SEBI Registered Research Analyst INH000027478 support@skygrowthwealth.com +91 98765 43210
Thematic Cautious ForensicsAccountingScreening

Q1 Accounting Quality Screen: Twelve Names That Failed

Our forty-check forensic screen run across the Nifty 500. Cash conversion and receivable ageing did most of the flagging.

A. NairHead of Research 17 Jul 2026 11 min read 20 pages
Executive summary

Our forty-check forensic screen was run across the Nifty 500 following Q1 results. Twelve names failed on two or more checks. We publish the check list, the failure pattern and what each flag does and does not imply.

Universe
Nifty 500
Checks run
40
Names flagged
12
Threshold
2+ fails

Key findings

  1. Cash conversion did most of the flagging

    The widening gap between reported profit and operating cash flow accounted for the largest share of individual check failures in this run.

  2. Receivable ageing was the second signal

    A lengthening receivable cycle without a corresponding change in customer mix is the pattern the screen is designed to surface.

  3. A flag is a question, not a verdict

    Most flagged names have plausible explanations. The screen exists to direct attention, not to conclude, and we treat it that way.

Screen failures by check category Sample data
010202939Cash conv.ReceivablesRelated ptyPledgeAuditorContingentSegment

Number of individual check failures across the Nifty 500. Sample data.

What the screen tests

The forty checks cover cash conversion, working-capital drift, related-party exposure, auditor tenure and changes, contingent liabilities, promoter pledge movement, segment margin consistency and several accrual-quality measures.

Each check is binary with a documented threshold. The full list and thresholds are published in the attached workbook.

How we use the output

A name failing two or more checks is removed from consideration for new coverage until the pattern is explained. An existing coverage name failing two or more triggers a review note rather than an automatic downgrade.

We do not publish the names of flagged companies outside the subscriber archive, because a screen failure is not an accusation and should not be circulated as one.

Limitations we accept

The screen produces false positives, particularly in businesses with seasonal working capital or genuine one-off items. It is calibrated to over-flag rather than under-flag, which is the correct error to make for this purpose.

It also cannot detect fraud that is properly disguised in the accounts. It detects patterns that warrant a closer look.

How to read this note. Views expressed are the analyst's own, formed from the evidence cited and the model attached. They are research, not personalised advice, and do not account for your circumstances, horizon or risk capacity. Investments in securities markets are subject to market risks. Read all related documents carefully before investing. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Report package

Download the full report and model

20-page PDF plus the three-statement model as an editable spreadsheet. Change an assumption and see what the answer becomes.

Downloads are available to subscribers on the Professional and Premium tiers. Demo links on this build are inactive.

A. Nair

Head of Research · SkyGrowthWealth Research

Maintains the model behind this note and publishes every revision to it.

Share

Subscribe

Every note, with the model attached

Read the reasoning, change an assumption, rerun the model. That is what a research subscription should give you.

Research is educational and informational. It is not personalised investment advice.