In the past, EM growth has been a major driver for some of the developed market equity stories. Telefonica’s expansion into Latam was one of the big telco stories from the mid-1990s. Telenor’s aggressive Asian expansion in the early part of this millennium also made their equity story stand out as core EU earnings were under pressure. However, EM exposure for developed market telecoms companies has been gradually diminishing over the past 5 years and Telefonica’s announcement this week that it now defining all of its Latam assets ex-Brazil as non-core (see HERE for our view) marks a further retreat. However, arguably no EM market has been more volatile than India. Last week we took Vodafone management around London (see HERE for more details), and one of the key concerns that shareholders were bringing up was India and whether Vodafone could be liable for yet more cash injections into India on top of the £17bn already committed over the past 10 years. However, just as the roadshow was entering its final meeting, the Government announced a moratorium on spectrum fees, potentially marking a major inflection point in Government thinking and suggesting the risk-reward is now skewed to the upside (see HERE for more details) and EM exposure could potentially become a major driver for a developed market telco again.
Why so? The changes mentioned (price increases, HERE and spectrum holiday) mean Vodafone’s Indian asset, Vodafone IDEA (VIL) is likely to be cash flow neutral until spectrum payments resume. The government is still publically insisting on full payment of the SC order ($7bn for VIL, HERE) but we think privately may be pushing for only the principal ($1.5bn for VIL). In any event, the size of any SC fine will decide whether VIL survives. We showed that a figure less than $4.5bn could be covered by VIL’s cash and an equity offer that Vodafone could probably participate in without breaking the ring-fence. Only if the SC ruling is greater than $4.5bn does the question of the ring-fence come into play. And we think it is unlikely that in this event Vodafone would break the ring-fence given their belief that the fine is unfair, which in turn means the worst likely scenario is that India is a zero to Vodafone. But what of the recovery case? If the SC ruling is cut to a manageable level, and mobile ARPUs return to 2015 levels by 2025 India would be worth roughly 20p/share to Vodafone (HERE), adding over 10% to its equity value. This latter scenario would certainly not be anyone’s central case, but stranger things have happened in India, and we think it is a realistic optimistic case. Investors in Vodafone plc need to be alive to the fact that after everything, India still has the potential to be a meaningful positive driver of Vodafone’s share price.
Vodafone’s foray into India has been disappointing and most shareholders have been wishing it to end for some time. The value ascribed into India in Vodafone’s share price is almost certainly zero, and might well even be negative. Arun Sarin’s decision to switch from Japan into India back in 2006-7 turned out to be almost as costly as the returns Vodafone made from its holding in Verizon Wireless. Vodafone sold KK in Japan to Softbank for £9bn, and the asset is now worth £76bn to Softbank, while Vodafone in turned has invested c.£17bn in India with little to show in return. It’s water under the bridge now, but if Vodafone had stayed in Japan and delivered the same performance as Masa Son, our Vodafone target wouldn’t be 205p – it would be 520p instead.
So the Indian debacle has been a major misstep in the Vodafone journey, and there have been plenty of false dawns in India before, but maybe now there could finally be the chance of real change.
Full 12-month historical recommendation changes are available on request
Reports produced by New Street Research LLP. 52 Cornhill, London EC3V 3PD Tel: +44 20 7375 9111.
New Street Research LLP is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority and is registered in the United States with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a foreign investment adviser.
Regulatory Disclosures: This research is directed only at persons classified as Professional Clients under the rules of the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’), and must not be re-distributed to Retail Clients as defined in the rules of the FCA.
This research is for our clients only. It is based on current public information which we consider reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied on as such. We seek to update our research as appropriate, but various regulations may prevent us from doing so. Most of our reports are published at irregular intervals as appropriate in the analyst's judgment. This research is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation would be illegal. It does not constitute a personal recommendation or take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual clients.
All our research reports are disseminated and available to all clients simultaneously through electronic publication to our website.
New Street Research LLC is neither a registered investment advisor nor a broker/dealer. Subscribers and/or readers are advised that the information contained in this report is not to be construed or relied upon as investment, tax planning, accounting and/or legal advice, nor is it to be construed in any way as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or any other form of investment. All opinions, analyses and information contained herein is based upon sources believed to be reliable and is written in good faith, but no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, is made herein concerning any investment, tax, accounting and/or legal matter or the accuracy, completeness, correctness, timeliness and/or appropriateness of any of the information contained herein. Subscribers and/or readers are further advised that the Company does not necessarily update the information and/or opinions set forth in this and/or any subsequent version of this report. Readers are urged to consult with their own independent professional advisors with respect to any matter herein. All information contained herein and/or this website should be independently verified.
All research is issued under the regulatory oversight of New Street Research LLP.
© Copyright 2021 New Street Research LLP
No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior written consent of New Street Research LLP.