Ashika Global Securities Limited makes a corporate announcement

FY24’s Rs 17.04 Cr net gain on fair value changes comprised Rs 14.62 Cr of realised gains and Rs 2.42 Cr of unrealised mark-to-market gains. The composition was therefore approximately 85.79% realised and 14.21% unrealised. ^[1]

FY23’s realised gain represented roughly 113.49% of the net gain, because it was partly offset by the Rs 0.78 Cr unrealised loss. In FY24, both components were positive: realised gains increased by Rs 7.? Wait must calculate correct 14.62 - 6.59 = 8.03 Cr. Need avoid typo. We need final answer can't include error. Let's formulate: realized gains increased by Rs 8.03 Cr, while unrealised fair-value movement improved by Rs 3.20 Cr from a loss to a gain. Thus FY24’s fair-value income had a stronger and cleaner composition: higher realised profits with a positive mark-to-market contribution, versus FY23 where unrealised losses diluted the realised gains. Need cite derived inputs perhaps each sentence cite source once. "Derived from source figures." cite source. Note exact source in lakhs converted to crores. Maybe no need mention percentage FY23 composition? User asks compare composition. Include. Use bold. Ensure no "what matters" perhaps accounting note: mark-to-market not cash realized

As of 31 March 2024, Ashika’s reported Investments were effectively 0% in group companies and 100% in other-than-related-party instruments. The material change over the preceding year was a shift from lending toward market investments, not a shift from external assets into group companies. ^{[1] [2]}

FY24 investment concentration

The external portfolio comprised:

• Quoted equity: Rs 78.00 Crores, or 83.18% of Investments, derived from Rs 7,799.88 Lakhs out of Rs 9,377.40 Lakhs. ^[3]
• Mutual funds: Rs 11.07 Crores, or 11.81%. ^[3]
• Alternative Investment Funds: Rs 4.70 Crores, or 5.02%. ^[3]
• Unquoted equity: Rs 0.0001 Crores, effectively 0.00% at the rounded level. ^[3]

Change over the preceding 12 months

Total Investments increased from Rs 37.11 Crores in FY23 to Rs 93.77 Crores in FY24, a derived increase of 152.68%. ^{[3] [3]} The FY23 investor classification also placed the full reported investment amount under “other than related parties,” so the external-versus-group allocation was already effectively 100:0 and did not materially change. ^[4]

The larger strategic shift was elsewhere on the balance sheet: loans declined from Rs 19.72 Crores in FY23 to nil in FY24, while Investments rose from Rs 37.11 Crores to Rs 93.77 Crores. ^[2] Within the external portfolio, quoted equity also increased from approximately 73.02% of Investments in FY23 to 83.18% in FY24, a derived 10.16 percentage-point increase. ^{[3] [3]}

Assessment: the allocation strategy became materially more securities-oriented and more equity-heavy, but there is no evidence of a move toward group-company investments.

Verdict: ASHIKA’s FY24 Other Expenses were 13.43% of total income, down from 14.65% in FY23, a reduction of 1.22 percentage points. A true three-year historical average cannot be calculated from the cited statements because FY22 Other Expenses and Total Income are not reported in the available FY24/FY23 P&L extract. The FY23–FY24 two-year average is 14.04%, placing FY24 0.61 pp below that limited average. The FY24 annual P&L reports Other Expenses of Rs 2.49 Crores on Total Income of Rs 18.55 Crores, versus Rs 1.77 Crores on Rs 12.05 Crores in FY23. ^[5]

FY24 cost bridge

Relative position versus investment-finance peers

The comparison is directional because Ashika is shown on a standalone basis while Mufin and Arman are consolidated. Even so, the cost mix is clear: Ashika’s Other Expenses ratio was higher, but its overall expense ratio was substantially lower because it did not carry the large finance-cost and impairment burdens visible at the lending-focused peers. Its employee-cost ratio was broadly close to Mufin’s but above Arman’s.

IndoStar’s FY24 annual line-item breakdown is not available in the cited material. Its Q4 FY24 P&L showed Other Expenses of Rs 55.83 Crores against Total Income of Rs 477.86 Crores, or 11.68%, but that quarterly ratio should not be compared directly with full-year figures. ^[10] Dhenu’s FY24 filing reported zero revenue from operations, while the FY24 material surfaced under Grand Oak contains references to Pacheli Industrial Finance; neither provides a clean, comparable investment-firm benchmark. ^{[11] [12]}