Embassy Office Parks REIT

The gap is depreciation, and it is not an anomaly — it is the entire point of the structure. The quarter carries ₹3,037 mn of depreciation and ₹56 mn of amortisation, both non-cash, against a portfolio whose independent valuation is rising rather than falling. Add those back and the distribution sits inside cash generated. A screener that ranks REITs on payout-of-earnings will mark this trust at 306% and call it unsustainable. It is neither unusual nor unsustainable — and no Indian data product currently makes that distinction.

“Total returns of 19% in the last 12 months, driven by 12% price appreciation and a 7% distribution yield.” FY26 distributions of ₹25.28 per unit on the 30 June closing price of ₹438.04 give 5.77%. On the price implied by 12% appreciation — ₹391.11 — they give 6.46%. Neither is 7%, and the databook does not state the basis. This is not an allegation of error: the manager may compute on distributions paid in the period rather than declared, or on a different denominator. But the number cannot be reproduced from the company's own databook, and that is exactly what a reconciliation layer exists to surface.

Every accepted date passes one test: the entity-level fair values sum exactly to the total printed in the same table. Five do. Six do not, and each carries its reason rather than a silently dropped row. Two of the six fail for a different reason — the FY2026 annual report lays two balance dates side by side on one page, and the period cannot be attributed from the text stream. Those facts are not published as Mar-2026 with a shrug. They are held out until the page is re-parsed with a layout-aware reader.

Databook revenue ₹12,408 mn; statutory revenue from operations ₹12,408.12 mn. Databook EBITDA ₹9,784 mn; the statutory line, earnings before share of profit of equity accounted investee, finance costs, depreciation, amortisation, exceptional item and tax, is ₹9,784.06 mn. Both tie to the rupee. That matters more than it sounds: it establishes the databook as a reliable source for the operating detail the statutory statement does not carry — asset-level revenue, NOI, occupancy, rents and the NDCF walkdown, none of which appears in any XBRL filing anywhere.

Capitalised NOI. Forward net operating income is divided by the exit capitalisation rate to give gross asset value; net debt at the projection date is deducted; the residue is divided by units outstanding. Discounted distributions. Five years of projected distribution per unit are discounted at the cost of equity, with a terminal value of the sixth year's DPU divided by cost of equity less perpetual growth. Neither is a recommendation; both are arithmetic on the drivers you set, and every historical default is traceable to a filed statement.

Sixty-five per cent of the class is not what the class says it is, and a pipeline that counts documents rather than reading them would report 26 calls of coverage for a trust that has nine on disk. Worse, the nine stop at Q1 FY2024 and resume at Q1 FY2027 — eleven consecutive quarters with no transcript at all. That gap is stated here rather than hidden by an average. This is the same defect found in two of ten companies in the equity proof of concept, where “transcripts” for Maruti and Larsen & Toubro turned out to be cover letters and produced zero reconciliation rows.

For FY2022, FY2023 and FY2024 the manager landed inside or above its own band on every measure it guided. The FY2023 DPU came in at ₹21.71 against a ₹21.70 midpoint — one paisa. The raised FY2022 NOI band of ₹24,500 mn ±1.5% was beaten by ₹35 mn, a fifth of one per cent above the top. That is a track record, and it is the context in which the FY2027 shortfall should be read: the Q1 run-rate is below the floor on all three measures, from a manager that has not missed one before. The guidance is not a forecast this page endorses; it is a claim this page keeps score on.