Equal · Financial Report

Tower Bersama Infrastructure

TBIG/FY2021–FY2025/Educational Analysis/IDR/Data source · 2026-07-02

ROE = tax × interest × margin × turnover × leverage

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Tax burden	0.72x	0.67x	0.65x	0.60x	0.62x
Interest burden	0.50x	0.57x	0.57x	0.53x	0.53x
Operating margin	69.6%	65.4%	63.9%	63.1%	63.1%
Asset turnover	0.15x	0.15x	0.14x	0.15x	0.15x
Leverage (equity mult.)driver	4.28x	3.95x	3.77x	4.48x	3.63x
= Return on Equity (consolidated)	15.8%	15.0%	12.6%	12.9%	11.2%
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)	8.0%	7.2%	6.7%	6.3%	6.3%

Consolidated (pre-minority-interest) basis; the headline ROE in the ratio grid is owners’ basis.

Liquidity

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Current Ratio(Current Assets / Current Liabilities)	0.36x	0.41x	0.29x	0.25x	0.19x
Quick Ratio((Current Assets − Inventory) / Current Liabilities)	0.33x	0.34x	0.29x	0.25x	0.19x
Cash Ratio(Cash / Current Liabilities)	0.07x	0.11x	0.05x	0.06x	0.05x
Working Capital(Current Assets − Current Liabilities)	-Rp 5.4 T	-Rp 5.2 T	-Rp 11 T	-Rp 18 T	-Rp 13 T

Leverage & Solvency

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Debt to Equity (DER)(Total Debt / Total Equity)	3.01x	2.71x	2.39x	3.03x	2.40x
Liabilities to Equity(Total Liabilities / Total Equity)	3.28x	2.95x	2.77x	3.48x	2.63x
Debt to Assets(Total Debt / Total Assets)	0.70x	0.69x	0.64x	0.68x	0.66x
Net Debt(Total Debt − Cash)	Rp 29 T	Rp 29 T	Rp 29 T	Rp 30 T	Rp 30 T
Interest Coverage(EBIT / Interest Expense)	2.01x	2.33x	2.31x	2.11x	2.12x
Equity Multiplier (Assets ÷ Equity)	4.28x	3.95x	3.77x	4.48x	3.63x

Profitability

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Gross Margin(Gross Profit / Revenue)	76.2%	72.7%	71.4%	71.7%	71.8%
Operating Margin(EBIT / Revenue)	69.6%	65.4%	63.9%	63.1%	63.1%
Net Margin(Net Income / Revenue)	25.1%	25.1%	23.5%	19.8%	20.6%
EBITDA(EBIT + D&A)	Rp 5.0 T	Rp 5.2 T	Rp 5.3 T	Rp 5.4 T	Rp 5.4 T
EBITDA Margin(EBITDA / Revenue)	81.3%	80.1%	79.5%	78.7%	78.5%
Return on Assets (ROA)(Net Income / Total Assets)	3.7%	3.8%	3.4%	2.9%	3.1%
Return on Equity (ROE)(Net Income (Owners) / Equity (Owners))	16.7%	15.9%	13.3%	13.8%	11.8%
Tax Burden (Net ÷ Pretax)	0.72x	0.67x	0.65x	0.60x	0.62x
Interest Burden (Pretax ÷ EBIT)	0.50x	0.57x	0.57x	0.53x	0.53x
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)	8.0%	7.2%	6.7%	6.3%	6.3%

Operations & Efficiency

Turnover	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Asset Turnover(Revenue / Total Assets)	0.15x	0.15x	0.14x	0.15x	0.15x
Inventory Turnover(COGS / Inventory)	6.50x	2.87x	—	—	—
Receivables Turnover(Revenue / Receivables)	5.95x	6.58x	2.57x	2.70x	7.75x
Payables Turnover(COGS / Payables)	39.34x	6.98x	10.40x	17.39x	31.32x

Conversion Period	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO)(365 × Inventory / COGS)	56.1 days	127.2 days	0.0 days	0.0 days	0.0 days
Days Sales Outstanding (DSO)(365 × Receivables / Revenue)	61.4 days	55.4 days	141.9 days	135.4 days	47.1 days
Days Payable Outstanding (DPO)(365 × Payables / COGS)	9.3 days	52.3 days	35.1 days	21.0 days	11.7 days
Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC)(DIO + DSO − DPO)	108.2 days	130.4 days	106.8 days	114.4 days	35.5 days

Cash Flow

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Free Cash Flow(Operating Cash Flow − Capex)	-Rp 1.5 T	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 2.2 T	Rp 3.0 T	Rp 3.3 T

Valuation

price as-of 2026-07-31fundamentals: FY2025

Price Rp 1,445 · market cap Rp 33 T

Multiple	TBIG	Peer median	vs median
P/E	22.88x	8.65x	+165%
P/B	2.71x	0.87x	+211%
P/S	4.73x	1.76x	+168%
EV/EBITDA	11.64x	9.19x	+27%
EV/EBIT	14.46x	12.25x	+18%
EV/Sales	9.13x	5.11x	+78%
FCF Yield	10.03%	12.97%	-23%
Dividend Yield	3.37%	4.48%(4/5)	-25%

EV = mkt cap Rp 33 T + debt Rp 31 T − cash Rp 748 M + minority interest Rp 666 M = Rp 63 T

What the price implies

At today’s price, the market is paying for 14.3%/yr FCF growth (10.9% at 12.0% to 17.4% at 16.0% discount rates). Delivered over the last 4 years: FCF n/m (sign flip) · 2.8% revenue.

Reverse DCF: single-stage FCF, terminal growth 2.5%, discount band 12.0–16.0% (β=1; build cited in Methodology). Not a forecast.

Forward DCF (glass-box)

This model projects the operating cash the whole business generates, discounts it back at the blended cost of capital, and subtracts net debt. What remains is the equity value, stated per share. Every input below comes from the company's own audited record or from cited market data, and you can adjust each one yourself.

Mechanical DCF suppressed: on these default assumptions the modelled enterprise value falls BELOW net debt and minority interests, so the equity residual is negative. Equity cannot be worth less than nothing, so no per-share figure is published here: read it as the model saying the debt claims consume the whole enterprise at this discount rate and growth path, which is itself the signal. The components are shown below so the arithmetic stays checkable, and the sliders let you test what it would take to change the answer.

Assumption	Value	Basis
Rf (risk-free)	7.26%	Indonesia 10Y government bond, re-verified 31 Jul 2026
ERP (Rm − Rf)	6.69%	Damodaran Indonesia, Jul 2026 (Baa2, CRP 2.46%)
β	0.68 → 1.09	Transportation (unlevered) relevered at own D/E 0.93
Cost of equity	14.57%	Rf + β × ERP
Cost of debt	9.10%	median interest coverage 2.1x (EBIT ÷ interest, FY2021–FY2025) implies a Ba2/BB synthetic rating and a 1.84% default spread, over a 7.26% base (Indonesia 10Y 7.26%, already the sovereign rate). Its BOOK rate is 6.7%, which is what past debt actually costs; the gap is legacy or subsidised borrowing, not the rate on new debt. Spread table: A. Damodaran, Ratings, Interest Coverage Ratios and Default Spread, January 2026 data update (large non-financial service firms)
Tax rate	35.0%	median effective rate FY2021–FY2025 computed to 35.2%, CLAMPED to 35%: above that ceiling the pretax approximation is carrying minority interests, which are already deducted separately from enterprise value, rather than tax
WACC	10.39%	52% E × CoE + 48% D × Kd × (1 − t)
Revenue growth (yr 1, fading)	2.8%	delivered 4-yr revenue CAGR 2.8%, fading linearly to terminal
EBIT margin	60.0%	mean EBIT margin, last 3 FYs
D&A / revenue	15.5%	mean D&A/revenue, last 3 FYs
Capex / revenue	30.5%	mean capex/revenue, last 3 FYs, for the explicit years. The terminal year instead FUNDS ITS OWN GROWTH: in stable growth g = reinvestment rate x return on capital, and returns are assumed to converge to the 10.4% cost of capital, so the perpetuity reinvests 24.1% of NOPAT and terminal capex is 24.0% of revenue against depreciation of 15.5%. Both simpler rules are wrong in opposite directions: holding the historical ratio charges a build phase in perpetuity, while setting capex equal to depreciation hands the company 2.5% growth forever for no new capital. Because returns converge to the cost of capital, terminal growth here is value-neutral
ΔNWC / Δrevenue	37.5%	median ΔNWC/Δrevenue across the seeded years (NWC = AR + inventory − AP)
Terminal growth	2.5%	BI inflation-target midpoint (2.5% ± 1%)

Growth path

year 1 → fading to terminal over 5 yrs2.8%

EBIT margin60.0%

WACC10.4%

Terminal growth2.5%

Explicit years5

FCFF drivers

FCFF = NOPAT + D&A − capex − ΔNWC

Each default is the company's own historical average, which describes the phase it happened to be in. Switch a driver to Per-year when that phase is ending: a company mid-build does not spend at its peak rate forever, and one in a capex pause does not stay there. The terminal year keeps its own ratios, so a taper you enter here changes the explicit window and leaves the perpetuity coherent.

Capex

% of revenue30.5%

D&A

% of revenue15.5%

ΔNWC

% of the CHANGE in revenue37.5%

Year	+1	+2	+3	+4	+5	T∞
Growth	2.8%	2.7%	2.7%	2.6%	2.5%	2.5%
Revenue	Rp 7.1 T	Rp 7.3 T	Rp 7.5 T	Rp 7.7 T	Rp 7.9 T	Rp 8.1 T
EBIT	Rp 4.3 T	Rp 4.4 T	Rp 4.5 T	Rp 4.6 T	Rp 4.7 T	Rp 4.8 T
NOPAT	Rp 2.8 T	Rp 2.8 T	Rp 2.9 T	Rp 3.0 T	Rp 3.1 T	Rp 3.2 T
+ D&A	Rp 1.1 T	Rp 1.1 T	Rp 1.2 T	Rp 1.2 T	Rp 1.2 T	Rp 1.3 T
− Capex	Rp 2.2 T	Rp 2.2 T	Rp 2.3 T	Rp 2.3 T	Rp 2.4 T	Rp 1.9 T
− ΔNWC	Rp 73 M	Rp 73 M	Rp 73 M	Rp 73 M	Rp 72 M	Rp 74 M
FCFF	Rp 1.6 T	Rp 1.7 T	Rp 1.7 T	Rp 1.8 T	Rp 1.8 T	Rp 2.4 T
PV	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 1.4 T	Rp 1.3 T	Rp 1.2 T	Rp 1.1 T	Rp 18 T

Check it yourself: revenue × margin = EBIT · NOPAT = EBIT × (1 − tax) · FCFF = NOPAT + D&A − Capex − ΔNWC · PV = FCFF ÷ (1+WACC)^yr · TV = FCFF(T∞) ÷ (WACC − g), discounted from year 5 · equity = EV − net debt − minority · per share = equity ÷ shares outstanding

EV = PV(explicit) Rp 6.4 T + PV(TV) Rp 18 T = Rp 25 T · TV 74% of EV · − net debt Rp 30 T − minority Rp 666 M = equity -Rp 5.5 T ÷ shares outstanding

Model output: Rp -242/share (-117% vs price Rp 1,445)· exit-multiple check (9.2x): Rp 416

Under these assumptions the model lands 117% below today's price. The market, in other words, is paying for faster growth, a fatter margin, or a lower discount rate than the inputs here assume.

Sensitivity (per share, Rp)

g \ WACC	9.4%	10.4%	11.4%
2.0%	-149	-300	-418
2.5%	-72	-242	-374
3.0%	16	-177	-324

Model output under the stated assumptions. Every input above comes from the company's own audited record or from cited market data, and every one can be adjusted. This is not a price target and not advice.

Educational analysis. Multiples pair today’s price with the latest audited fiscal year (trailing-FY convention); peer figures are the covered peer sample, not the whole market. Never a price target.

Macro backdropfull backdrop + sensitivity map →

BI Rate 5.75%IDR/USD 18,05810Y government bond yield 7.26%Inflation 3.34%(as-of 2026-07-31)

BI rate ↑(M)GDP/consumption ↑(M)

Income Statement

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Revenue	Rp 6.2 T	Rp 6.5 T	Rp 6.6 T	Rp 6.9 T	Rp 6.9 T
Cost of Goods Sold	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 1.8 T	Rp 1.9 T	Rp 1.9 T	Rp 1.9 T
Gross Profit	Rp 4.7 T	Rp 4.7 T	Rp 4.7 T	Rp 4.9 T	Rp 5.0 T
Operating Income (EBIT)	Rp 4.3 T	Rp 4.3 T	Rp 4.2 T	Rp 4.3 T	Rp 4.4 T
Interest Expense	Rp 2.1 T	Rp 1.8 T	Rp 1.8 T	Rp 2.0 T	Rp 2.1 T
Net Income	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 1.6 T	Rp 1.6 T	Rp 1.4 T	Rp 1.4 T
Net Income Attributable to Owners	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 1.6 T	Rp 1.6 T	Rp 1.4 T	Rp 1.4 T
Depreciation & Amortization	Rp 728 M	Rp 955 M	Rp 1.0 T	Rp 1.1 T	Rp 1.1 T

Balance Sheet

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Cash & Equivalents	Rp 629 M	Rp 966 M	Rp 801 M	Rp 1.5 T	Rp 748 M
Accounts Receivable	Rp 1.0 T	Rp 991 M	Rp 2.6 T	Rp 2.5 T	Rp 892 M
Inventory	Rp 226 M	Rp 622 M	Rp 0	Rp 0	Rp 0
Current Assets	Rp 3.0 T	Rp 3.6 T	Rp 4.4 T	Rp 5.8 T	Rp 3.1 T
Total Assets	Rp 42 T	Rp 43 T	Rp 47 T	Rp 47 T	Rp 46 T
Accounts Payable	Rp 37 M	Rp 256 M	Rp 183 M	Rp 112 M	Rp 62 M
Current Liabilities	Rp 8.4 T	Rp 8.7 T	Rp 15 T	Rp 23 T	Rp 16 T
Total Liabilities	Rp 32 T	Rp 32 T	Rp 34 T	Rp 37 T	Rp 34 T
Total Interest-Bearing Debt	Rp 29 T	Rp 30 T	Rp 30 T	Rp 32 T	Rp 31 T
Total Equity	Rp 9.8 T	Rp 11 T	Rp 12 T	Rp 11 T	Rp 13 T
Equity Attributable to Owners	Rp 9.3 T	Rp 10 T	Rp 12 T	Rp 9.9 T	Rp 12 T

Cash Flow Statement

	FY2021	FY2022	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025
Operating Cash Flow	Rp 4.5 T	Rp 4.8 T	Rp 4.4 T	Rp 5.1 T	Rp 5.2 T
Capital Expenditure	Rp 5.9 T	Rp 3.3 T	Rp 2.2 T	Rp 2.1 T	Rp 1.9 T

Company Deep Analysis

Reviewed: 2026-07-02

Analyst Verdict

Tower Bersama Infrastructure (TBIG) is Indonesia's third-largest independent tower company, operating ~24,200 telecommunication towers plus 109 DAS (distributed antenna system) networks, and majority-owned by Bersama Digital Infrastructure, a regional platform controlled by Provident Capital and PT Saratoga Investama Sedaya. Like TOWR and MTEL, the business runs on the colocation lease model: several mobile operators (Telkomsel, XL Axiata, Indosat, Smartfren) pay long-term rent for antenna space on the same physical tower. TBIG's tenancy ratio of 1.73x (end-FY25) is notably higher than TOWR's ~1.5–1.6x, a real efficiency edge that means it extracts more revenue from each tower it builds. But margins have compressed across FY21–25 (gross margin 76.2%→71.8%, EBITDA margin 81.3%→78.5%, net margin 25.1%→20.6%), and leverage is materially higher than peers (D/E 2.4–3.0x, against TOWR's 1.67–2.73x and MTEL's 0.5–0.6x), a consequence of its private-equity-backed, acquisition-funded growth strategy versus MTEL's conservative Telkom-linked balance sheet. FCF has swung from a negative Rp1.5tn (FY21, heavy expansion capex) to a positive Rp3.3tn (FY25). This is a scaled, well-run tower franchise with the best tenancy efficiency of the three listed players, but also the most leveraged balance sheet and a margin trend worth watching.

Business Model

TBIG builds, acquires and operates cell towers, leasing antenna space to mobile network operators under long-term colocation contracts (typically 10-year initial terms with rental escalation clauses). Revenue = tenant count × monthly lease rate. The first tenant covers most of the tower's fixed cost; each additional colocated tenant is high-margin incremental revenue. TBIG also operates DAS networks (in-building/dense-urban coverage solutions) as a smaller complementary segment. Majority-controlled by Bersama Digital Infrastructure (Provident Capital + Saratoga); listed on IDX.

Segments

Tower rental (dominant) from colocation leases across ~24,200 towers and 41,783 tenants (tenancy ratio 1.73x, end-FY25), plus DAS network leasing (109 networks: a smaller, denser-coverage complement in urban areas). Gross margin has compressed from 76.2% (FY21) to 71.8% (FY25); management added 1,280 gross tenancies in FY25 alone (797 new sites + 483 collocations), showing continued organic growth even as unit margins soften.

Value Chain & Positioning

Site acquisition/lease → tower construction or M&A (TBIG has grown partly via acquiring tower portfolios) → colocation contract signing with operators → lease revenue with escalation → maintenance and tenant additions → renewal. Value creation mirrors the sector: each incremental colocated tenant on an existing tower is near-pure margin, so tenancy ratio (1.73x here) is the single biggest lever on unit economics.

Competitive Forces (Porter’s 5)

Supplier powerLow

How much leverage input/funding providers have over pricing.

Tower construction inputs (steel, concrete) and site leases are commoditized and available from many suppliers/landowners; TBIG also grows via acquiring existing tower portfolios, giving it an alternate supply route to organic build.

Implication → Low input-cost pressure; capital intensity is in the tower asset itself, not recurring supplier leverage.

Buyer powerMedium

How much leverage customers have to push prices down.

The same 4 major telcos (Telkomsel, XL Axiata, Indosat, Smartfren) are the tenant base across all three tower companies: a concentrated buyer group with the option to place new colocation with TOWR or MTEL instead.

Implication → Long-term contracts with escalators protect in-contract cash flow, but TBIG's higher leverage means it has less room to discount on renewal negotiations than lower-geared peers.

Threat of new entryLow

How easily new competitors can enter the market.

Replicating a ~24,200-tower national footprint requires multi-trillion-rupiah capex and years of site acquisition; telcos have already largely exited tower ownership.

Implication → Effectively a stable 3-player market (TOWR, MTEL, TBIG); no economically viable new nationwide entrant.

Threat of substitutesLow

Risk that alternative products/services replace demand.

No practical substitute for physical macro towers for wide-area mobile coverage; satellite broadband (Starlink) is a partial substitute only in remote/underserved areas.

Implication → 5G densification structurally increases tower/site demand rather than reducing it.

Competitive rivalryMedium

Intensity of competition among existing players.

Three-player market: MTEL (~40,200 towers, 55% share), TOWR (~28,000), TBIG (~24,200). TBIG is the smallest of the three by tower count but leads on tenancy ratio (1.73x).

Implication → Competition for new colocation contracts and telco capex allocation constrains pricing on new/renewal business, but existing locked-in leases are insulated by long contract terms.

Moat / Competitive Edge

Narrow-to-medium, similar in kind to TOWR but thinner in balance-sheet resilience. TBIG's edge is its scale (~24,200 towers) and best-in-class tenancy ratio (1.73x): evidence its portfolio is well-located and efficiently colocated. Long-term contracts with escalators lock in revenue. The constraint: TBIG carries meaningfully more leverage (D/E 2.4–3.0x) than TOWR or MTEL, which reduces financial flexibility in a rate-up environment and leaves less margin for error if margins keep compressing (GM has already fallen ~4.4pp over FY21–25).

Key Drivers & Sensitivities

Tenancy ratio (1.73x, highest of the 3 listed tower cos)
Every incremental tenant on an existing tower is high-margin revenue at minimal added cost; TBIG added 483 collocations in FY25 alone. Further tenancy gains are the clearest path to margin recovery.
Leverage (D/E 2.4–3.0x, highest among peers)
Interest coverage of ~2.0–2.3x is thin: a rate-up cycle or refinancing at higher cost would pressure net margin materially more than at TOWR (1.67–2.73x) or MTEL (0.5–0.6x).
Margin compression trend (GM 76.2%→71.8%, EBITDA margin 81.3%→78.5%, FY21–25)
A multi-year, gradual margin decline: worth monitoring whether it reflects rate pressure on renewals, DAS segment mix (typically lower-margin than pure tower colocation), or rising site operating costs.
FCF inflection (Rp−1.5tn FY21 → Rp+3.3tn FY25)
FCF turned from negative (heavy expansion-phase capex) to consistently positive and growing across FY22–25: the capex-intensive build-out phase has largely passed, and lease cash flows are now compounding.

Linkages

Linked to Indonesian mobile data demand, telco capex cycles, 4G→5G network densification, spectrum/tower regulation (Komdigi), and BI interest rates (financing cost on TBIG's above-peer debt load). Direct competitors: MTEL (Telkom-backed, largest by tower count) and TOWR (Djarum-backed). Parent platform Bersama Digital Infrastructure (Provident Capital + Saratoga) also holds regional Southeast Asian tower ambitions.

Recent Developments

FY21–25 (own filed figures): revenue grew steadily Rp6.18tn→Rp6.91tn. Gross margin compressed 76.2%→71.8% and EBITDA margin 81.3%→78.5%, while net margin fell more sharply, 25.1%→20.6% (partly a FY24 dip to 19.8% before a FY25 recovery). ROE declined from 16.7% to 11.8% despite high leverage. D/E moved 3.01→2.71→2.39→3.03→2.40: a re-leveraging in FY24 followed by partial deleveraging in FY25. FCF improved from −Rp1.48tn (FY21) through +Rp1.47tn, +Rp2.23tn, +Rp3.01tn to +Rp3.28tn (FY25): a clear multi-year positive inflection. Full-year 2025 operating update: 24,212 towers + 109 DAS, 41,783 tenants, tenancy ratio 1.73x, +1,280 gross tenancies added in the year.

Regulation

Subject to Indonesian telecommunications tower regulation under Komdigi (Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs): shared-tower (menara bersama) obligations requiring non-discriminatory colocation access, tower construction/safety standards, and local government zoning permits. Tenant operators separately hold Komdigi spectrum licenses. OJK capital market rules apply to TBIG's listed equity and bonds. Listed on IDX.

ESG & Sustainability

Material issues: tower siting community impact (aesthetics, EMF perception), shared-tower policy compliance (reduces duplicate infrastructure and land use), and energy consumption at remote sites (diesel backup generators; a cost and emissions issue actively being addressed via solar-hybrid pilots across the industry). Governance: controlled by Provident Capital + Saratoga via Bersama Digital Infrastructure; minority shareholder protections and related-party transaction disclosure are the key governance watch items given the concentrated control structure and above-peer leverage.

Risks

Above-peer leverage (D/E 2.4–3.0x) leaves thin interest coverage (~2.0–2.3x) and less room to absorb a rate-up cycle than TOWR or MTEL
Multi-year margin compression (GM −4.4pp, EBITDA margin −2.8pp, FY21–25) that has not yet visibly stabilized
Telco consolidation reducing the number of potential colocation tenants across the sector
Renewal-negotiation leverage sits with a concentrated 4-telco buyer base, especially given TBIG's smaller scale versus MTEL
Refinancing risk on tower-acquisition debt if BI rates rise or credit markets tighten

Outlook & What to Watch

A scaled, third-ranked tower franchise with the best tenancy efficiency of the three listed players (1.73x) and a clear FCF inflection (Rp−1.5tn→Rp+3.3tn, FY21–25): the heavy build-out phase appears largely behind it. The core watch items are the multi-year margin compression and the above-peer leverage, which together leave less cushion than TOWR or MTEL if the rate environment or renewal pricing turns unfavorable. Continued tenancy-ratio gains (further colocation on the existing 24,200-tower base) is the clearest lever back toward margin stability. (Interpretation, not a forecast.)

Key KPIs

Tenancy Ratio: 1.73x (end-FY25): highest among the 3 listed tower cos, the key margin lever
Tower + DAS Count: 24,212 towers + 109 DAS networks, 41,783 tenants
D/E: 2.40 (FY25), down from 3.03 (FY24) but still highest of the 3 listed peers
FCF: Rp−1.5tn (FY21) → Rp+3.3tn (FY25): clear positive inflection
Gross Margin: 76.2%→71.8% (FY21–25): the trend to watch

Sources

Curated narrative (educational interpretation), backed by the linked sources. The figures above are deterministic. Not investment advice.