The Offer Documents
You downloaded the prospectus and there is no price anywhere in it. Is the document incomplete?
4.2The Offer Documents2 of 3
2.1 — Priya downloads a document with no price in it
Priya hears an IPO is coming and downloads the offer document straight away, hunting for the price. She can't find it anywhere. Not a number. Just a strange little symbol, [●], sitting in exactly the spot where the price should be.
She assumes the download is broken, or the company is hiding something. Neither is true. She's just caught the document at a stage where the price genuinely doesn't exist yet.
Every Indian IPO gets filed three times, in order — and only two of those three ever contain a price at all.
| Document | When | Contains the price? |
|---|---|---|
| Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) | Filed with SEBI for review | No — every price field is a placeholder |
| Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) | After SEBI review, before bidding | The price BAND, and the dates |
| Prospectus | After the issue closes | The final issue price |
2.2 — That little symbol means something specific
[●]
What every price-dependent field in a DRHP contains
The convention used throughout Indian draft offer documents, meaning "to be included at the Prospectus stage". It appears wherever a price band, issue size or proceeds figure would go.
It sits where the price band would go. Where the issue size would go. Where the proceeds would go. Not because the company is holding anything back — because those figures literally don't exist yet. They get set after SEBI's review, based on real demand from institutions, sometimes months later than the document Priya was staring at.
Even the name explains it, once you know: a "red herring" prospectus is called that because it carries an explicit warning that key information is still missing. The draft is that same document, before even the price band exists.
2.3 — The chapter where the company argues for its own price
Every offer document contains a section called Basis for Offer Price. It's the single most useful chapter in the whole thing — and the most consistently misread.
It is the ISSUER'S argument for the price it wants. Not an independent valuation. Not a regulator's opinion. Not a fairness check by anyone neutral. The company itself, explaining why it believes its own shares are worth what it's asking.
It usually contains recent years' earnings per share, a weighted average of them, a return-on-net-worth figure, and a list of listed companies the issuer considers comparable. Here's what ATC Energies actually printed.
| Financial year | Basic EPS | Diluted EPS | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2022 | ₹7.38 | ₹7.38 | 1 |
| FY2023 | ₹4.83 | ₹4.83 | 2 |
| FY2024 | ₹6.78 | ₹6.78 | 3 |
Look at the weights. The newest year counts three times as much as the oldest. That's a standard, defensible convention — recent performance IS more relevant. It also means a strong final year carries the whole average, and the dip to ₹4.83 in FY2023 gets quietly diluted by design.
2.4 — The peer group the issuer picked — for itself
The same section names listed companies the issuer considers comparable, and prints their numbers right beside its own. This is exactly where a healthy dose of scepticism pays off, because the ISSUER chooses that list.
| Company | P/E | Return on net worth | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eveready Industries India | 36.1 | 18.9% | ₹9.18 |
| High Energy Batteries India | 26.0 | 21.3% | ₹19.14 |
| ATC Energies — its own figures | — | 39.38% | ₹6.78 |
A peer average of 31 times earnings makes almost any price look reasonable by comparison. But that "average" is built from exactly two companies, hand-picked by the party asking you for money. Worth asking what a two-company average is really proving — and which comparable companies quietly didn't make the cut.
Module 2 chapter 2 made the same point from the opposite direction, on Reliance's own peer group, where three of seven companies had no P/E at all and any "industry average" silently dropped them. Same lesson, both directions: always ask who's actually inside the average, and who quietly isn't.
2.5 — That 56.99% return on net worth — worth a second look
One figure in that table deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets, because it's exactly the kind of number that shuts an argument down when it should open one up.
A weighted-average return on net worth of 56.99% is genuinely extraordinary. Module 2 chapter 3 already showed why a very high return on equity is a reason to check the denominator, not a reason to get excited — it can mean a truly exceptional business, or it can mean an unusually small equity base.
A company about to raise fresh capital has, almost by definition, a small equity base right now. The moment the issue closes, that base grows by whatever was raised — and the same profit, divided by a much bigger number, produces a much lower return. A pre-issue return like this isn't something you should expect to survive the IPO. The issue itself changes the maths.
None of which means the company misrepresented anything. The number is true, correctly labelled, and describes the company before the money arrives. It's simply not a preview of the company you'd actually be buying into.
2.6 — Where this sits on EquityTale
Every issue page carries the offer documents themselves, so the source is always one click away, with the Basis for Offer Price figures clearly labelled as whose argument they actually are.
Where a section hasn't been extracted, the page says so rather than leaving a blank that reads like an absence of content. Some offer documents arrive as zip archives or scanned pages with no text layer, and those can't be read automatically.
Priya, wiser now, keeps that DRHP bookmarked and checks back weeks later, once the RHP has finally landed with an actual price band attached. And the thing worth carrying forward: an issue still stuck at draft stage genuinely has almost nothing to show. That's the filing being honest about itself — and the next chapter deals with a set of dates that aren't in any filing at all, because they have to be worked out by hand.
Key takeaways from this chapter
- 1.An offer document is filed three times: DRHP for SEBI review, RHP with the price band, and the final prospectus with the issue price.
- 2.Every price-dependent field in a DRHP is the placeholder [●], meaning "to be included at the Prospectus stage".
- 3.That is not the company withholding information. The price does not exist yet — it is set after SEBI's review against institutional demand.
- 4.So a draft-stage issue shows almost nothing on any site, because nobody has data that has not been created.
- 5.Every offer document contains a Basis for Offer Price section. It is the ISSUER'S argument for its own price, not an independent valuation.
- 6.It weights recent years more heavily — typically 3 for the latest year and 1 for the oldest — so a strong final year carries the average.
- 7.The peer comparison is a list the issuer selected itself, and nobody picks the cheapest comparables for their own offer document.
- 8.ATC Energies' peer average of 31.0 times earnings was drawn from two companies, in a range of 26.0 to 36.1.
- 9.A very high pre-issue return on net worth is partly an artefact of a small equity base, which the issue itself is about to enlarge.
- 10.Always ask who is in an average and who is not — the same lesson as Reliance's peer group, where three of seven had no P/E at all.
Common questions
What is the difference between a DRHP and an RHP?
The draft red herring prospectus is filed with SEBI for review and contains no price — every price-dependent field is the placeholder [●]. The red herring prospectus is filed after that review and carries the price band and the bidding dates. The final prospectus, filed after the issue closes, carries the final issue price.
Why does the DRHP not contain the IPO price?
Because it has not been decided. The price is set after SEBI's review, against demand gauged from institutional investors, which can be weeks or months after the draft is filed. The placeholder [●] means "to be included at the Prospectus stage" rather than indicating that anything is being withheld.
What is the Basis for Offer Price section?
A mandatory chapter in which the issuer sets out its argument for the price it is asking — earnings per share for recent years, a weighted average of them, return on net worth, and a comparison with listed companies it considers comparable. It is the company's own case, not an independent valuation or a regulatory assessment.
Can I trust the peer comparison in an offer document?
Treat it as an argument rather than an assessment. The issuer selects which companies appear, and nobody choosing comparables for their own offer picks the cheapest ones. The regulations require the list to be named, which is what makes the choice inspectable — so check how many companies are in it and consider which comparable companies are absent.
Why do IPO companies show very high returns on net worth?
Partly because their equity base is small before the issue. The same profit divided by a small amount of capital produces a high return, and the issue itself enlarges that base substantially. A pre-issue return on net worth describes the company before the money arrives, and should not be read as a forecast of the company after it.
What this chapter rests on
- SEBI ICDR Regulations 2018 — Set the filing sequence — draft red herring prospectus for SEBI review, red herring prospectus carrying the price band, and the final prospectus after the issue closes.
- ATC Energies System Limited offer document, as filed — The Basis for Offer Price figures — weighted earnings per share, return on net worth and the issuer's own peer comparison — are reproduced as printed in the offer document.
Try it yourself
Words used here
Facts in this chapter last reviewed 2026-09-12.
Educational explanation of filed data. EquityTale is not registered with SEBI as an investment adviser or research analyst, and nothing here is investment advice, a recommendation, or a price target. Figures are as filed and may contain errors — verify against the original filing before acting. See the full disclaimer.