A valuation of Larsen & Toubro (LT) built from its filed accounts — ten years of results, the method that fits this business, and what today's price already assumes.
Worked backwards from today's share price: the growth Larsen & Toubro must sustain to justify what it costs, against what its own record supports.
The price implies ~15% growth, close to the ~13% the fundamentals support — expectations look roughly fair on these inputs. Across plausible assumption draws, the price is consistent with growth in the 13%–18% range (P25–P75; P5–P95: 9%–21%). The same price is consistent with ~20% growth if margins compress 300bps, or ~12% if they expand 300bps — growth and margin trade off; there is no single 'right' implied number. Note: data confidence is MEDIUM — treat the ranges, not the midpoints, as the signal.
Revenue and earnings per share in ₹, return on equity and leverage as ratios — all from the filed statements.
Revenue and net profit as filed, in ₹ crore.
| Year | Revenue | Net profit | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2017 | 1,09,312 | 6,486 | 5.9% |
| Mar 2018 | 1,19,683 | 8,004 | 6.7% |
| Mar 2019 | 1,35,220 | 10,217 | 7.6% |
| Mar 2020 | 1,45,452 | 10,894 | 7.5% |
| Mar 2021 | 1,35,979 | 12,921 | 9.5% |
| Mar 2022 | 1,56,521 | 10,419 | 6.7% |
| Mar 2023 | 1,83,341 | 12,531 | 6.8% |
| Mar 2024 | 2,21,113 | 15,547 | 7.0% |
| Mar 2025 | 2,55,734 | 17,673 | 6.9% |
| Mar 2026 | 2,85,874 | 18,954 | 6.6% |
This is a group of businesses with different economics. A single discounted cash flow across all of them averages them into something that describes none of them, so our engine withholds a single blended fair value rather than publishing a number it cannot defend. The parts are valued separately instead.
Call withheld — the engine says so itselfThe same valuation, run side by side.
Larsen & Toubro vs Siemens IndiaBoth industrial, one project-led and one product-led.→Larsen & Toubro vs ABB IndiaAutomation and electrification against engineering and construction.→Larsen & Toubro vs BHELThe public-sector heavy-engineering comparison.→At ₹3,939 the market is pricing in roughly 15% sustained growth, against the ~13% its own record supports. That is more than it has delivered, so the price is justified only if the business can hold a rate it has not previously sustained.
This business is a group of operations with different economics, so a single blended figure would describe none of them. The parts are valued separately and the breakdown is in the report, rather than one number that cannot be defended.
A price-to-earnings of 30.8 and price-to-book of 4.96 sit against a return on equity of 15.9%. Whether that multiple is deserved depends on how durable the return is — which is exactly what the valuation tests.
Revenue went from ₹1.09 lakh crore to ₹2.86 lakh crore over the period shown, while return on equity moved from 14.1% to 15.5%. Growing scale on a rising return is a very different proposition from growing scale on a falling one.
The dividend yield is 0.96%, so effectively the entire return has to come from the share price.
Debt to equity stands at 1.15, down from 1.87 at the start of the period — the balance sheet is a core input to the cost of capital used here.
From published financial statements. The method is chosen to fit the business — a bank on excess return, a regulated utility on its rate base, a conglomerate by its parts — and every assumption is shown with its source. When the numbers do not support a call, no call is published.
A cost of capital of 11.46%, growth drawn from the company's own record rather than from guidance, and the valuation method that fits the business. All of them are listed in the report, with how much each one moves the answer.