TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
At a glance, businesses often dazzle with skyrocketing revenues, aggressive expansion, and billion-dollar valuations. But beneath the surface, one silent metric dictates who survives and who fades into obscurity.
😮💨 What separates a cash-printing machine💰 from a capital graveyard? 🪦
This metric isn’t as flashy as revenue growth or net profit margins. It doesn’t dominate headlines like funding rounds or IPO valuations. And yet, it holds the power to define the fate of a business.
Some of the world’s most enduring companies—household names that have compounded wealth for decades—share a hidden financial trait. It’s a measure of efficiency, discipline, and long-term viability.
This blog isn’t about numbers—it’s about understanding the DNA of great businesses and why some companies thrive while others struggle.
We’ll explore:
- The hidden relationship between profitability and capital efficiency—and why ignoring this balance is a silent killer.
- How different industries approach financial efficiency—from FMCG giants to tech startups, auto manufacturers to oil companies.
- What every CEO and investor should prioritize when assessing a company’s financial health.
- Why modern high-growth businesses often struggle with capital efficiency, and what investors can learn from history.
By the end of this blog, you’ll see business success through a new lens—one that cuts through the noise and identifies true long-term winners.
Let’s dive in.
2. ROCE and the Cost of Capital (COC): Ignoring the Fine Print
A business can be profitable, but is it truly creating wealth? That’s a question most investors forget to ask.
Imagine two businesses:
- One generates 20% return on capital employed (ROCE) but has a cost of capital (COC) of 25%—it’s running at a loss without even realizing it.
- Another earns 15% ROCE but operates with a COC of 8%—it’s quietly compounding wealth over time.
Which one would you rather own?
At first glance, ROCE is a powerful indicator of efficiency, but its real significance comes from how it stacks up against the cost of capital—the price a company pays to fund its operations. Many businesses, especially high-growth startups, ignore this fine print, assuming that rapid expansion will one day compensate for low efficiency.
But capital isn’t free, and when returns fail to exceed costs for too long, the model starts to crack.
We’ve seen this play out in businesses that scaled aggressively on external funding—valued in billions yet generating negative or barely positive ROCE. They burned through capital, assuming future profits would justify today’s inefficiencies. Some survived the test of time, but many ended up scaling back, restructuring, or disappearing entirely.
Sounds familiar? That’s the “Manycorn’s” story 🙄🚀
On the other hand, companies with consistently high ROCE and low COC don’t just survive—they dominate. They don’t need to chase funding rounds or rely on debt-fueled expansion. Their operations self-sustain, their margins expand, and their shareholders enjoy compounded wealth over decades.
A fundamental investing rule:
If a company's ROCE < COC⚠️ for an extended period, it will eventually need external funding or risk value destruction.
Ignoring COC in an ROCE analysis is like driving a high-speed car without checking the fuel gauge—you may go fast initially, but you’re bound to run out of fuel.
So, before getting excited about profitability, ask the more critical question:
Is this business truly creating value, or is it just playing an expensive game of catch-up?
3. ROCE at the Sector Level: Understanding the Differentiation
By now, we’ve established that ROCE is the silent hero separating thriving businesses from those merely staying afloat. We’ve also uncovered the hidden trap of cost of capital, where businesses can be seemingly profitable but still erode shareholder value if they fail to earn returns above their capital costs.
But here’s the catch 🎳 : ROCE isn’t a one-size-fits-all metric.
What qualifies as an excellent ROCE in one industry might be mediocre or even concerning in another. A capital-light business with recurring revenue should ideally generate higher ROCE than an asset-heavy industry with long payback periods. Evaluating businesses without considering their industry dynamics can lead to misleading conclusions—an FMCG business posting 30% ROCE isn’t the same as an automobile company with the same number.
Let’s break it down sector by sector.
a.) The ROCE Champions: Consumer Goods & FMCG
Some businesses are built like perpetual motion machines—they require minimal capital yet generate massive returns. Companies in the consumer goods and FMCG sector (Nestlé, Hindustan Unilever, Britannia, Gillette) fall squarely into this category.
What makes them so capital-efficient?
- Low capital intensity: Unlike manufacturing-heavy industries, FMCG brands don’t require massive infrastructure investments.
- Strong brand power: Customers return not because of deep discounts, but because of habitual purchasing (think Maggi, Nescafé, or Lux soaps).
- Negative working capital: Many of these companies get paid in advance by distributors and retailers while paying suppliers later, effectively running their operations with other people’s money.
For companies like Nestlé India, this translates into consistent ROCE above 100%. In such businesses, ROCE isn’t just a metric—it’s a testament to brand stickiness and capital-light operations.
b.) Tech & IT Services: Scaling ROCE with Software
The IT services sector—companies like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro—thrives on a different kind of capital efficiency. While not as capital-light as FMCG, tech firms enjoy high scalability without proportional capital investment.
- Intellectual capital, not physical assets: Unlike manufacturing-heavy sectors, tech firms don’t need large factories—just talent.
- Recurring revenue model: Many IT firms operate on long-term contracts, ensuring predictable revenue with minimal additional costs.
- Operational leverage: Once software or cloud infrastructure is built, additional users/customers bring in high-margin revenue with little incremental cost.
This results in ROCE figures between 30-50%, making IT one of the most attractive high-ROCE industries. However, it comes with a caveat—high employee dependency. Talent retention is critical, and rising salaries can eat into returns if not managed well.
c.) Automobile: A Capital-Intensive Balancing Act
The auto industry sits in a middle ground—it requires heavy capital investment, yet successful players manage to generate respectable ROCE. Companies like Maruti Suzuki and Bajaj Auto have historically been able to break the capital-heavy curse through:
- High asset turnover: Successful automakers ensure that the capital deployed in plants and machinery is used to its fullest.
- Strong brand-led pricing power: Dominant brands (Maruti in small cars, Bajaj in two-wheelers) command better margins.
- Tight working capital cycles: Selling to dealers upfront and extending supplier payments creates some cushion against heavy capital requirements.
A well-run automobile company typically generates ROCE in the 15-30% range. However, cyclicality is a major risk—slowdowns in demand or rising input costs can heavily impact ROCE.
d.) Oil & Gas: The ROCE Challenge in Asset-Heavy Businesses
Sectors like oil & gas, telecom, and utilities operate under an entirely different paradigm. Here, even a double-digit ROCE is considered excellent.
- Massive upfront investment: Whether it's an oil refinery, gas pipeline, or telecom infrastructure, these businesses require huge initial capital.
- Regulated pricing: Many of these industries operate in markets where pricing is controlled, limiting their ability to expand margins.
- Long payback periods: Returns are slow, often stretched across decades.
For an oil giant like Reliance Industries or ONGC, an ROCE of 10-15% is actually a sign of capital efficiency. But in contrast, if an FMCG company posted similar figures, it would be an alarming red flag.
The Trap of Comparing ROCE Across Industries
This brings us to an important investing insight—comparing ROCE across sectors without context is a dangerous mistake.
An investor might look at Nestlé India’s 150% ROCE and Maruti Suzuki’s 25% ROCE and conclude that the FMCG giant is a far better business. But the reality is that each company operates under vastly different capital structures and reinvestment requirements.
Instead of asking "Which company has a higher ROCE?", the better question is:
- How does a company’s ROCE compare to others in its sector? 🆚
- Is the company improving its ROCE over time? 📶
- Is its ROCE consistently above its cost of capital? 💎
A tech company with falling ROCE is a red flag, while an oil company improving from 8% to 12% ROCE might be an excellent turnaround story.
The ROCE Sweet Spot for Each Sector
Sector | Typical ROCE Range | Key Factors Driving ROCE |
FMCG & Consumer Goods | 40-150% | Brand power, pricing control, negative working capital |
IT & Tech | 30-50% | Asset-light model, recurring revenue, operational leverage |
Automobile | 15-30% | Asset utilization, brand power, demand cycles |
Oil & Gas, Telecom | 8-15% | Heavy capex, pricing regulation, long payback periods |
Bringing It All Together: ROCE as a Sector Filter
ROCE isn’t just about identifying which company is efficient, but also about understanding the economics of an industry.
A successful FMCG company will have a structurally higher ROCE than even the best-run telecom or energy firm. But when evaluating companies within the same sector, ROCE becomes a key competitive edge.
For investors, the next logical step is understanding ROCE from a strategic perspective—how do CEOs use it to allocate capital, and how do investors use it to identify compounders?
That’s where we’re headed next.
4. ROCE Significance for a CEO vs. an Investor
If ROCE is the DNA of great businesses, then how it is perceived and utilized differs depending on who’s looking at it.
For a CEO, ROCE is a compass for capital allocation—guiding where to invest, expand, or cut losses. For an investor, it’s a filter for wealth compounding—separating efficient businesses from those burning capital without returns.
CEOs who ignore ROCE end up running businesses that investors should avoid. 🚨
a.) A CEO’s Perspective: The Art of Capital Allocation
Running a business isn’t just about generating revenue—it’s about deploying capital efficiently. Every rupee reinvested must earn a return higher than its cost.
A high-ROCE CEO is like a disciplined chef 👨🍳, ensuring every ingredient (capital) is used optimally to create a profitable dish. They focus on:
- ✅ Reinvesting in high-ROCE areas – Expanding business segments that already generate strong returns instead of chasing low-margin opportunities.
- 🚫 Avoiding reckless expansions – Rapid expansion in capital-heavy sectors without proven returns can quickly dilute ROCE.
- 💰 Ensuring pricing power – Businesses with strong brand equity or technological edge can command higher margins without additional capital deployment.
- 🔄 Managing working capital cycles – Companies that master the art of negative working capital generate superior returns without raising more funds.
A low-ROCE CEO, on the other hand, is a spendthrift—scaling aggressively, raising capital frequently, and hoping that growth alone will fix inefficiencies. This is why we often see new-age businesses with sky-high valuations struggling with capital efficiency. 🚀🔥
b.) An Investor’s Perspective: ROCE as a Wealth Filter
For an investor, ROCE is the litmus test of long-term wealth creation.
- 📈 A consistently high ROCE signals a business with strong competitive advantages and capital efficiency. These are companies that grow earnings without constant dilution or excessive debt.
- ⚠️ A declining or low ROCE suggests capital misallocation, pricing pressure, or industry-wide inefficiencies. Even a profitable company can be a bad investment if its returns on capital are weak.
This is why investors prize companies like Nestlé India and Abbott India, which have historically maintained ROCE above 40-100%—indicating that their capital is not just productive, but also compounding efficiently. 📊💎
On the flip side, an investor should be wary of businesses with falling ROCE over time. This often signals:
- ❌ Eroding competitive advantages (rising input costs, loss of pricing power).
- 📉 Capital misallocation (investing in unrelated, low-margin businesses).
- 🔄 Increasing dependence on external funding (which dilutes shareholder value).
c.) The ROCE-COC Arbitrage: Where CEOs & Investors Align
The sweet spot for both CEOs and investors is when a company consistently generates ROCE well above its cost of capital.
- 🏗️ A CEO benefits because the business can reinvest profits without raising new capital.
- 💸 An investor benefits because compounding happens without dilution or excessive debt.
This is the hallmark of legendary compounders—businesses that create wealth for both stakeholders without requiring excessive external funding.
Companies that master this balance—deploying capital efficiently while maintaining pricing power—become long-term winners. 🏆 Those that ignore it either struggle to scale profitably or get caught in a never-ending cycle of capital dilution.
At the end of the day, whether you’re running a business or investing in one, understanding ROCE isn’t just about reading financial statements—it’s about recognizing the blueprint for sustainable success. 🔍📈
5. New-Age Unicorns vs. Star ROCE Companies
Numbers don’t lie. Let’s put everything we’ve discussed into perspective with a real-world contrast between high-ROCE businesses and capital-burning unicorns with Previous 5 years data.
Company | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
Zomato | -115% | -135% | -12% | -13% | -6% | 1% |
Nykaa | -1% | 5% | 13% | 7% | 6% | 7% |
Abbott India | 37% | 35% | 35% | 38% | 41% | 46% |
Nestlé India | 96% | 139% | 150% | 138% | 153% | 169% |
a.) The Tale of Two Strategies
New-age unicorns like Zomato and Nykaa followed the "growth-at-all-costs" playbook, burning capital aggressively in pursuit of scale. Their negative or weak ROCE over the years shows how much external funding was needed to keep operations afloat. While some of these companies are now improving efficiency, their reliance on continuous capital infusions has been a costly learning curve for investors.
In contrast, companies like Nestlé India and Abbott India have consistently maintained strong ROCE for decades. This efficiency allows them to generate high returns on existing capital without requiring frequent external funding. Their growth is self-sustaining, fueled by reinvested profits rather than dilution or excessive debt.
b.) The Power of the ROCE Flywheel ⚙️
Take Nestlé India as an example. With an ROCE consistently above 100%, it generates ₹1 or more for every ₹1 invested in capital. This creates a flywheel effect—where the company reinvests its earnings into high-return areas such as expanding its distribution, launching new product lines, and strengthening its brand. Because each rupee reinvested generates even more returns, Nestlé compounds its growth without needing fresh capital from outside sources.
Now compare this to a low-ROCE business. Every expansion requires raising fresh funds—whether through debt or issuing new shares—diluting existing investors or increasing financial strain. The business becomes dependent on external funding to grow, making it vulnerable to market downturns, rising interest rates, or shifting investor sentiment.
c.) Why ROCE Defines Long-Term Winners 🛡
A business that needs constant capital infusions to stay afloat is fragile. A business that compounds internally, reinvesting its own high returns into further growth, is built for longevity. 🔥
This is why investors and CEOs alike should focus on ROCE as a true measure of sustainable success. High-ROCE businesses have the ability to grow repeatedly without external dependencies, making them superior long-term wealth creators.
So the next time you evaluate a company—whether as a business leader or an investor—ask yourself: 🤔
Is this a company that funds its own future, or is it just playing a never-ending game of catch-up?
Related Posts
Made with Bullet