Finance
Power Finance's (NSE:PFC) three-year total shareholder returns outpace the underlying earnings growth
Investing can be hard but the potential fo an individual stock to pay off big time inspires us. You won’t get it right every time, but when you do, the returns can be truly splendid. One such superstar is Power Finance Corporation Limited (NSE:PFC), which saw its share price soar 388% in three years. On top of that, the share price is up 23% in about a quarter. But this move may well have been assisted by the reasonably buoyant market (up 13% in 90 days).
While the stock has fallen 5.4% this week, it’s worth focusing on the longer term and seeing if the stocks historical returns have been driven by the underlying fundamentals.
Check out our latest analysis for Power Finance
To paraphrase Benjamin Graham: Over the short term the market is a voting machine, but over the long term it’s a weighing machine. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price.
Power Finance was able to grow its EPS at 19% per year over three years, sending the share price higher. This EPS growth is lower than the 70% average annual increase in the share price. This suggests that, as the business progressed over the last few years, it gained the confidence of market participants. It is quite common to see investors become enamoured with a business, after a few years of solid progress.
The company’s earnings per share (over time) is depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers).
We’re pleased to report that the CEO is remunerated more modestly than most CEOs at similarly capitalized companies. But while CEO remuneration is always worth checking, the really important question is whether the company can grow earnings going forward. Before buying or selling a stock, we always recommend a close examination of historic growth trends, available here..
What About Dividends?
As well as measuring the share price return, investors should also consider the total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. So for companies that pay a generous dividend, the TSR is often a lot higher than the share price return. We note that for Power Finance the TSR over the last 3 years was 520%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. And there’s no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence!
A Different Perspective
It’s nice to see that Power Finance shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 210% over the last year. That’s including the dividend. That’s better than the annualised return of 46% over half a decade, implying that the company is doing better recently. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We’ve spotted 4 warning signs for Power Finance you should be aware of, and 3 of them make us uncomfortable.
Of course Power Finance may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of growth stocks.
Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Indian exchanges.
Valuation is complex, but we’re helping make it simple.
Find out whether Power Finance is potentially over or undervalued by checking out our comprehensive analysis, which includes fair value estimates, risks and warnings, dividends, insider transactions and financial health.
View the Free Analysis
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Valuation is complex, but we’re helping make it simple.
Find out whether Power Finance is potentially over or undervalued by checking out our comprehensive analysis, which includes fair value estimates, risks and warnings, dividends, insider transactions and financial health.
View the Free Analysis
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
Finance
Trump’s shakeup of global trade creates uncertainties for 2026
The Blueprint
- 2025 tariffs lifted U.S. import taxes to nearly 17%, generating $30B/month.
- Framework deals struck with EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam; China deal remains unresolved.
- U.S. economy rebounded despite early contraction; AI investments and consumer spending helped growth.
- Key 2026 developments include Supreme Court rulings, U.S.-China talks, and NAFTA review.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 kicked off a frenetic year for global trade, with waves of tariffs on U.S. trading partners that lifted import taxes to their highest since the Great Depression, roiled financial markets and sparked rounds of negotiations over trade and investment deals.
His trade policies — and the global reaction to them — will remain front and center in 2026, but face some hefty challenges.
What happened in 2025
Trump’s moves, aimed broadly at reviving a declining manufacturing base, lifted the average tariff rate to nearly 17% from less than 3% at the end of 2024, according to Yale Budget Lab, and the levies are now generating roughly $30 billion a month of revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
They brought world leaders scrambling to Washington seeking deals for lower rates, often in return for pledges of billions of dollars in U.S. investments. Framework deals were struck with a host of major trading partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and others, but notably a final agreement with China remains on the undone list despite multiple rounds of talks and a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
The EU was criticized by many for its deal for a 15% tariff on its exports and a vague commitment to big U.S. investments. France’s prime minister at the time, Francois Bayrou, called it an act of submission and a “sombre day” for the bloc. Others shrugged that it was the “least bad” deal on offer.
Since then, European exporters and economies have broadly coped with the new tariff rate, thanks to various exemptions and their ability to find markets elsewhere. French bank Societe Generale estimated the total direct impact of the tariffs was equivalent to just 0.37% of the region’s GDP.
Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus defied Trump’s tariffs to surpass $1 trillion as it succeeded in diversifying away from the U.S., moved its manufacturing sector up the value chain, and used the leverage it has gained in rare earth minerals — crucial inputs into the West’s security scaffolding — to push back against pressure from the U.S. or Europe to curb its surplus.
What notably did not happen was the economic calamity and high inflation that legions of economists predicted would unfold from Trump’s tariffs.
The U.S. economy suffered a modest contraction in the first quarter amid a scramble to import goods before tariffs took effect, but quickly rebounded and continues to grow at an above-trend pace thanks to a massive artificial intelligence investment boom and resilient consumer spending. The International Monetary Fund, in fact, twice lifted its global growth outlook in the months following Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement in April as uncertainty ebbed and deals were struck to reduce the originally announced rates.
And while U.S. inflation remains somewhat elevated in part because of tariffs, economists and policymakers now expect the effects to be more mild and short-lived than feared, with cost sharing of the import taxes occurring across the supply chain among producers, importers, retailers and consumers.
What to look for in 2026 and why it matters
A big unknown for 2026 is whether many of Trump’s tariffs are allowed to stand. A challenge to the novel legal premise for what he branded as “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from individual countries and for levies imposed on China, Canada and Mexico tied to the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late 2025, and a decision is expected in early 2026.
The Trump administration insists it can shift to other, more-established legal authorities to keep tariffs in place should it lose. But those are more cumbersome and often limited in scope, so a loss at the high court for the administration might prompt renegotiations of the deals struck so far or usher in a new era of uncertainty about where the tariffs will end up.
Arguably just as important for Europe is what is happening with its trading relationship with China, for years a reliable destination for its exporters. The depreciation of the yuan and the gradual move up the value chain for Chinese companies have helped China’s exporters. Europe’s companies meanwhile have struggled to make further inroads into the slowing domestic Chinese market. One of the key questions for 2026 is whether Europe finally uses tariffs or other measures to address what some of its officials are starting to call the “imbalances” in the China-EU trading ties.
Efforts to finally cement a U.S.-China deal loom large as well. A shaky detente reached in this year’s talks will expire in the second half of 2026, and Trump and Xi are tentatively set to meet twice over the course of the year.
And lastly, the free trade deal with the two largest U.S. trading partners — Canada and Mexico — is up for review in 2026 amid uncertainty over whether Trump will let the pact expire or try to retool it more to his liking.
What analysts are saying:
“It seems like the administration is rowing back on its harshest stance on tariffs in order to mitigate some of the inflation/pricing issues,” Chris Iggo, chief investment officer for Core Investments and chair of the Investment Institute at AXA Investment Managers, said on a 2026 outlook call. “So less of a concern to markets. Could be marginally helpful to the inflation outlook if tariffs are reduced or at least not further increased.”
Ahead of midterm elections later in the year, “a confrontational trade war with China would not be great — a deal would be politically and economically better for the U.S. outlook,” he said.
Finance
Jack in the Box shut down more than 70 stores, expecting more to close amid financial struggle
Jack in the Box plans to close dozens of restaurants by the end of the year in an effort to cut costs and boost revenue.
The franchise said earlier this year it would shutter between 150 and 200 underperforming stores by 2026, including 80–120 by the end of this year, under a block closure program.
In May, Jack In The Box said it had closed 12 locations, which was followed by another 13 closures by August and 47 more reported in the company’s November earnings, according to the Daily Mail.
This brings the total to 72, which remains short of the company’s year-end goal with a week to go.
The company hopes the closures will improve its financial performance because stores are seeing fewer customers, beef prices are rising, and the company is carrying significantly more debt than it generates in annual earnings.
It reported a net loss of $80.7 million for the full fiscal year that ended in September. The franchise also reported that sales fell 7.4% in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025, reflecting a year-over-year drop compared to the same quarter in 2024 and marking the second consecutive quarter with a dip of more than 7%.
“In my time thus far as CEO, I have worked quickly with our teams to conclude that Jack in the Box operates at its best and maximizes shareholder return potential, within a simplified and asset-light business model,” CEO Lance Tucker said in April.
“Our actions today focus on three main areas: Addressing our balance sheet to accelerate cash flow and pay down debt, while preserving growth-oriented capital investments related to technology and restaurant reimage; closing underperforming restaurants to position ourselves for consistent net unit growth and competitive unit economics; and, an overall return to simplicity for the Jack in the Box business model and investor story.”
The company also announced this week that it has completed the sale of Del Taco to Yadav Enterprises for about $119 million as part of its turnaround plan.
Jack in the Box operates roughly 2,200 restaurants in the U.S., with most in California, Texas and Arizona.
Finance
Extension offers farm finance guidance amid low profits
University of Illinois Extension is guiding to help farmers understand their financial condition through balance sheet analysis as the Midwest agriculture sector faces another year of low profits.
A market-value balance sheet provides a snapshot of a farm’s financial condition by comparing current asset values to liabilities owed, according to Kevin Brooks, Extension educator in Havana.
Lenders use a traffic light system to evaluate farm financial health based on debt-to-asset ratios. Farms with debt ratios of 30% or less are considered financially strong, while ratios between 30% and 60% signal caution and may result in higher interest rates.
“A debt-to-asset ratio of more than 60% will make it challenging to secure a loan through traditional lenders,” Brooks said. Farms in this category may need to work with the Farm Service Agency as a lender of last resort.
Lenders also examine current ratios, calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities. A ratio of at least 2.0 is considered strong, meaning the farm has $2 to pay each $1 of current debt.
Working capital provides another critical measure, representing the cash cushion farms have above expenses. Lenders typically require a 30% to 40% cushion to cover unexpected challenges.
Brooks emphasized the importance of honest financial reporting and maintaining strong lender relationships, especially during challenging economic conditions.
“Falsifying information on the balance sheet is a criminal offense,” he said. “Farmers have been convicted and imprisoned for bank fraud.”
Brooks advised farmers to keep lenders informed about purchase and debt plans, use realistic asset values and ensure balance sheets are consistent across all lenders.
For more information, contact Brooks at kwbrooks@illinois.edu or visit the Extension Farm Coach blog.
-
Maine1 week agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a 47-year-old physicist and fusion scientist, shot and killed in his home in Brookline, Mass. | Fortune
-
New Mexico1 week agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
Culture1 week agoTry This Quiz and See How Much You Know About Jane Austen
-
World6 days agoPutin says Russia won’t launch new attacks on other countries ‘if you treat us with respect’
-
Maine1 week agoFamily in Maine host food pantry for deer | Hand Off
-
Minneapolis, MN1 week agoMinneapolis man is third convicted in Coon Rapids triple murder
-
Culture1 week agoRevisiting Jane Austen’s Cultural Impact for Her 250th Birthday
