AEPL
NSE↗BSE↗Micro Cap
Artemis Electricals and Projects Limited
Industrials›Other Electrical Equipment
Current Price₹14.56(-0.82%)
Market Cap₹366 Cr
Analysis WindowQ1 FY27
Last Updated28 Oct 2026
Flagium AI Risk Score
Risk Score measures the severity of detected structural financial risks using Flagium's quantitative risk framework. A lower score indicates fewer or less severe detected risks (0 = Minimal Risk, 100 = Severe Risk). Quarter-to-quarter changes reflect changes in the underlying risk signals, not investment recommendations.
13/ 100
Scale: 0 = Clean • 100 = Severe Risk (Lower is safer)62nd Percentile · Sector
Risk ClassStable
Risk Trend
Early DeteriorationQoQ Delta +1 pts
Business🟢 Stable
Primary DriverReceivables-Revenue Divergence
Valuations✗ Demanding
Expectation Gap-36.9%Valuation Risk: High
Market Structure✗ Weak
Stage 419 sessions

High-quality business currently experiencing weak market structure. Monitor for trend reversal. Valuations remain demanding and supported by current metrics.

Market Alignment🔴DivergingPrice structure remains weak despite stable underlying financial risk.

SENTINEL REVIEW

Artemis Electricals and Projects Limited (AEPL)•Updated yesterday

WHAT CHANGED THIS QUARTER
  • ✗Risk score deteriorated (QoQ change: +1 pts)
  • ✓Profitability margins pressure eased
  • ✗Growth expectations are demanding
  • ✗Market structure is declining (Stage 4)
  • ✗Institutional flow regime is Neutral (-0.20σ)
  • ✗Share price is down -4.1% this quarter (from ₹15.18 on 30 Sept to ₹14.56)
DUE DILIGENCE CHECKLIST
  • 🔴Review 1 active forensic warning flag for structural stress
  • 🟠Track earnings quality and working capital trends in next filing
  • 🟢Maintain routine quarterly surveillance; no governance escalation required
RISK CONTRIBUTORS
  • 13.0 ptsEarnings Quality
NEED CLARIFICATION ON THIS QUARTER'S AUDIT?

Divergence Radar

BUSINESS STRENGTH87/100
VALUATION ATTRACTIVENESS (MARGIN OF SAFETY)48/100
MARKET TREND STRUCTURE15/100
INSTITUTIONAL FLOW ACCUMULATION45/100

Structural Matrix

Valuation
Business Quality
Attractive
Balanced
Demanding
Strong
Moderate
Weak
🔴
Profile: STRONG × DEMANDING VALUATION

Risk vs Price Timeline
Visualizing the historical relationship between the structural risk score and stock price movement over time.

Loading Chart
Share Price
Risk Score (0-100)
Market Performance
₹14.56(-0.82%)
1M Divergence+2.86%
DurationPerf.Sector AvgDivergence
1 Week-1.69%-1.46%-0.23%
1 Month-3.83%-6.69%+2.86%
6 Months-20.22%+6.82%-27.04%
1 Year-36.2%+8.93%-45.12%
2 Year-47.57%+47.64%-95.21%
3 Year-21.04%+125.5%-146.54%

Business Analysis Methodology

Business analysis focuses on structural risk inside the company. Flagium monitors earnings quality, balance sheet strength, liquidity, governance, competitive position, and growth sustainability to identify areas where risk may be increasing or decreasing before it becomes obvious in reported results.

Flagium AI Risk Score13 / 100Riskier than 62% of Sector Peers
Risk Class
Stable
Risk Trend+1 QoQ · Early DeteriorationRisk score deteriorated (+1 pts)
Stress MomentumRising (1 Qtr)Deteriorating for 1 qtr
Severe Risk Chance5%
Low / Manageable
Interpretation

Financial profile remains stable for now. Weakness is detected in profitability and earnings quality. No immediate concerns are visible. Risk is gradually increasing.

Risk Score Composition

Absolute point contribution of each forensic risk driver to the final composite risk score.
Earnings Quality
+13.0 pts
Final Composite Risk13 / 100

Investment Risk Thesis

Historical Trend

Current risk score has risen from 0 → 13 over 12 quarters.

Expected Direction
STABLE
Primary Deterioration Drivers
ESCReceivables-Revenue Divergence
+1.6 pts
What to Watch Next Quarter
  • Operating profit margins

Risk Drivers (Active Warnings)

Earning Quality
■Receivables-Revenue Divergence
SEVEREPersistent
Decaying / Resolved Signals (12Q Surveillance)
✓ Profit Collapse (Q3-FY26)

Primary Driver & Insights

Key Contributor
Earning Quality
■Receivables-Revenue DivergenceSEVERE
Forensic Analyst Insight

Working capital cycles are stretching, led by receivables-revenue divergence. This delays cash generation from core operations and locks up liquidity.

Advanced Business Analytics

Active Risk Objects (2)

CriticalHigh
[F11]Receivables-Revenue Divergence
Earnings QualityQuarterlyActive for 4 Qtrs
Framework: XBRL Quarterly
Rec DivergenceHigh Tier
+52.6 ppDSRI 1.47x
Signal MomentumPersistent
Historical BaselineStatutory Filing Baseline
Empirical Trigger

AEPL: Trade Receivables growth outpaced Revenue by +52.6 pp (DSRI: 1.47x).

Forensic Implication

Early signs of slowing collections. Monitor for pressure on the cash flow cycle.

Statutory XBRLFiling Period: Q1 FY2027
[F5]Profit Collapse
Earnings QualityQuarterlyActive for 1 Qtr
Framework: XBRL Quarterly
PATHigh Tier
₹8,000,000 Cr↓ 69.5%
Signal MomentumDecaying
Historical Baseline12-Qtr Median: ₹1.3 Cr
Empirical Trigger

AEPL: Net Profit collapsed by 69.5% from FY2025 Q3 to FY2026 Q3.

Forensic Implication

Earnings quality is stabilizing. The reliance on non-operational items is receding.

Statutory XBRLFiling Period: Q3 FY2026

Statutory Note: Forensic signals are algorithmic quantitative observations derived from publicly filed XBRL disclosures and do not constitute allegations of legal misconduct or investment recommendations.

Unlock Interactive Signal Evidence Dossier

Access complete multi-quarter financial evidence, 5-KPI snapshot strips, diagnostic hypotheses, and 1-page forensic PDF dossiers for Artemis Electricals and Projects Limited.

Risk Trajectory
Historical 12-quarter risk trend (Q-11 to Q0) followed by a 2-quarter predictive funnel (Q+1, Q+2).
Loading Chart
Business Stability
Key indicators of structural risk, cash buffer capability, and risk progression.
Shock ResistanceHigh
Severe Risk ChanceLow
Financial StabilityHigh
Margin of SafetyHigh
Forensic Benchmark Context: Industrials (n=0 peers)

Structural Risk Attribution

Auditable forensic risk attribution explaining why the Flagium AI Risk Score changed between quarters. Deconstructs the score delta into new triggers, severity escalations, cross-pillar contagion overlays, and rules no longer triggered in the latest quarter.

Deterministic quarter-on-quarter causal decomposition grounded in statutory exchange filings.

Peer Benchmark:Industrials
Position: 62th Percentile

Historical Trajectory (12Q)

Resilient · 0 Breaks
← Swipe older12Q window
0/100
Base
0/100
0/100
0/100
0/100
0/100
0/100
0/100
10/100
15/100
12/100
13/100
LATEST
12➔13/100
▲1-point deterioration(Q4 FY26 ➔ Q1 FY27)
Auditable forensic risk attribution explaining why the Flagium AI Risk Score changed between quarters.
Executive Synthesis:

Risk deteriorated moderately (+1.0 pts), driven by Receivables-Revenue Divergence (+1.6 pts).

Reconciliation Bridge· Swipe ➔
Deterministic Statutory Flow
Base12Q4 FY26
➔
+ New Stress+1.61 flag
➔
- Resolved00 flags cleared
➔
Scaling & Drift
Net calibration combining economic pillar capacity ceiling (-0.6 pts) and temporal volatility dampening (0 pts).
-0.6Pillar Cap & Drift
➔
Terminal13+1 net · Q1 FY27
What Changed This Quarter1 Active Catalysts
Escalated Stress (1 Flag)
+1.6 pts
Earnings Quality·Escalated Risk
• Trigger:Accounts receivable outgrew top-line sales, extending cash conversion cycles.
Revenue YoY:-17.6%
Risk Pillar Changes
Net shift in risk score points contributed by each fundamental economic pillar between the two quarters.
6 Fundamental Pillars
Balance Sheet Stress—
Q4 FY26: 0→Q1 FY27: 0
Competitive Position—
Q4 FY26: 0→Q1 FY27: 0
Earnings Quality+1.2 pts
Q4 FY26: 12.2→Q1 FY27: 13.4
Governance—
Q4 FY26: 0→Q1 FY27: 0
Growth Sustainability—
Q4 FY26: 0→Q1 FY27: 0
Solvency—
Q4 FY26: 0→Q1 FY27: 0

Business Resilience & Benchmark Context

Overall: STRONG
Solvency(10)Excellent★★★★★
█████100th %ile
Governance(10)Excellent★★★★★
█████100th %ile
Earnings Quality(1.3)Weak★☆☆☆☆
█░░░░13th %ile
Balance Sheet Stress(10)Excellent★★★★★
█████100th %ile
Competitive Position(10)Excellent★★★★★
█████100th %ile
Growth Sustainability(10)Excellent★★★★★
█████100th %ile

PEER COMPARISON MATRIX

Ranked surveillance & credit risk comparison against sector peers

Company appears relatively stable compared to the Sector Mean (40).

* Peer comparison is based on risk signals, not valuation or returns.

Unlock 5-Year Forensic Divergence Cockpit

Access multi-year visual divergence charts (EBITDA vs CFO Cash Gap, Receivables Decoupling Spread, and Debt vs FCF Burn) for Artemis Electricals and Projects Limited.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial SummaryAudited · Consolidated
Operating Margin (OPM)
16.3%
Growing↑
Cash Conversion (CCC)
6 Days
Weakening↓
Debt / Equity Ratio
0.02x
Improving↓
Revenue Trend
₹81 Cr
Growing↑
Swipe for all periods ⇆
MetricFY2026FY2025FY2024FY2023FY20223Y CAGR
Structural triggers––––
Revenue80.672.441.458.234.3+11%
growth % YoY+11.3%+74.9%−29.0%+69.6%——
EBITDA13.111.77.811.0(7.2)+6%
margin %16.3%16.2%19.0%19.0%-20.8%—
Net Profit8.77.63.96.3(12.0)+12%
margin %10.8%10.4%9.4%10.8%-35.0%—
CFO14.640.621.211.71.6+8%
CFO / Net Profit1.68x5.37x5.45x1.86x-0.14x—
Debt1.72.512.227.930.2-61%
Structural triggers first appear in FY2026 (ringed).

Working Capital & Forensic Monitor

Operating Cycle Disclosures·5 Fiscal Years

Forensic Accounting Signals:Receivable–Revenue Divergence: +52.6 pp (Investigate credit elongation and revenue recognition)Capitalisation Intensity Spike: CWIP at 81.2% of fixed assets (Elevated vs historical 60%)
Cash Conversion Cycle
6 days+22d YoY
Receivables:+58d
Inventory:0d
Payables:+36d
Net Working Capital
₹2 Cr
5-Year Average Cycle: 180 days
Earnings-to-Cash Divergence
₹-6 Cr
PAT − CFO (Cash Surplus)
5Y Cum: ₹-75 Cr
Accrual Quality Monitor
Clean (Cash Backed)
Accruals: -4.47% of Avg Assets

Working Capital Schedule (INR Cr)

Metric / RatioFY2026FY2025FY2024FY2023FY2022
Trade Receivables(₹ Cr)
4024533456
Inventories(₹ Cr)
10117
Trade Payables(₹ Cr)
3928151621
Net Working Capital(₹ Cr)
2-3391942
Working Capital / Sales(%)
1.9%-4.1%94.8%32.0%122.1%

Cash Conversion & Operating Cycle (Days)

Metric / RatioFY2026FY2025FY2024FY2023FY2022
Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC)(days)
6d-16d346d117d446d
Debtor Days (DSO)(days)
180d122d471d216d597d
Inventory Days (DIO)(days)
2d2d5d3d73d
Creditor Days (DPO)(days)
176d140d130d102d224d

Forensic Accounting Monitor & Divergences

Metric / RatioFY2026FY2025FY2024FY2023FY2022
Receivable Growth vs Sales (Δ)(%)
+52.6%-129.4%+84.0%-108.3%—
Inventory Growth vs Sales (Δ)(%)
-7.3%-89.0%+32.6%-161.5%—
Asset Growth vs Sales (Δ)(%)
+5.5%-64.3%+15.2%-69.5%—
Earnings-to-Cash Divergence (PAT - CFO)(₹ Cr)
-6-33-17-5-14
Accrual Ratio (Accruals / Avg Assets)(%)
-4.5%-28.5%-14.6%-4.2%-10.7%
Operating Cash Realisation (CFO / EBITDA)(%)
117.3%363.9%274.8%105.7%—
Capitalisation Intensity (CWIP / Assets)(%)
81.2%79.5%62.2%55.0%43.2%

Industry Intelligence

Industrials KPIs
EBITDA Margin
ⓘ
Q1 FY2027
Current13.5%
QoQ Change+250 bps↑ Operating efficiency gains
YoY Change+230 bps↑ Operating efficiency gains
Industry Median15.5%

Understanding Industrials KPIs

EBITDA Margin: EBITDA divided by revenue. Core operational profitability metric. Learn More →
Shareholding Pattern & Pledging Monitor3QZero Pledge
Ownership structure stable
Promoter holding 72.45% unchanged across 3 quarters · zero pledge or encumbrance · institutional holding below 1% throughout
Q2 FY2027 · latest disclosed quarter
Net Capital Flow (Q2 FY2027):FII 0 ppDII 0 ppPromoters 0 ppPublic 0 pp
FII+DII Net: 0 pp
Latest Ownership Distribution (Q2 FY2027)100.00%
Promoters (72.45%)
FII (0.00%)
DII (0.00%)
Public (27.55%)
Quarterly Progression
7 unchanged — Promoters 72.45% · FII / FPI 0.00% · DII (MFs/Ins) 0.00% · Government 0.00% · Public & Retail 27.55% · Promoter Pledge (% Prom) 0.00% · Total Pledged (% Eq) 0.00% across 3 quarters

* Sourced from quarterly shareholding pattern disclosures filed under Regulation 31 of SEBI (LODR) Regulations. Pledged shares include encumbrances, non-disposal undertakings (NDU), and liens.

🎙️

Concall & Management Takeaways

Investor Earnings Call Transcripts & Tone Analysis

No investor earnings call transcripts transcribed for this scrip.

Earnings call intelligence is automatically populated when companies conduct quarterly earnings calls with institutional investors and publish transcripts.

Sentinel Forensic AssessmentALGORITHMIC RISK PROFILE • NON-ADVISORY
Fundamental Status

Business quality remains strong.

Forensic Pressure

Current forensic pressure is low and stable.

Primary Risk Vectors

Key risks remain concentrated in growth sustainability and operating leverage.

The structural architecture is currently robust. Capital resilience buffers in earnings quality remain well-maintained against forensic benchmarks. Systematic scans of operational margins and profitability metrics confirm the absence of material structural stress. The current structural trajectory supports a stable risk outlook.

Market Expectation Engine

DEMANDING EXPECTATIONS

Investor Translation • What the market price is expecting

Expectation Engine

At the current price of ₹15, the market expects this company to grow its net profits by 21.6% every year for the next 5 years. If you think the company will grow faster than 21.6%, current market prices reflect a discount relative to that growth assumption.

Sentinel Takeaway:The market expects future growth significantly above the company's historical delivery. Current market expectations appear demanding relative to the business's track record, resulting in higher expectation risk.

Market-Implied Growth21.6%Future Growth Needed
Historical Delivery6.5%Actual Past Growth
Expectation Gap+15.1%Growth Jump Needed
Expectation Risk83/100Price Risk Score
CONSERVATIVE (-7%)BALANCEDDEMANDING (24%)
Historical (6.5%)
Market (21.6%)
Valuation Summary

Using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model, the market is pricing AEPL for 21.6% long-term growth versus 6.5% historical delivery. Current expectations appear demanding, and historical fundamentals provide strong support.

Business Delivery Capacity

Performance quality vs historical benchmarks
Historical Delivery Assessment
Revenue Growth SupportObserved CAGR vs cost of capital baseline
6.5% CAGR
✓ Achieved
Operating Profitability SupportEBIT margins compared to historical standards
16.5% Margin
✗ Weak Margin
Cash Flow Generation SupportOperating cash flow conversion and support cushion
140.5% Conv
✓ Positive
Capital Leverage RiskLeverage indicators and solvency pressure
Clean
✓ Clean
Delivery Capacity Index
75/100
HIGH CAPACITY

Historical business performance currently provides robust support for the market's implied growth assumptions. Improvement in revenue growth and operating efficiency would strengthen expectation support.

WHY IS EXPECTATION RISK ELEVATED?

Risk Drivers:
✓High implied growth
✓Expensive valuation regime
✓Weak profitability support

Valuation Context

Historical Valuation59th percentile
Cash Yield Support3.72% (Moderate)
Sector Premium+96% EV/EBITDA
Current Valuation RegimeDemanding

WHAT MUST HAPPEN FOR CURRENT PRICE TO BE CORRECT?

MARKET REQUIRED METRICS
Assumption MetricRequired (To justify current price)Historical Delivery (Average)Fulfillment Assessment
Revenue Growth (CAGR)21.6%6.5%Aggressive
Operating Margin (EBIT)16.1%16.5%Achievable
Free Cash Flow Conversion109.5%140.5%Achievable

*Required metrics indicate the operating efficiency and revenue expansion parameters that must be sustained long-term to justify the current stock price.

Advanced Valuation Analytics
Sentinel Expectation Assessment

The current valuation assumes business performance well above the company's historical record. Historical operating performance currently provides partial evidence that these expectations are sustainable. Continued stronger profitability would be required to justify current pricing.

Market Structure Methodology

Flagium separates Business Risk from Market Structure. Business analysis explains what is happening inside the company. Market Structure measures how investors are behaving through price trends, momentum, participation, and institutional activity. Divergences between the two often reveal important transitions before they become obvious.

Market Structure
STAGE 4
DOWNTRENDCAPITAL EROSION RISK
Stage Progress
Measures the progress of the stock's current price, volume, and momentum characteristic alignments.
0%
TrendDeclining
MomentumNeutral
ParticipationNeutral
A/D FlowImproving
Sentinel Market Insight

The stock remains in a confirmed Stage 4 declining phase. Although institutional participation has improved, trend quality remains weak and momentum continues to deteriorate. Current price action does not yet confirm a structural recovery.

What Is Driving Market Structure?

Market Drivers
✗Long-term trend remains below the 150DMA
✗Long-term trend remains below the 200DMA
✗RS continues to lag the market
✓Institutional flow has improved
✗Momentum remains negative
Summary
🔴Diverging

Price structure remains weak despite stable underlying financial risk.

Market Cycle Stage Analysis

Stan Weinstein 4-Stage Cycle
S1
Base Building(Institutional accumulation & base building)
S2
Strong Uptrend(Ideal breakout & momentum zone)
S3
Topping Out(Institutional distribution & profit taking)
S4
Downtrend(Elevated capital erosion risk)
Stage Lifecycle
Stage Progress
0%
Readiness LabelLow (Early Base Consolidation)
Regime Sessions19 Sessions
Transition Probability0% Low
Measures the alignment and consistency of the stock's price trend relative to its historical volume volatility.
0.3450σ Weak
Trend & Strength
Trend QualityDeteriorating
150 DMA Slope-4.4774%
Participation & Volume
Total rupee value of shares actually delivered into buyers' Demat accounts today (excluding intraday trades). Delivery % indicates what portion of today's total trade was held as delivery rather than squared off intraday.
₹0 Cr80.62% Delivery (High Conviction)
Compares the 21-day average delivery turnover against the 200-day long-term baseline. Delivery expansion above baseline confirms a structural accumulation trend.
▼ 60.0% (21D vs 200D Avg)Delivery Volume Drying Up
Avg Turnover (200D)
The 200-day average daily traded turnover in ₹ Crore. Represents baseline trading depth and capacity to enter or exit positions with minimal slippage.
₹0.1 Cr
Liquidity Rating
Categorizes trading liquidity based on 200-day average turnover: Liquid (≥₹100 Cr/day), Low Liquidity (₹50–₹100 Cr/day), or Illiquid (<₹50 Cr/day) for sizing and slippage risk control.
Illiquid (High Slippage Risk)
Participation
Evaluates current volume participation against historical baseline turnover. Healthy (≥1.2x) confirms active broad-market sponsorship, while Weak (<0.8x) indicates lack of volume conviction.
Weak

Momentum & Institutional Flow

Price Momentum
Momentum StrengthWeakening momentum trend
Price momentum score in standard deviations (σ). Readings beyond ±2.0σ indicate extreme momentum shifts.
-0.0525σ
Universe Rank
#974 of 2259Top 43.12% in momentum strength
Institutional Accumulation
21D Flow Score
21-day cumulative institutional flow score in standard deviations (σ).
-0.20σ
7D Flow TrendImproving
AEPL
STAGE 4 • DECLINE
—
C:—
Loading Market Structure Data...

Methodology & Regulatory Disclaimer

Flagium AI is an automated financial data analytics and research platform providing quantitative risk, forensic, and valuation analytics for informational and educational purposes only. Flagium AI is not registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst or Investment Adviser under SEBI regulations. These analytics do not constitute financial planning, investment advice, or recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security.

Investments in securities market are subject to market risks. Read all the related documents carefully before investing. Please consult a SEBI-registered Investment Adviser before acting on any data presented.

📬 Flagium Risk Brief — Track forensic risks on AEPL & 3 market anomalies weekly

See a sample issue →