The total fee pool rose alongside a steady increase in average underwriting charges, with bankers earning 1.86% of deal value on average, up from 1.67% a year earlier. The rate now exceeds the roughly 1.5% typically seen in Hong Kong, Asia’s main financial hub, underlining a gradual shift away from India’s long-standing reputation as a low-fee capital market.
Record listings lift banker paydays
India ranked among the world’s busiest IPO markets in 2025, with companies raising about Rs 1.95 trillion, surpassing the previous year’s record of Rs 1.73 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The surge was driven by a swelling base of retail investors, sustained institutional demand and regulatory efforts aimed at making it easier for firms to list.
The deal flow helped reverse years of fee compression, when intense competition forced banks to undercut rivals to secure mandates, often at the cost of profitability.
Axis, Kotak lead the fee league table
Axis Bank emerged as the top IPO adviser by fee income in 2025, earning $34.3 million, according to LSEG data. Kotak Mahindra Bank followed with $32.7 million, while IIFL Capital Services earned $30.2 million, marking a more than 90% increase from the previous year.
Among global banks, Citi earned $27.1 million in underwriting fees, followed by JM Financial at $25.6 million and JPMorgan at $22.6 million. Motilal Oswal Financial Services posted the sharpest growth, with fee income surging nearly fourfold, while Morgan Stanley and State Bank of India rounded out the top earners.
Still low-fee by global standards
Despite the record haul, India remains comparatively inexpensive for issuers, particularly for large offerings.
Analysts expect fee rates to edge higher if a larger share of more standardised IPOs comes to market this year. A strong pipeline of deals could also reduce the need for aggressive fee discounting, helping restore pricing discipline across the market.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)