Kissht’s ₹832 Crore Fundraise: Why Capitalisation Matters for Credit Ratings and Cost of Funds

OnEMI Technology Solutions’ proposed preferential issue highlights how fresh equity capital can influence an NBFC’s credit profile, funding economics and future rating trajectory.

OnEMI Technology Solutions, the listed parent of digital lending platform Kissht, has approved a preferential issue to raise approximately ₹832 crore, subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals.

According to the company’s management, around 75% of the proceeds will be deployed into its NBFC subsidiary, while the remaining funds are intended for technology, artificial intelligence and general corporate purposes. The company has explicitly linked the capital infusion to its objective of pursuing multiple credit rating upgrades over the next two years.

For the credit markets, however, the more important story is not simply the size of the fundraise.

It is what additional capital can do to the underlying credit profile of an NBFC.

Why capitalisation matters to credit ratings

For an NBFC, net worth is an important component of its ability to absorb losses, support asset growth and maintain financial flexibility.

A stronger capital base can provide greater room to absorb unexpected credit losses while supporting a growing loan book.

This is particularly relevant for lenders operating in segments where rapid AUM growth can increase capital requirements over time.

In the case of OnEMI, its management specifically highlighted the importance of net worth from a rating-agency perspective. The company said the proposed capital infusion is intended not only to support growth but also to improve the economics of the business by reducing its cost of funds.

That distinction is important.

Capital raising does not automatically translate into a higher credit rating.

Rating agencies assess a much broader set of factors, including capitalisation, leverage, asset quality, profitability, liquidity, funding profile, risk management and the sustainability of the business model.

Fresh equity can strengthen one or more of these parameters, but the eventual rating outcome depends on the overall credit profile.

The connection between equity capital and borrowing costs

There is a potentially important second-order effect.

For an NBFC, the cost of funds is closely connected to its credit profile and perceived risk.

A stronger balance sheet can potentially improve lender and investor confidence, increase funding flexibility and support access to a wider range of funding sources.

This can become particularly relevant as the loan book expands.

OnEMI reported that its assets under management reached ₹8,001 crore in Q1 FY27, representing 61% year-on-year growth. Operating revenue increased 45% to ₹670 crore, while profit rose 58% to ₹95 crore during the quarter.

Rapid growth therefore creates an important credit question:

Can the company's capital base, profitability and risk controls keep pace with the expansion of its assets?

That is where capital planning becomes part of credit strategy.

A rating is about more than growth

High growth can be positive for a financial institution, but from a credit perspective, growth needs to be supported by adequate capital and risk management.

For an NBFC, rating analysis can involve questions such as:

• How quickly is AUM growing?

• Is capital keeping pace with asset growth?

• What is the company's leverage?

• How are delinquencies and credit costs evolving?

• What is the concentration across products and borrowers?

• How diversified are funding sources?

• How much liquidity is available?

• What is the maturity profile of liabilities?

• How resilient is profitability under stress?

• How strong are risk-management and underwriting systems?

The ₹832 crore proposed capital infusion therefore needs to be viewed within the broader financial structure of the business.

Why this matters for other NBFCs

The Kissht example also highlights a broader principle for growing NBFCs.

Rating strategy should not begin when a company needs to raise debt.

It should be considered well before the next major borrowing programme.

An NBFC planning significant growth may need to think about capitalisation, leverage, liquidity and funding diversification together rather than treating each as an independent issue.

For example, a company expecting substantial AUM growth may need to evaluate whether its existing net worth can support that expansion while maintaining sufficient financial headroom.

If the answer is no, raising equity capital ahead of a major debt requirement can become part of a broader balance-sheet strategy.

Equity first, debt later?

There is another important takeaway.

Companies often think of fundraising in terms of choosing between equity and debt.

In practice, the two can be interconnected.

Additional equity can strengthen the balance sheet and potentially create greater capacity for future debt funding.

For an NBFC, this can be particularly relevant because debt is generally an important component of the funding structure.

The objective is not simply to maximise leverage.

The objective is to build a funding structure that allows the business to grow while maintaining adequate financial flexibility and credit strength.

What rating agencies may watch after the fundraise

Once the proposed transaction is completed, the key question will shift from how much capital has been raised to how that capital changes the financial profile of the business.

Areas that could remain important from a credit perspective include:

Capital adequacy: Whether the additional equity meaningfully strengthens the capital cushion relative to the expanding loan book.

Leverage: Whether balance-sheet growth remains appropriately supported by net worth.

Asset quality: Whether rapid AUM growth is accompanied by disciplined underwriting and manageable credit costs.

Profitability: Whether scale translates into sustainable earnings rather than simply higher volumes.

Funding profile: Whether the company can diversify its sources of borrowing and access funding at competitive rates.

Liquidity: Whether adequate liquidity is maintained against expected obligations and potential stress scenarios.

Risk management: Whether underwriting, collections and portfolio monitoring keep pace with growth.

These factors together can be more meaningful than the headline size of a capital raise.

The larger lesson for CFOs and finance teams

For companies seeking better access to debt markets, the lesson is straightforward:

Credit strength is built before the borrowing requirement arises.

A company approaching a rating exercise or debt raise should understand how its capital structure, leverage, liquidity, profitability and business risks are likely to be viewed by rating agencies and lenders.

This is particularly important for growing NBFCs.

A strong business model may create growth opportunities, but the ability to fund that growth sustainably depends on the balance sheet supporting it.

The proposed ₹832 crore OnEMI fundraise is therefore more than a capital-raising announcement.

It is an example of how equity capital, credit ratings and cost of funds can form part of the same financial strategy.

For companies preparing for their next borrowing programme, the relevant question is not simply how much can we borrow?

It is:

Is our financial profile structured to support the borrowing we want to undertake?

Source

The fundraise and management commentary were reported by Financial Express on September 18, 2026, while OnEMI's exchange filings record the board approval of the preferential issue.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, credit-rating or financial advice. Credit ratings are opinions of independent rating agencies and are subject to their respective methodologies, information availability and periodic review.