Hot Stocks: Global brokerages on IndusInd Bank, Bharat Forge, LIC and NMDC post Q2 results

Global brokerage firm CLSA upgraded IndusInd Bank to outperform, BofA maintained an underperform rating on Bharat Forge, BofA retained a buy rating on LIC and Citi downgraded NMDC to sell post Q2 results.

We have collated a list of recommendations from top brokerage firms from ETNow and other sources:

CLSA on IndusInd Bank: Outperform| Target Rs 1400
CLSA upgraded IndusInd Bank to outperform with a target price of Rs 1,400. The company reported a cyclical rebound in the core business's progress.

"The growth outlook is improving with a cyclical rebound in the core businesses. Delivering on liabilities will be a key medium-term objective," CLSA said.

The net interest margin (NIM) outlook is stable and is undershooting credit cost which implies a low risk to earnings, it added.

BofA on Bharat Forge: Underperform| Target Rs 730
BofA maintained an underperform rating on Bharat Forge with a target price of Rs 730. Q2 was a big miss, said the note.

"Business from the defence sector is a silver lining but it is largely priced in. The stock has seen a steep up move since June end which adequately captures the euphoria," the note added.

Citi on NMDC: Downgrade to Sell| Target Rs 100
Citigroup downgraded NMDC to sell with a target price of Rs 100. The downgrade is largely because of domestic ore price concerns.

NMDC trades at 4x 1-year forward, EV/EBITDA on consensus -- this is in line with global peers. The global investment bank said that it struggles to find upside triggers.

BofA on LIC: Buy| Target Rs 945
BofA maintained a buy rating on LIC with a target price of Rs 945. The value of new business or VNB is in line with estimates.

The group growth is supported by annuity/pension. LIC trades at around 70% discount to other Indian listed peers.

Sustained delivery on stated growth and margin can drive upward re-rating, said the note.

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