The split is effective; the cash-ownership test remains.

• Event happened. Vedanta made the demerger effective May 1, 2026 and management targeted first trading of the four new lines around mid-June. The debate moves from legal approval to observable entity values.
• Cash exists. FY26 delivered $18.6B revenue, $6.0B EBITDA and $2.0B FCF; net debt/EBITDA exited at 0.95x. The underwriting question is whether post-capex cash reaches minority holders after the split.
• Control still matters. Promoters held 56.38%, and FY25 related-party notes set a clear baseline for fees, holdco dividends, guarantees and loans. The first standalone notes need to show whether those channels are contained.

The financial screen says cheap, but it is a record-cycle screen.

Aluminium and Zinc India got price, volume and cost help in FY26, while finance cost eased and leverage fell. That makes the low multiple harder to dismiss, but FY23 showed revenue can rise 11% while EBITDA falls 22%; the next 12 months need post-capex FCF to fund $1.9B FY27 capex, dividends and debt without leverage moving toward 2.0x.

The moat is Zinc India today and aluminium only if costs prove out.

• Zinc India is the defended asset. It reported 77% domestic zinc share, 74% primary lead share, a low-cost position, more than 25 years of reserve support and $2.4B FY26 EBITDA. That is the clearest reason the portfolio deserves more than a distressed multiple.
• Aluminium is the swing asset. Aluminium generated $2.7B FY26 EBITDA, 45.4% of segment EBITDA, with hot-metal COP at $1,752/t. The FY27 cost story depends on Kuraloi coal, Sijimali bauxite, Lanjigarh and captive-input disclosures moving from schedule to reported unit costs.
• The rest is optionality. Oil and gas production fell to 87.2 kboepd versus a 95-100 guide, copper EBITDA was negative $5M, and Power carries pro forma leverage of 4.7x. The breakup separates those exposures instead of letting zinc and aluminium mask them.

Governance is not a footnote; it is the valuation discount.

• Parent channels are quantified. FY25 related-party transactions and balances included $316M management/brand fees, $1.13B dividends to holding companies, $1.04B guarantees given during the year, $1.74B year-end guarantees and $288M loans given. Promoter control makes those flows an equity-underwriting item, not a cleanup footnote.
• Forensics cut both ways. The risk score is 58/100 because special items recur and asset judgments matter, yet three-year CFO/net income was 2.16x and FCF/net income was 1.14x. The accounts look cash-backed, not clean.
• Metric hygiene needs discipline. The derived Screener FY26 P&L has a large other-income line and a revenue perimeter that does not reconcile to the company FY26 presentation. Use normalized EBITDA, post-capex FCF and entity-level net debt after separation.

The tape is ahead of the filings.

• Tape is ahead of filings. The May 13 close was $3.38, an all-time high in the available series, up 48.3% YTD and 53.3% above the 200-day average. This is no longer an undiscovered demerger setup.
• Next event is price discovery. The targeted mid-June 2026 listings turn the four new lines into traded references; weak values for Power, Oil & Gas, Iron & Steel or Aluminium would reset the residual VEDL debate fast.
• First accounts decide more. Q1 FY27 / first standalone package needs to show debt close to pro forma levels, brand-fee economics, dividend policies, capex and aluminium COP. That package matters more than the listing bell.