Pitch Streamkosh Media, a regional-language streaming and ad-tech company that looks expensive at 33x EBITDA. Make the case on growth-adjusted EV/EBITDA, and say what has to be true.

At 33.3x EBITDA Streamkosh is at the top of the peer range, but per point of growth it is the cheapest in the set: 1.19 turns against a peer median of 1.85. The price already assumes growth slows to about 18%, a peer-like rate. The pitch is that 28% holds for several years. It works only if regional advertising keeps growing and margins hold as content spending rises.

Begin with the plain multiple, because the partner will. Enterprise value is equity less net cash: Rs 6,900 crore minus Rs 300 crore, Rs 6,600 crore. EBITDA is 18% of Rs 1,100 crore, Rs 198 crore. EV over EBITDA is 33.3x, near the top of a peer range of 20x to 35x, so on the headline number Streamkosh is expensive. Say that first; a pitch that hides the obvious objection loses the room.

Two flats at the same price per square foot are not equally priced if one is in a neighbourhood where prices are rising twice as fast. A multiple is a price for future earnings, so a faster-growing business deserves a higher one, and the fair comparison is the multiple per point of growth. This is the logic of the PEG ratio applied to EV/EBITDA. Streamkosh: 33.3 divided by 28 is 1.19. The peers run from 1.72 to 2.00, with a median of 1.85. Streamkosh pays fewer turns of EBITDA per point of growth than any peer.

Turn the ratio round to find what the price assumes. At the peer median, 33.3x would be fair for a company growing about 18%. So today's price already assumes Streamkosh slows to a peer-like growth rate; the pitch is a bet that it does not. Three things must hold for that. Regional-language advertising must keep taking budget from national campaigns. The ad-tech platform must keep its take rate as larger advertisers negotiate. And content costs must not grow faster than revenue, or the 18% margin falls and the EBITDA under the multiple shrinks.

Then name the limits of the tool, because a sharp partner will. A growth-adjusted multiple assumes value rises in a straight line with growth, which it does not: high growth that lasts two years is worth far less than moderate growth that lasts ten. One year of growth is also a thin base, and advertising revenue is cyclical, so a weak year for brand spending would hit Streamkosh harder than a subscription business. Close with the view: the headline multiple is high, the growth-adjusted price is the lowest in its peer set, and the case rests on how long 28% growth can last.