into cell and gene therapy through investments in Celimmune Biotech.

We have commenced commercialization of softgel facility, creating additional avenues for revenue generation, and incorporated and acquired licenses for Stalon Biotech, our US subsidiary, which enables direct marketing, distribution, and commercialization of Concord Biotech's products in the US. Considering all these factors together, along with the strong product capabilities, manufacturing capacities, and product pipeline that Concord possesses, we believe the company is well positioned for a sustained growth trajectory with significant opportunities in the near future.

With this, I would like to hand over the call to Mr. Raviraj Karia, our CFO, to take you through the financial and operational highlights for the quarter and financial year ended 31st March 2026.

Thank you, and over to you, Raviraj.

Thank you, Mr. Ankur, and good afternoon, everyone.

Let me speak about the operational data points first. The API revenues for the quarter four FY26 stood at ₹264 crores and ₹829 crores for FY26, with the degrowth of around 27% and 12% respectively.

Our formulation revenue witnessed degrowth of around 8% and 13% for Q4 FY26 and FY26 respectively. Our split between API and formulation largely stood 80:20 ratio in our long-term stated range.

Our split between domestic and export sales stood at 52:48% for quarter four FY26 and 53:47 for FY26. Our export revenues witnessed a degrowth of around 9% for the FY26, and our domestic revenue witnessed a degrowth of around 15% for the FY26.

Speaking of our financial performance, I would like to mention that as mentioned in FY26 was challenging period, our revenue has seen a degrowth. Revenue degrowth for quarter four FY26 stood at 24%, and for the financial year, it's stood at for the full financial year, it stood at 12%.

Our profitability front, we have not seen that steep impact. Our reported EBITDA for the FY26 stood at ₹367 crores, with an EBITDA margin of around 35%.

However, if we exclude the impact of expenses related to our new formulation facility and expenses pertaining to our US subsidy, Stalon, our EBITDA would have been in the range of around 40.4% for the quarter four and 39% for the FY26. On account of de-operating leverage with reduced sales, our profit after tax was down by 30% for the FY26, standing at ₹260 crores.

Despite the degrowth on the back of culminating challenges witnessed during the year, our balance sheet stays healthy. We are a zero-debt company with cash and cash equivalent of more than around ₹414 crores as on 31st March 2026.

Our capex for the year stood at ₹65 crores, and our cash flow from operations stood at ₹267 crores, with a CFO to EBITDA conversion of around 73%. With the manufacturing capacities across all four units supporting a peak revenue potential of approximately ₹3,000 crores, along with a strong cash surplus position and limited capex requirements, we are well positioned to capitalize on future growth opportunities and drive sustainable growth.

With this, I would like to open the floor for questions and answers. Thank you, everyone.

Hello, sir. Thank you for taking my question.

Sir, as you said in the commentary as well as written in the PPT that we expect strong outperformance in FY27. Do we have visibility in first half to start this growth phase or it will be delayed in and we expect in second half?

We have a very good amount of visibility in the first half. Basis on that, we've been pretty confident that the coming financial year, we should expect the growth, which should be better off than our historical growth, which has been there.

There is a fair amount of visibility in the first half.

By historical growth, sir, can we expect 18% to 20% type growth or more or less?

Yes, as I said that our historical growth has been around 18%. We expect it to be slightly better off is how we are looking at this financial year.

That should start from Q1, Q2 also?

That's correct.

That's nice to know, sir. Sir, on margin side, we said it was quite good in gross margin.

Also, excluding impact of this formulation, as well as new subsidiary, margins have improved. Are these businesses turning around or how should we look at our overall EBITDA margins for the next year, sir?

This is a cycle that one goes through. We have established the infrastructure last year, which was the injectables, and in this year, we have set up Stalon Biotech.

Whenever you're establishing newer business units, it takes time to kind of build up and have positive contributions to the top line. That's a cycle that we are going through.

That being said, all the necessary steps have been taken, like we have mentioned in the past that the new injectable facility, we have taken the validation batches. WHO GMP certification has happened.

We have slowly started selling the products from our injectable facility. Also, as we speak, certain customer audits have also been lined up.

We've also gone through a couple of those. We are going through that process.

It's a little difficult for me to say that how the contribution is going to be from this injectable unit. All the right steps have been taken in that direction.

Also with respect to Stalon, we are expecting the supplies to happen in the first half of the year as well. Already orders are in place from our US entity.

Things are moving in the positive direction. From a breakeven perspective, it's a little too early for me to say.

That being said, all the expenses that have been there for these two entities have been fully booked in the last financial year. Anything that going forward would be a positive impacting only to the EBITDA.

Uh-huh.

Got it, sir. Sir, last question would be on the gross margin side.

We have seen expansion both in full year as well as in Q4. How should we look at gross margins for the coming year?

See, I would say gross margins to be kind of in a similar range because, as one sees that there has been some pressure on the supplies of the goods. Of course, I don't expect that to be there for the full year.

We are procuring a lot of raw materials as well. There is some impact on some of the products, some of the raw materials.

I don't expect it to be significantly different, but my sense would be that for a full year basis, it should be pretty much in line with what our historical gross margins have been.

Sure, sir. Thank you, and all the best.

Thanks.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question.

I wanted to know what was our sales exposure to the Middle East region in past 2 years, let's say in FY26 and FY25? Some details around the tender that you mentioned, what was the potential size of the tender, which country it was.

That's question number one. Question number two, it's on the injectable plant.

What was the loss due to injectable facility during the quarter and the year? How is the progress in terms of filing from the facility for different markets?

How many markets have we started to file, and any regulatory approval or plant visit that have been done till date?

Sure. The tender impact we had already captured that in quarter three, and we had informed that the tender was to the tune of close to around ₹25 crores.

While we have exposures in the API, I think the challenge for these markets was to procure more towards the formulation than towards the API because of various reasons that currency allocations usually is a challenge in the Middle East countries, or because API, they can still hold on to things as it has a shelf life, but formulations, it has to be consumed. That was a challenge then.

Major was the tender impact, which was ₹25 crores. API impact was there, again, in and around similar to what the tender value was.

It was not fully impacted. I would say it was partially impacted.

Going forward, as I said that the tender clarity is not there yet, but there is supplies on the APIs that has slowly started to build up. Because again, they can be in a position to kind of hold and make the formulations when required.

That is why we are seeing a gradual progress in the Middle East. Hopefully, once the situation improves, it would also have an positive impact from a formulation standpoint as we are seeing it from an API standpoint.

With respect to the injectables, while I let Raviraj share his information on the profitability and loss, from a filing perspective, currently, the documentation process is going on. Our target markets is the Southeast Asia and the Africa markets to begin with.

The documentation and the submissions are going to be initially targeted towards the emerging markets, which is the Southeast Asia and the Africa markets. I'll let Raviraj answer on the profitability and loss.

Yeah. For injectable plants, we have previously also mentioned that the quarter-on-quarter expenses are around ₹10 crores, while the full-year number would be around ₹38 to ₹39 crores.

Okay. Just small bit again on the Middle East.

What's the total current exposure towards the region, be it direct or indirect, ballpark?

I would say it would be close to around ₹50.

₹50 crores at company level?

At company level.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi, sir. Can you give a broad breakup of what has been the volume and pricing growth for us for FY26 for API business?

As I said that there has been no price growth for us. It has been primarily on the basis of volume.

You would say that volumes declined for a full-year basis in FY26?

That's correct.

Got it, sir. In terms of pricing, do you see heightened pricing pressure maybe compared to 1 or 2 years back, and what's your outlook on the pricing for the next year?

No. As I said that some of the newer products that we have been launching, like Nystatin, Fusidic acid, and others, there you do not see a pricing pressure because we are entering it as a second source, and we have been gaining more market share as we speak.

There it is all about volume growth, and it'll not be right to say that there is any pricing impact that we are expecting because we are entering with an aggressive price there as a second source. When it comes to slightly mature products, I would say not all markets, but there is always a little bit of price that to certain customers could be there, which gets compensated by the newer regions that one would enter into.

Overall, I would say there is not a pricing pressure that one kind of gets a concern about, but as years progress, that's a part and parcel of the game. That's where our R&D efforts kick in where we continuously work on molecules where we do foresee any such impact in years to come.

To answer in short, we do not see any major impacts, but other than what is a regular course of business kind of a thing.

Got it, sir. Secondly, can you give details on the facility utilization across our facilities?

Yeah.

Yes. The capacity utilization for the unit one was 77%, unit two was 30%, and unit three is around 53%.

53%?

Yes.

Got it, sir. That's it from my side.

Thanks for opportunity. Sir, can you highlight in terms of this US Veterans

Is this better?

Yes. I was asking on the US Veterans tender, let's say, orders.

How long has this been an issue, and what is the revenue exposure towards this tender for us?

As I mentioned earlier, this was a challenge that we faced in quarter three, and the exposure to that was to the tune of around ₹25 crores. Got it.

Any guidance in terms of when do you see this picking up, probably in the next 6 months, 12 months, or it will be an indefinite period? Any color around it?

It all depends upon how the war situation improves, but I think nobody has that clarity, not even us. What we are seeing is that while the formulation has got impacted, there has been some improvement coming through the API.

Because as I mentioned earlier that while formulation has a shelf life, and the customers require allocation of funds to be supplied from a government tender standpoint, which is a challenge, that's why some of these companies are also looking at routes to kind of hold the API so that at the right time they can manufacture the batches whenever that allocation happens and supply. We are seeing a little bit of shift from the formulations to the API.

While that's not 100% that's happened, a complete shift, but slowly and steadily, we are seeing that progression towards holding more of API than the formulations because as I mentioned in my remarks that being chronic therapies, it's beyond a certain timeline, it's difficult for even countries to hold on to supplies. Probably they're using an alternate strategy to kind of keep inventory so that at the right time they are able to supply this thing.

That's how we are seeing the market situation being developing.

Just wanted to clarify on this, sir. This ₹25 crore impact in the API, am I right, or is it the

formulations impact?

Formulation impact for us. Okay.

Sir, generally, this happens in let's say this tender is rolled out in December November period, and the supplies happen in the quarter four of Your voice is not clear.

Hello. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Sir, I was asking on the CWIP part, ₹79.3 crores is on the balance sheet.

I presume that our capex was supposed to be only to the tune of, let's say, ₹20, ₹30 crore per annum given large part of our capex cycle is done. Just wanted clarification on this CWIP number.

Yeah.

Let me answer that. As I mentioned earlier that we have also set up the softgel facility within this year.

Capex has also gone towards that in addition to the maintenance capex. In addition, we have also, as I mentioned, started work with one of the innovator companies.

There was some additional modifications that were required for us to initiate that project with the innovator company because it was a larger volume project. It required a slightly larger modification to the plant.

Those were some of the changes based on which the capex was slightly higher than the regular maintenance capex of ₹20 to ₹30 crores.

What would be the guidance for FY27, FY28?

Sorry?

What would be the capex guidance for FY27, FY28? See,

as I said, regular general capex is around to the tune of ₹20, ₹30 crores. As of now, there is no particular requirements per se.

In the future, if there is any newer projects which does require, I think we have sufficient cash on hand and a zero-debt status. To optimally utilize for that growth, I do not see that as a challenge.

Okay. One more question, if I may jump into this.

We've highlighted that there will be savings from renewable energy with our investment in a solar plant. Has that savings started or what would be the potential savings going ahead?

Yes, those savings have started, and we expect around 1% to 1.5% positive impact on the EBITDA.

Considering the newer, let's say, power and fuel costs or this is the older, let's say, cost?

If you consider this situation to be there for full year, then it might be a little lesser. I'm assuming that it should be in that range of 1%

to 1.5%. Sir.

Fine. Thank you.

I'll jump back in the queue.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone.

Am I audible?

Yes.

Yeah. Sir, first on the capex part, like you highlighted that regular capex would be ₹20 to ₹30 crores.

Do we expect any growth capex also or should we go with this ₹20, ₹30 crore only for the next 2 years?

Difficult to say for the 2 years, but yeah, for this year, I do not see any further additions, at least in the first half of the year. As I mentioned to Naman earlier that, if in the second half there does come any requirement because of any newer projects coming in which requires additional capex, it should be okay with us to kind of optimally utilize it for the growth.

Just to add, and maybe I missed on one point there, we are also setting up an additional facility of a smaller size for the topical range. That could be something that one would see in this financial year.

Understood, sir. Sir, second question is on the API side.

What will be the contribution from the base portfolio and the new launches? Can you provide the split between the API segment?

Much of the growth that we're seeing or we're going to be seeing in this year would also be coming from the anti-infectives and the oncology segment is how we see, while in terms of the value-wise growth, there will be value growth across all the segments. I think there would be a faster growth is what we see in the anti-infectives and the onco segment.

What kind of growth? Majorly, it will be coming from new launches, and how's the base portfolio like over the next 2 to 3 years?

There is no base for us because every year, we've been launching one or two products. Difficult to quantify what is base for us.

As I said that, the growths that we are seeing would be from, say, products like Nystatin, which is there. We're just initiating supplies also on Fusidic acid.

While the quantum of Fusidic acid supplies may not be as big as the same was the case for Nystatin last year where only smaller quantities was supplied and larger quantities we are seeing in this year. That's how we see for the newer products.

Our already commercialized products within that, products in onco segment and an anti-infective segments are going to see a relatively higher growth than the immunosuppressant growth.

Understood. Sir, with respect to CDMO, how much was the contribution from this segment in 4Q and FY?

We do not classify contract manufacturing as CDMO. Just to be clear there, contract manufacturing of Concord's IP products are still considered under our own business only and not under CDMO.

We classify CDMO only where the IP belongs to the third parties, like the innovators. This year, I would say that we would be in the single digits, maybe between 1% to 4%.

We are expecting a couple of CDMO opportunities to click, and at least for one, we are right now at advanced stages of discussion. If that happens, those numbers could change to certain extent.

Should we consider this into formulations or can you split that into API and formulations?

API. It would be primarily in API.

API, okay. In that sense, you expect the mix to be almost at 80:20 going forward also?

Yeah.

API to formulation.

Yeah. Overall, API to formulations, as you saw last year and last to last year and also last year, we were in and around that 80:20.

Plus-minus 2%, 3% here and there is what we expect also in this year.

Okay. Just final question.

In that sense, if let's say your mix chain improves. Can we expect improvement in gross margin or should it sustain at these levels?

No, the gross margins, I would say, would be in and around the similar this thing. As I mentioned that, we would be in and around the 80:20% mark.

Okay. Sure, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I hope I'm audible.

Yes.

Yeah. Sir, you have in the past quarters indicated that the injectables and your US business, the CDMO business put together have caused a ₹75 crore sort of additional opex, which was not absorbed.

I think you also in your remarks in the start of the call indicated that adjusted for this, margins would have been north of 40%. Given that now you are confident of growth coming back, is it reasonable to assume that there will be operating leverage on these two facilities, which will lead to operating margin improvements?

That's correct. As I mentioned earlier that the full cost has been factored into the last year.

There would be operating leverage kicking in. As I also mentioned that typically, it does take a little bit longer time for it to kind of have a full breakeven because the supplies to Stalon are going to happen in the first half of the year.

Also injectables is slowly and steadily picking up pace. Full breakeven, I would say, will take time.

I would say probably in the next financial year is what I would look at. The operating leverage will start kicking in from this year, and it should have a positive impact compared to what we saw in last year.

Between the savings on energy costs from your renewable energy and also reduced losses in these two operations, the energy savings itself, you indicated, could be 100 to 150 basis points of margin. Plus, further benefit from reducing the losses in these two new ventures, would that mean that scope for operating margins to improve could be 200 basis points or more?

Possibly yes, because as I said, 1% to 1.5% should be from the power. Around 0.5%, 50 bps from the rest of the business, one can look at that, yes.

What were your losses between these two businesses for FY26? To what degree do you think those losses can be reduced in FY27?

Raviraj had already mentioned earlier on the expenses that were there for both the two businesses,

which was ₹38 and ₹10

₹38 and ₹10 crores. How much of that will get taken care for the full year, a little early for me to say.

Okay. Just one clarification, did the CFO also mention that the current capacity is adequate to take the company's turnover to ₹3,000 crore?

That's correct. Okay.

In which case, from here on, any capex is essentially for debottlenecking and maintenance?

That's correct, until, unless it is for a newer project with the customer that may require growth to happen.

From a working capital standpoint, do you see things remaining stable or improving ahead?

It should remain stable because much of it is the need of the industry, which is in fermentation. You may require certain longer.

I expect it to be in line with what you see.

Okay. Sir, one more broad-based question.

I think you have always alluded to your historical growth rates of high teens and indicated that you could possibly be in a position to maintain or even perform a number beyond that. Is it possible to elaborate on what pedestals that aspiration is sort of predicated?

What additional revenue streams and margin levers will bring about that? To whatever degree it's possible for you to share.

Maybe it'll be a little difficult to cover much of that in a shorter span on the call. I think from a capacity standpoint, we have the necessary capacities in place.

Also the growth levers, because we have recently commissioned a couple of years back the unit three. Unit two also we have added capacities both from oral solid, as well as from the softgel.

The new injectables facility, which is not currently contributing, has been also commenced operations. Other growth levers like the CDMO and Stalon for the US business has been established.

There are multiple growth levers which are there, and the capacities and capabilities are also there to address these needs. Basis on that is where we get the confidence to kind of have the capability to have ₹3,000 crores from the assets that we have created.

There is an asset block which can meet those sales, and there are products both in the API, in the formulation, as well as in the CDMO opportunities there to kind of meet those long-term growth that we look at.

By when do you see you being able to optimally utilize your current capacities?

Unit one is already at optimal capacities. Unit three is slowly and steadily also progressing.

We are at close to around 50% utilizations. Unit four, as I mentioned, that by next year, you should see breakeven coming in.

Softgel also is adding. We are at the right path to kind of work towards optimal utilization.

Let me put it this way. When do you see the next tranche of large capacity creation requirement coming up, 3 years out, 2 years out, or 4, 5 years out?

I don't see any larger capacity capex is happening this year, until, unless there is any requirement because

Not this year. My question is, given the kind of run rates of revenue increase that you can foreseeably see, do you believe that 3 years out, you'll require your next tranche of substantial capex, or you think that's 5 years out that you'll require a substantial capacity addition taking place because you indicated that there's room to scale up your turnover?

Anything above, ₹50 to ₹100 crores probably in 2 to 3 years could be a good estimation. Beyond ₹100 crores, I think it'll be probably 4 to 5 years down the line.

Okay. Right, sir.

Thanks.

₹50 to ₹100 crores is not a significant capex addition to the overall asset block that we would have. Yeah.

I don't see that as a material change over the next 4 to 5 years.

Thank you, sir. I'll get back in the queue.

Thank you.

Thanks for taking my question. Firstly, I would like to understand that given that most of the challenges that we've faced this year are on the export side, still our exports actually did relatively better than our domestics.

We saw exports have declined only 9% versus domestic declining 15%. Can you just explain that?

Is it indirect sales to our customers or what exactly is reading to this?

Yeah. For the US market, most of our sales is typically indirect because many of the Indian manufacturers are supplying to the US markets.

As I mentioned, in an interconnected world, even supplies to India goes to the US. Also, as a matter of fact, the formulations that I mentioned was supplies to the domestic market, and our counterparts in India then supplied it to the India.

The Middle East supplies got captured in the domestic formulations rather than in exports. That's why in the overall equation, the domestic gets impacted more than the export.

Okay. Just on this formulation side, given that the base is relatively low, but still we're seeing a decline, any thoughts on that or is it just that if the sender actually is the getting impacting us else we would have been on a growth trajectory?

Because

I understand for API, but the formulation business was relatively young with newer capacity, so.

All our businesses, as I say, because we have domestic formulations, contract manufacturing in India for other companies, US business, and international business. Apart from the international business, which got impacted because of certain geopolitical reasons, all the other regions, domestic as well as US business, has actually grown.

The impact was primarily on account of the formulations on account of these geopolitical issues that we spoke earlier during the call.

Okay. Just on the working capital side, actually the inventory days have gone up to 480 days versus 286 days last year.

Even on an absolute number, it was ₹240 crores last year, has gone to ₹326 crores. Are these finished good inventories or, let's say, there was some shipment deferment which actually led to the No, inventory will be worked out.

It's a mix of

It's a mix of two things. One is that, as mentioned during the call earlier, that certain of our customers made it more staggered procurement approach than the bulk approach.

There was inventory which the us which, we were expecting to kind of ship as in quarter four, which has been now staggered over subsequent quarters. There is some sales happening in quarter one, quarter two, and so forth.

That inventory is sitting in our books as well. Some delays because of which customers, delayed because of all that was happening in the last couple of weeks of March.

There is some impact of that. The other is, of course, that, when we are manufacturing the utilization numbers have gone slightly higher.

In fermentation, as I mentioned, the time cycles are larger, which is the need of the industry. Some contribution is also from from that.

We expect this to slightly moderate as well in the coming quarters as, staggered supplies to these customers would start happening.

Got it. Just a clarification on your initial comments, I guess, to the first answer that you gave on the growth starting to be, let's say, more closer to 20% plus in the first half.

Is it that even the second half, if you look at the first half for this year, we had degrown by 14%, and the full year also we had degrown by 12%. Would it be that, let's say, the growth will be first half, as well as for the full year next year would broadly be along the similar rate or it would be more first half heavy?

What I mentioned earlier was that for the full year, we expect our growth to be in line with our historical, slightly better of than our historical. The first half, we have a good visibility towards achieving the full year that we spoke about.

Got it. Thanks, and all the best.

Thank you.

Hello, am I audible?

Yes.

Sorry, if I missed this, I just wanted to know what is the EBITDA margin guidance for FY27?

We have not given any guidance on the EBITDA. What we have mentioned is that there are certain positive impacts that are there.

One is that the power cost, where we expect 1% to 1.5% positive impact. Also that certain of our businesses like the Stalon Biotech, as well as the injectables, the expenses have been fully built up in last year.

We expect some operating leverage for that to kind of kick in. There is no specific guidance that we have given for the next year.

Okay. My second question is on the inventory days.

Like you mentioned that they have increased significantly, do we expect normalization in FY27?

It should be in the normal course of business, which should be there. Slight increase as which was seen has been on account of what we just spoke earlier.

Other than that, it has been pretty much in line with what our historical inventory days have been. That slight increase was on factors which we spoke about, which, as I mentioned, should get addressed in the first half of the year.

Thank you so much.

Hi. Thanks for the follow-up.

I wanted to know the energy exposure. What's the very broad level exposure towards LPG versus non-LPG?

If the situation were to normalize, will that benefit also be meaningful for us? That's one.

Second, at the IPO, we had very large top five molecules. How is the contribution of those top five products for us right now?

On the LPG, I'm not sure I can reconnect with you separately. We won't have the comparative there.

Overall, if you see around 20% of the cost in and around 20% is power and fuel, of which I would say around 50% of that, close to around 10% is LPG-based. LPG or furnace oil-based because at multiple plants, we have either LPG or furnace oil.

There is definitely an impact on the higher side, which is there. That is eating away, of course, into the benefits that we see from the power and fuel.

That's why we've given a range of around 1 to 1.5. While we're seeing positive side on the power, the fuel is something that is on the higher side.

I think if that improves, then we should get closer to the 1.5% EBITDA mark is what we see. From the top five molecules, I would say that, yes, of course, last year would not be a right year to kind of look into what the top five molecules have contributed.

Going forward, as I mentioned, that we are seeing more growth coming in from the oncology and the anti-infective segment.

Okay. Lastly, is the supply chain stable, like there's no availability challenge in terms of whatever fuel requirement, be it LPG or furnace oil-based?

Is that

In the first few weeks, of course, it was challenging because, as you would know, that many of the places the government had restricted the use of fuel to the industry. Or there were higher charges to be paid for the higher usage of fuel.

Of course, in fermentation, you cannot stop the industry. We were forced to go at a higher utilization at a higher price.

I think that shortage is now no more there. It's only with respect to the price which is there.

The initial few weeks in April, there was an industry challenge.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, team.

I have three questions. First is, if FY26 was primarily a timing issue, which you have explained, right, rather than a demand issue, where should investors expect to see the release of that timing effect first?

Will it be inventory, or receivables, or operating cash flow, or revenue growth?

As I mentioned, that inventory, yes, because we spoke earlier during the call that the slightly higher elevated inventory levels should get kind of used during the first half of the year. What I've mentioned earlier that there is fair amount of visibility on the first half of the year as well is how I would look at, which kind of translates into the revenue that will get positively looked at.

Now that's helpful, Ankur. You mentioned that some of the tenders that couldn't land in FY26 are still work in progress, hopefully.

In that context, what percentage of current inventory is already linked to identified customer demand, or customer forecast, or commercial shipments that will start getting released from Q1 of this fiscal?

That impacted only in the Middle East. All the other markets, I think, as I said, that new customer acquisitions, which are there, or new projects that we are looking at, the material that we have in hand is mostly being targeted and supplied towards those.

When it comes to Middle East, we are not manufacturing formulations and staying on the formulation per se. The inventory that we have is primarily, I would say, more towards the API.

There, it has been more about the staggered approach, which is there. For Middle East, I think supplies will be through the API to the extent it is possible to address those opportunities.

When it comes to formulations, neither are we holding the inventory. Whenever there is visibility, and we have fixed orders coming from there, only then those production would happen.

That's how we are looking at the inventory positioning.

That's helpful. Based on what you just told, if I understood correctly, there is absolutely very low probability of risk of we taking any sort of write-off because of any impending expiry, etc.?

That's correct. From a formulation standpoint, yes.

Okay. Lastly, compared with FY24, '25 kind of a time period, do you expect Concord's steady state working capital intensity to be structurally higher, structurally lower, or kind of broadly will remain unchanged over the next 3 years?

The reason I'm saying 3 years is because that factors in some of the recently commissioned capacities to be kind of optimally operational.

I would expect to be in line with our historical numbers because majority of the business is API, and there the working capital cycles are usually higher because of the nature of the business. I expect to be relatively in line with our historical numbers.

Sure, that's helpful, Ankur. I must appreciate that the quality of communication on the earnings calls have been top-notch throughout.

Yes, we have seen a bit of a difficult period in FY26, but nevertheless, we have just communicated what was actually correct, rather than just making it up. Very, very helpful communication.

Thank you.

Glad to hear that. Thank you so much.

Thank you, everyone, for joining on our Q4 and FY26 earnings call. We hope we've been able to address all your queries.

For any further information, please get in touch with us or SGA, our Investor Relations advisors. Thank you once again.

Have a good evening.

Thank you, everyone.