What CLSA says on ICICI Bank, BofA on HCL Tech & MS on PNB

NEW DELHI: CLSA has maintained its buy rating on ICICI Bank suggesting the bank is largely immune to tough macros. Morgan Stanley maintained an ‘equal weight’ on Bank () even as Q4 profit after tax came in 81 per cent below its estimates. BofA Securities, meanwhile, has maintained a ‘buy’ on .

On ICICI Bank, CLSA said risk to estimates remain low and that valuations are undemanding. It said that ICICI’s loan growth is unlikely to face size constraints anytime soon. It said the credit cycle is benign and that focus on pre-provision operating profit will continue. The brokerage has a target of Rs 1,050 on ICICI Bank.

On PNB, Morgan Stanley said Q4 profit was 81 per cent lower than its estimates despite a big beat on costs. This brokerage said revenues for the quarter were muted and there was a sharp increase in credit cost for PNB. CET 1 ratio progression was weak and declined nearly 100 basis points QoQ, it said, while suggesting a target of Rs 41 on the stock.

The public sector lender had on Wednesday reported a 66 per cent decline in its standalone net profit at Rs 202 crore due to higher amount parked towards provisioning, even as bad loans declined.

Meanwhile, BofA Securities has suggested a target of Rs 1,300 on HCL Technologies. Pivot to applications is achieved and that mix will improve further, it said. Digital foundation i.e. IMS is not a big dilution to growth, ET NOW reported BofA Securities as saying.

BofA Securities’ views came after

had hosted Analyst Day, where the management reiterated their positive stance on IT Services and ER&D verticals, while detailing the steps being undertaken to return to growth in its struggling products and platform (P&P) business.

The management reiterated its FY23 guidance of growing revenue by 12-14 per cent and EBIT margin in the 18-20 per cent range, and also introduced its five strategic objectives.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)