Pyramid Technopl (PYRAMID)
StalwartFairStock Score: 34/100 — RISKY
Score breakdown: P/E: 1/3 · ROCE: 1/2 · Growth: 0/2 · Dividend: 0/1
Key Financials
| Current Price | ₹162.97 |
| Market Cap | ₹601.03 Cr |
| P/E Ratio | 20.53 |
| ROCE | 14.03% |
| ROE | 10.79% |
| Dividend Yield | 0.31% |
| Profit Growth | 32.14% |
| Debt/Equity | 0.66 |
| Sales Growth | 35.12% |
| Promoter Holding | 74.94% |
| 52-Week Range | ₹131.8 — ₹190.95 |
| Sector | Industrial Products |
| Book Value | ₹77.32 |
AI Analysis
AI-generated, general educational analysis — not personal investment advice.
When I look at Pyramid Technopl, I see a business that fails the first test I apply: does it earn consistently high returns on capital without excessive leverage? At 10.79% ROE and 14.03% ROCE, the profitability is mediocre at best. A P/B of 2.45 for a company earning a mid-teens return on capital gives me little room for safety. The promoter holding of 74.94% is reassuring, but good governance cannot mask deteriorating economics. Sales growth of just 5.31% is sluggish, while profit growth has collapsed by 30.19%. The latest quarter tells a similar story: ₹161 Cr in sales produced only ₹5 Cr in net profit, a margin of roughly 3%. That is a thin, fragile earnings stream. The Piotroski F-Score of 4 out of 9 warns me that the balance sheet and profitability quality are weak. With a P/E of 21.13 on falling earnings and a PEG of 3.98, Mr. Market is still paying a premium for this packaging firm. I cannot justify that. The debt-to-equity of 0.54 is manageable, and the dividend yield is minimal at 0.34%. This is not a business I would want to own at this price. There is no margin of safety. The FairStock Score of 20/100 aligns with my own assessment: risky. I would rather watch from the sidelines than pay up for a slow grower with declining profits and no clear catalyst.
The full AI analysis, bull and bear case and key monitorables are in FairStock Pro.
Data from BSE/NSE filings. AI analysis is for educational purposes only — not investment advice. Scoring methodology · Disclaimer