Thank you and good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Q2 results call.

The bank continues its growth momentum with advances growing by 21% YoY, and deposits growing by 19%. In keeping with the guidance, both advances and deposits have doubled over September 2022, over the last 4 years.

Our net interest income grew by 17% YoY. Over the last 1 year, the yield on advances dropped by 38 basis points, while during the same period, we reduced the cost of fund by 34 basis points.

If you look at the last quarter, our yield on advances dropped by 2 basis points, while cost of funds dropped by 8 basis points. If you look at revenue, it grew by 21% YoY, core fee income continuing to be strong.

Also the focus we have on our productivity and on technology adoption is helping us in keeping our cost-to-average assets under control, continues to be below 2.5%, to be precise, at 2.47%. Our cost to income is at 59.64% at a 18-quarter low.

During the last 2 years, we've grown our employee strength by 1%, our balance sheet by 34%, and our revenue by 33%. The fact that the revenue grew by 21% and cost grew by 18% YoY meant that operating profit grew by 26% YoY.

The portfolio quality continues to improve with our credit cost at 0.28%. Our GNPA is at 2.29%, and NNPA is at 0.73%, both of which are at a 23-quarter low.

Our PCR is at 81.38%, a 7.23% improvement over the last year, and PCR excluding technical write-off is at 68.75%, a 9.6% improvement over the last year. As a consequence of all this, our net profit has risen by 29% over the year to ₹236 crores, which is the highest ever in a quarter.

This is the fifth consecutive quarter where the bank is clocking a highest ever quarterly net profit. As a result, our ROA is at 1.03% for the quarter and 1% for the half year.

Also, the ROE is 14.6% for the quarter and 14.12% for the half year. I just want to take you back 1 year into a Q2 2025, when we gave guidance of our 18% to 20% growth, of cost-to-average assets being less than 2.5%, of GNPA also being less than 2.5%, net NPA being less than 1%, and lastly, on ROE of 13.5% for this year, 2026-27.

1 year later, in each of these four quarters, each of these numbers speak the story of consistency and predictability. Finally, I'd like to share with you the trend line of ROE for the last four quarters.

It is 12.73%, 13.53%, 13.61%, and now 14.6%. Thank you for listening in.

Operator, could you please open the lines for any questions from the audience?

Good evening, sirs. Thanks for the opportunity and congrats on a good set of numbers.

On the first question is on cost. While the cost-to-income ratio and cost to average assets are tracking guidance, opex growth QoQ and YoY looks a bit elevated.

Is it mostly on the staff addition, branches, and a bit on technology? Is that contributing to increase, or is there some one-offs there?

Are we on track to reach 13,000 employees by year-end and adding 20 branches overall during this year? Thanks.

On the operating cost, the increase has been the people. We are now at 12,002 people, which is higher than what we started off the year with.

People cost is coming in. Otherwise, it's a normal cybersecurity tech cost.

There is nothing exceptional on the opex side. We should expect similar kind of trend lines to continue on the opex cost and also on the cost to average assets.

I don't see us giving any change on that. As to your question whether we will be 13,000 people by the end of the year, we want to be, but I don't think we will be.

We'll be higher than 12,000, which we are currently, but I don't think we will reach 13,000 by the end of the year. Probably we'll be around 12,800, 12,900.

That's what we're seeing currently.

Right, sir. Thanks for that.

On the NIMs, what was the reason for the decline QoQ? Cost of funds seems to be declining, yield on advances declined by 2 bps.

If you can elaborate on the key drivers of the compression and outlook for the NIM in coming quarters, ideally with the repo rate hikes, we should see expansion going forward. Is that correct, or is there some other component that could affect margins?

If you look at Q4 and Q1, our advances growth was in the region of 18.5% to 18.7%, whereas deposit growth was between 20% and 21%. We are stockpiling liquidity post February 26 Israel-Iran war.

It's a conscious strategy to have enough liquidity within. Then what happened is in August, there was a window to garner NRI deposits, which comes at a much lower cost than our normal term deposits.

We got $194 million in through the FCNR(B) window. This really increased the liquidity significantly.

That has a liquidity cost attached to it. Why you don't see a similar growth on deposit in Q2 is because usually most of the maturities come towards the last week of Q2, or last week of every quarter.

We really went aggressively and on maturity of the high-cost, bulk deposits, we gave up those deposits, which is why deposit growth is at 18.6%. You had to carry the excess liquidity for practically the whole 88, 87 days of this quarter.

That's a cost which we had to pay, and that's the reason why there has been a reduction in the NIM in Q2. Going forward, you already seen the lead indicator where the deposit growth was less.

We're starting Q3 with less surplus liquidity. Obviously, in November, we will be passing on the increase in repo rate to a significant chunk of our asset customers who are on floating rate.

That will have an impact on NIM. We are confident of holding our credit cost to well below the guidance level, which will also have a positive impact on NIM.

On a go-forward basis, we would see the NIM growing in Q3 and in Q4 as well, assuming no further rate hikes going forward.

Right, sir. If you could provide some quantitative guidance like 5 to 7 bps or something like that, can we expect going forward per quarter?

Is there continued component from home loans to LAP shift as well, which was incrementally 70 to 30% last quarter?

We are at 70-30, slightly 71-29, and we're comfortable with that, and we'll be continuing with that. That's all just incremental, right?

Over a period of time, the stock also changes its color. You get the benefit of it over a period of time.

The real story is not that. The real story is about the cost of deposit.

The way the cost of deposit is coming down, and it's not because of CASA. It is because of a conscious strategy of not being the highest rate provider, and we managed to make 3,000 people in branch banking aware of it and still grow 18.6%, still keep the top 20 less than 7%.

That is really helping in this run. Some bits also has helped in our long-tenor term deposit repricing, which is coming in.

It's a combination of this. It's more of cost of deposits improvement that is helping the NIM in the longer term, not necessarily the yield growth.

Of course, a repo rate increase will have an immediate impact on the widening of the NIM.

Hello, am I audible?

Hi, Suraj, feebly, but we can hear you.

I'll speak louder. I have more than actually two questions, but first of all, I think congrats on the board approval on your tenure, sir, and secondly, on a good quarter after long.

I think you have given 1% ROA, 1% plus ROA on a quarterly basis. Before coming to ROA, sir, on the gold loan, I think growth has been strong, but I don't know, the slides where you give your disbursement and the loan, it looks like that the loan increase is more than the disbursements.

Is this because of the co-lending piece that you don't give the

[disbursements?] ?

Let's go one by one. You can ask me multiple questions, but in a serial order.

On gold loan is a combination. We kind of kept co-lending flat and increased our DA because it provides you better compliance and gives you better pricing.

About 30% of entire gold loan book is organic, and 70% is inorganic. It's basically a mix of co-lending and DA.

Currently, gold as a percentage of the total asset is 23%. The bank is comfortable taking it all the way to 25%.

I don't think we'll ever go beyond 25% for this particular category. Currently, we're at 23%, and then there's no anomaly between disbursal and growth because the disbursal that you see is for organic gold loan only and not for inorganic.

It neither has co-lending, which is actually flat, and nor does it have DA, which is growing. Sure,

understood. Sir, overall yield would be also let us say better on a quarter-on-quarter basis because of maybe mix shift between co-lending to DA?

We are talking about basis points, right? It is better in that sense, but on an overall, it really wouldn't matter.

It's not as massively different as business loan and home loan, like LAP and home loan. It's not that different.

It is marginal, but look, we are in the marginal business. We don't let anything lie.

We're constantly on the lookout for improving yield and reduction of cost of deposit.

Right, sure. Sir, related question to that, your gold slippages is also increasing for last two quarters.

While I understand that LGD would be hardly anything, that I fully agree, but is the slippages coming from DA and co-lending or organic book? The context for asking this question is this quarter, few people on the NBFC side, they are highlighting that there is some stress in the gold book, especially for the shorter-tenor product.

I don't know what is your DA composition, DA or co-lending, in terms of let us say bullet loans or maybe EMI shorter tenor. That is the context for asking this question.

It's a relevant question to ask. If you look at non-gold, our slippage ratio is 1.55%.

It was 1.52% last quarter. Now it has gone up to 1.55%, that's a 3 bps increase.

Are we worried about it? Honestly, not.

Your early bounce, your early month on board, vintage performance, one doesn't lose sleep over it. On gold loan, what you said is right.

Some of the co-lending or DA partners, you find that their mindset is to collect before NPA happens rather than at a 1 DPD level. We're dealing with multiple co-lending partners and DA partners.

It's not exactly the rigor of 1 DPD doesn't apply to many partners. To some, it does, but by and large, it really doesn't apply, which is the reason why this is happening.

From a worry perspective, I want you to look at our investor presentation page number 22. 1 year back, our NPA was ₹27 crore.

1 year later, it is ₹26 crore. In the last five quarters, the highest our NPA has ever been to is ₹29 crores, and our book has been growing.

We're talking about a ₹14,000 crore book with ₹26 crore NPA. Just look at the perspective.

Hi, thanks for the opportunity, and congrats for the good set of numbers. First is basically I observe a sequential increase of 450 employees while the branch network has expanded by just about 3 branches.

Could you help us understand the areas or functions that is driving this headcount increase?

Yeah. We're putting more people in existing branches both for assets and liabilities.

The belief is that we can really sweat more from existing branches without having to increase footprint significantly. That is being borne out.

The space is already there, it's a sunk cost, it's already invested, the network is already there, you don't have to reinvest in it. We still are a people-dependent business, we still are phygital.

Customers expect some sort of assistance to happen. What we do is where our portfolio is getting bigger both in assets and liabilities, we put more people in those branches.

That's why it's not a location game. The big eight cities contribute to practically everything of deposits.

It's still driven by not top eight branches, but top all branches in top eight to 10 cities contribute a lion's share of deposits and advances. We continue to invest in those areas where our returns are much better.

I still think that we can extract more juice from existing branches, but does it mean that we will not do incremental branches? Probably maybe about 20 branches in a year.

One doesn't see more than that happening, and one doesn't see the need for more than that to happen. Even the 20 branches, we'd like to put it in locations where we already have our branches.

Understood. With respect to the cross-sell or the bancassurance business, we have said that volumes will cover up for the loss that could come in form of drop in commissions.

Just wanted to understand how well-prepared are we to capture the volume growth opportunity, and also, can you talk about some of the factors that are helping us drive higher bancassurance business at the moment?

Yeah. On cross-sell, I wish I could tell you some good news.

We are putting a lot of effort, we're putting a lot of work. We're not seeing too much of results happening, but are we going to give up?

Absolutely not. This is a slow-burning fuse.

The graph remains very close to the x-axis for a long period of time and then suddenly, harmonically will increase. We know that.

We're going to be patient about this like many other things in retail. There's a lot of effort on both from people skilling, from technology, from business intelligence, lage rahe, but there's really no great input to tell you right now.

That doesn't mean that it will not happen in the future. There is effort happening, there is work happening.

Maybe we'll see the results over the next 12 to 18 months.

Okay. Just last question from my side, do we look to source mortgage business through balance transfers from NBFCs given that our ability to probably offer more competitive rates to the same customers, is that integral part of our mortgage growth strategy?

Any update on capital raise? Thanks.

Fine. On NBFCs, yeah, it's a target segment for us.

Balance transfer from NBFCs is very much a centerpiece activity for a mortgage business. Not from a reduction of rate perspective, we want to give them a higher rate overdraft facility so that our yields are higher, but the customer has a flexibility of paying a lower rate of interest, lower interest cost despite a higher rate of interest.

We want to give OD facilities to these customers and take them over. We want them to transact with us, they want to engage with us, converse with us, and which will provide us an opportunity to cross-sell, and that is working reasonably well.

Customers understand the concept of interest paid versus interest rate. Are we looking at dilution of yield?

Unless it's a very, very high arbitrage opportunity, you'd like to keep the interest rate same.

Understood. Update on capital raise?

Quick one on capital raise. We should be hearing some good news before the next investor call.

Yeah. Hi, good evening, everyone.

Am I audible?

Very audible indeed.

Great. Praveen, a couple of questions.

One is around the cost of funds. This quarter, we have seen a good decline.

Our CASA deposits have also shown some traction. The margins have declined.

Can you share as the lending yield and the margin ex of FCNR deposits, how much were the two numbers this quarter?

I think that will require a bit of calculation. What I know is that about $194 million has come in with leverage deals with banks in Middle East and in Africa.

It's the first time ever the bank has done that with our rating. People were willing to accept our SBLCs.

On the overall, what I'd like to tell you is that the production of cost is a sixth continuous quarter trend line. You're seeing that happening.

Like I said in the opening, when asset yield dropped by 38 bps, we managed to drop the cost of deposit by 34.

That's

a longer term, one full year trend line movement. Last quarter, I would take it with a pinch of salt, Nitin, because there are some NR customers have foreclosed their previous deposits to take advantage of the FCNR(B).

We got more than what we deserve in terms of premium and penalty, etc., and lesser interest rate. It is giving us more credit than we deserve, but even otherwise, it would have been on the downward trend.

Right. Because the yield declined very marginally, though, but the asset mix is getting better.

Fair to say that ex of FCNR, the yield should have also moved up?

Are you talking about the future?

No, this quarter, the lending yield this quarter.

Lending yield has dropped by 2 basis points.

2 basis points, yeah. Ex of FCNR, would this have gone up because next quarter with the same trend in cost of funds and with yields moving up supported by the rate hikes, the expansion could be fairly decent?

Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely.

Right, got that. Second on the PCR, now we have been making quite a stride on the PCR.

We have covered up almost 10 percentage point over the last 1 year. Any number we are looking at?

Any color around the ECL transitioning impact and steady-state impact on credit cost? Yeah.

Look, we're a secured lender, right? We don't lend unless the collateral is much more than our exposure.

Secondly, you've seen the recent trend lines happening across metrics. Except for SMA 1 and 2, I see that every other parameter is pointing to a positive direction as far as ECL is concerned.

Having said that, we have appointed a Big Four. Our team is working very closely with them on ensuring that we get our assumptions right, we get our ECL model right.

Work is underway on that. We're confident by March, we should be able to go up and running.

Right now, what I can tell you is that all lead indicators and the profile of the bank seem to indicate that we are in a good frame as far as credit quality is concerned. That should reflect in the ECL also.

Right, got that. Lastly on the ROA and ROE guidance, now we have already reached what we indicated for FY 2028 also.

Will you like to revisit those guidances?

Yes. As a bank, we have no intention of sitting on laurels, in no way.

And 1% is also only a milestone, that's not a destination. We are hungry, we're determined, no two ways about it.

It's just one more milestone in our journey. Right?

The reason why I don't want to put up another guidance is because there is a very high probability, Nitin, before the next investor meeting happens, we would have either a firm offer or we would have incremental capital coming in, which would change the ROE guidance going forward. Otherwise, look at the trend line, right?

So, 13.5% is what we committed, it will definitely be higher than 13.5%, and possibly with the capital coming in also, we will be better than 13.5%. That's what I can tell you right now.

Assume the capital comes in on January 1, we still will be on a diluted base, we will be better than 13.5%.

Hi, good evening, sir, and thanks for the opportunity. Congratulations on your board renewal.

Sir, most of the questions have been answered, but I just wanted to check again on ECL. You would have done the dry run, right?

While the everything looks okay in terms of LGD and the last few last few years actually of decent performance on LGD and etc., but the slippages are slightly higher, right, including gold, everything. Does that mean that you may have to provide more on a standard basis, standard assets, because your SMA may be slightly higher?

LGD may not change, but could that mean that you have to provide slightly higher on standard asset basis standard assets basis?

Jay, we're sitting on close to ₹218 crore of of provisions, okay, floating provisions, which we started making in somewhere around 2015, never touched it despite whatever headwinds we had, including pandemic. That, that, that in an, in an ECL kind of environment, that will really help the cost.

Secondly, look at PCR at 81%, and it's a secured book. Forget about 81%.

Look at the 9.5% increase over the year.

Right? Look at the look at the way, okay,

forget that also. Look at our cushion available.

Look at our provision as a percentage of, as a percentage of our operating profit, or the other way around. We have a 5.93 cover, times cover, of operating profit on our provisions.

There is so much of cushion available, which which and our credit cost is 0.28%. Just just look at the, triangulate these three numbers.

Credit cost of 0.28%, provision coverage of 81%, a 10% increase in provision coverage over over the last, or not not 10, maybe 9.5% over the last 1 year, ₹200 crore of floating provision, ₹218 crore of floating provision. It is there.

Fundamental, what I can tell you and the rest of the audience on on on ECL is once the model kicks in, we what we're very much focused on is to reduce the SMA 1 and 2, which will help us gain a, a benefit over over the period of ECL before the next calibration of ECL model. Is it going to be difficult?

Look, if we can if we can get 97% of upgrade and recovery from from fresh slippage, right, and we can bring down the NPAs, we, our NPA grew by ₹7 crores in the last quarter without any technical write-off. If we can bring down the NPA, why can't we bring down the SMA 1 and 2?

It's an execution challenge, but I think the people are capable of doing that. That's a the next big gain in credit cost ECL will come, after the ECL implementation, will come from reduction of SMA 1 and 2.

Right. Okay.

Secondly, sir, on overall ROA, right, we have around 20, 25 basis point ROA contribution from banca fee, and that who is going to be materially impacted. Other banks have seen 50, 60% decline in the fee that is possible, assuming the draft guidelines come through.

That would mean 10, 12 basis point of an ROA hit. Do you have any within fee line item or any other line item that can actually offset that kind of a hit?

It would be really helpful if you can provide some colors there.

See, the answers to the future actually remain in the past. If you were to look back, let's look back 2 years.

We had a ₹120 crore-plus hit on MFI, okay, and nothing came. NPA equals loss, right?

We took that in our stride. Then we had a ₹100 crore-plus one-time benefit we got from treasury, which disappeared this year.

Are you seeing any impact of that? ₹100 crore-plus in H1 of 2025 has disappeared in H1 of 2026.

Will it impact? Will bancassurance impact us?

Certainly it will. Will we be passive observers waiting to take the punch and curl up and die?

Obviously not. There'll be multiple areas where we will put together.

Let's wait for the draft guidelines to come in. Maybe the draft guidelines is the final guidelines.

You look at us one quarter after the implementation of the bancassurance norms and see what the results are looking like, and then you will see the resilience of the bank.

Right. That is very clear.

Last question, sir, on gold loan. There are a lot of bureau reports suggesting that, a large part of the disbursement is going to people who have already been delinquent in other other banks or other lender or in other products.

When we disburse gold loan either organically or through partners or DA, is CIBIL score being a standard, is that a prerequisite, or because it is gold loan, the product itself is secured, so is let us say, what is the current practice, and maybe could that change the growth trajectory?

Our philosophy is absolutely, absolutely clear. Gold loan is usually loans taken by people who really desperately need the money.

Somebody could be in a hospital, they would need it for farming requirement, they are people who may not have access to formal sources of credit, and some of them could be delinquent customers. We're okay with that, okay?

We take them on board fully knowing well that their CIBIL score in some cases may not be good enough. Why you do CIBIL is to establish the fact that the customer is of a particular profile that he or she may not be giving us fraud gold.

The profile of the customer is important to that extent. It's from that perspective that you'd be looking at the CIBIL.

A low CIBIL score is not a bar for a gold loan customer, and we continue not being a bar for a customer. For us, we see that as a mechanism to rebuild credit and to get back into the formal world.

That's true for us, and it's true for the inorganic partners that we do business with. What is the big risk in this regard?

The big risk, as you pointed out, is the fall in the gold prices. Currently, 999 gold goes at some ₹14,560, and it's fairly stable at that count.

If there is a deterioration of credit for those customers, I can draw in on one analogy. I'll take you back to Q1 of '25 when there has been a massive microfinance problem.

We had gold loan customers who had microfinance exposure elsewhere. From CIBIL check, we could figure that out.

Despite the MFI going completely bust, gold loan did not have an impact. The gold loan was with us, MFI loans with somebody else.

We found out that those customers' behavior was very, very different. I'm telling you this from the perspective that we didn't get the money entirely out of auction.

Auction was less than 10%. No customer is going to give up the collateral which he or she has, which is worth much more than the loan that he or she currently has.

That's how we've seen the behavior, right?

Unless the collateral value comes down, then we will have a problem. Still we have a buffer, but that's the real risk, not the income-earning capability of the gold loan customer.

Hi, sir. Thanks for the opportunity.

Sir, first question was on agri book. We have a good proportion of agri book.

Considering the drought situation prevalent in the country, how are you looking at the disbursement growth in this book and also on the asset quality for our existing book?

If you look at the tractor book, it's about 4%. If you look at a KCC book, it's about 4%.

We have a 1% individual MFI loans that we provide. What you've seen is that the tractor and the KCC book, and MFI book also, is behaving pretty well.

It has given us cover in terms of PSL and subcategories of PSL. That is a very important engine of ours which is running pretty well.

We're on the lookout for El Niño-related pain coming from this particular segment. Far, we haven't seen it.

Our book continues to behave very well. The bounce rates are low, it's really benevolent in terms of fresh vintage bounces and fresh vintage delinquencies, also from a NPA and recoveries perspective as well.

We are on the lookout from a impact of climate risk on this particular segment, but we really haven't seen anything which should keep either us or the industry worried on this count.

Understood, sir. Got it.

Sir, secondly on NIMs, currently, we are at 3.3% against our guided range of 3.5% to 3.6%. I know we will get the benefit of repo rate, but that would be on a temporary basis because that would normalize once deposits start repricing.

On a structural basis, if you can just help us understand what would drive NIMs from the current levels to our guided range?

Keep the credit cost under control, drive the cost of deposit down, and work on product mix to improve the yield. Do not go into riskier segment within the product to chase yield to create a problem later on.

We want to play conservative by staying in a safe zone, but moving the product mix a bit. We will work on cost of deposit.

The way to look at cost of deposit is, and you rightly said this, when repo rate increases, eventually, the cost of deposit will increase. No one is disputing that.

That will happen. What you have to look at is the divergence between the yield on assets and the cost of deposit, and how does that play over the next three, four quarters going in.

We want to keep that wide, and we want to keep the provision impact low, as low as what we currently have. Hello?

hi. Hi, team.

Just a qualitative comments from your side. In terms of piece, the strong growth what is seen in segments like LAP for you as well as for industry as such, just trying to understand how are the underlying trends on BT, and are you seeing dilution of underwriting standards coming through, or is it still holding up?

What's your sense of feedback? The reason I'm asking this question is that if you go back in the last decade between 2012, '13 and all the way up to 2016, we did see instances of very high growth in the period, and we saw how it played out later on.

Are we seeing a similar trend coming through again, or think it's too early? Right.

Okay. Right now, if you look at any early trends and across products, I'm not seeing that there is any cause for concern.

In an inflationary economy, rates going up, it is but natural that there's a sting in the tail. What the house view is that it's important to go up the ladder in terms of ticket size.

Marginally, it may seem, but even a slight increase in ticket size is going to give a better impact in the future. It is the extension of the K-shaped recovery coming through.

That's how we see across product segments. Up that slightly better segment, even if it means a slight compromise on the yield, is good enough in a scenario where rates are going up.

That's how we see it. Is there any indication of that?

No. Is the demand good?

Absolutely. Is the early trends encouraging?

Totally benevolent.

When you say demand is good, is it because the cash flows of the borrowers are better, or the income is going up, or are they simply kind of leveraging much more than before? What's the sense of the book that is building right now?

Look,

while we say secured, etc., we are a cash flow-based business. Just nothing else matters.

This whole collateral is just a thing in the mind, right? Honestly, everything is unsecured, right?

It's about the cash flow. What we see from an assessment of cash flow is that there is a requirement.

People still believe that productive use of the money will cover for the interest rate and give him or her a tidy sum. There's a lack that we do, like I was telling another person who asked the question earlier, is a interest arbitrage or a movement to a better product.

Roughly speaking, about 1/3 are coming to you for a interest arbitrage. 1/3 is coming in for a better product, no, not 1/3, maybe one 1/6 is coming for a better product, which is term loan to OD.

A significant chunk still is coming for higher exposure. They need more money.

It is not for arbitrage at all. It is for they believe that, not only they, our underwriting team also believe that that money will give customers a better returns after paying our interest rate.

Last question. When you say bounce rates have not gone up, and when you do look at the bounce rates that are coming right now, how benign it is?

It is not like these borrowers are showing signs of being stretched out?

No. The bounce rates are the same as what it was in January.

We haven't seen any in our mortgage book, it is slightly better than what the beginning of the year bounce rates were. Our rejection rates are also similar, that's the more important thing.

Are we rejecting more customers than we usually reject in the beginning of the year? No, it's about the same quantity.

Demand is higher, rejection rates are similar, and early trends are looking decent.

Hi, sir. Thank you for taking my question.

Most of my questions are answered, but just a few data-keeping questions. Could you please give us your loan mix on EBLR, MCLR, and fixed rate?

We don't publish that. You can take an educated guess on how much it is.

You will get to know from the next NIM, which we publish three 3 months later, you'll get to know. You can back-calculate how it is.

Or the ratios that remain same 3 years back also when the repo rate cut happened, frankly, it's exactly the similar way. We have a hybrid book, we have a fixed-rate loan book, and we have a floating-rate book.

Even the fixed-rate loan book, remember this, 23% of our book is gold loan, which is fixed rate, but they reprice practically every month because they are all short tenor.

One follow-up on the mortgage piece, I know you are not specifically called this out, but could you tell us how right now your mortgage book, how is it split between fixed and floating? I know your hybrid keeps on shifting, but if you could give some indication or a number around it?

We don't publish that specifically product-wise, neither do we publish for the entire bank. We have hybrids, fixed, and floating.

Directionally, that's increasing, the floating part?

No. Like I said, when the repo rate cuts happened, we had the ratio of these three.

On a larger book now, the ratio remains remarkably the same, maybe a 1 percentage point, 1% movement either way. The big change over the last 3 years has been that the gold loan book has increased significantly, the fixed-rate book has increased.

That's really fixed only in name because these are typically 6 to 8-month duration gold loans. It keeps on getting repriced as you can imagine.

Otherwise, the ratios have remained exactly the way it is.

Sure, great, sir. That's all from my side.

Thank you.

Not at all.

All right, if there are no further questions, thank you very much. Sir,

Hi, sir. Thanks for the opportunity again.

Sorry, sir, we have a decent exposure in Maharashtra, and we have a good growing AIB book. It would be really helpful, sir, if you can share your thoughts, any repercussions, early signs, or what is the bank doing to mitigate the drought-related impact in the AIB book?

That is the only question, sir. Thank you.

Actually, Jay, it is not material enough that's just even come to my attention. See, one good thing about the bank is that we don't have a single state where asset exposure is more than 20%.

I'm talking about asset exposure. If you look at agri exposure again be in a pretty marginal in that sense.

Like I said in the beginning, we haven't seen any state-wide beginning of a endemic problem or a pandemic problem. We haven't seen that yet.

Even in agri, our collections remains robust, and bounce ratios are standing up to the beginning of the year numbers.

Sure. Sir, mortgage growth, so far it's still a little bit muted only.

It should accelerate, right, towards the overall loan growth basis by over the next two quarters? Is that a fair assessment?

It's a fair assessment for two reasons. One is that we will not allow our gold loan book to be more than 25%.

We are very clear that we will grow overall by, like we kept on saying, 18% to 20%. If both these are constants, then what will change is the contribution from mortgages.

Brilliant. Thank you, and all the very best, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jay.

Hi. Thanks a lot for the opportunity.

Just one question. We have on a QoQ basis, the corporate loan growth is a bit on a higher side.

Just trying to understand, wasn't there enough opportunities on the retail side where the yields would have been better and we could have done better on margins?

See, if you were to look at our corporate exposure, a lion's share of it is from NBFCs. The kind of rate that we are able to command is very good with very low sting in the tail.

The ROE that we get from that book is pretty good, and I wouldn't be surprised if we raise it up to 10% of the overall asset book. Currently, it's about 8% or slightly less than 8%.

In this particular segment, we have the expertise. Just look at this: we do co-lending, we do DA.

We understand this particular segment, we interact with these particular companies. Therefore, we also have the ability to assess NBFCs, and we're very comfortable with that particular segment.

The yields are decent, and historical NPAs are very low, and that's reflecting even now. From an ROE perspective, it's a good book to have.

Like I said, gold should be 25%, I think corporate we should be at around 10%. We should be seeing an increase happening, may not be in Q3, but in an ideal state, it should go up to 10%.

It's a good book to grow.

Understood. Thanks a lot, sir.

Right.

Hello, sir.

Hello.

I have been an investor from last 3 years. I hold around 20 lakh shares, and I am very much happy with the performance you have delivered.

Just one question...

Do you have a bank account with us?

No.

You should have a bank account with

us. I don't have.

You should have the experience of having a DCB Bank account. I will send somebody to your place, and on a first-hand basis, see how banking with DCB Bank is like.

Apart from being an investor, we want you to be a customer as well.

Yeah, 100%. Sir, I had just one question that at what price-to-book valuation are we thinking of diluting the equity?

Good question. Look, we are very near closure on the capital.

It's got three components. I'm sorry, I'm not able to give you a straight answer, but from a timing perspective, before the next investor call, we will have a firm commitment on the capital, maybe the capital also will come in by that time.

The quantum and the rate is getting closed. If that is closed, the firm offer will also come in.

It's a question of a few more weeks, or maybe maximum a month, before we'll be able to close it out. Look, the bank has not raised capital from 2017 onwards.

It's

waiting for a right time. The right time is not based on time, it is based on valuation.

That's the reason why we haven't raised it so far. We are conscious about at what rate would we dilute incrementally.

The bank's capital position is strong. Our capital adequacy ratio in September 30 is better than our capital adequacy ratio in March after having grown.

It is not as if we are desperate for capital, we're holding out. We're ensuring that the capital which you require, and which we definitely do require, comes at a price which is fair to everybody, existing shareholders as well as to the new incumbent, a new entrant or entrants who would come in over the next few months.

I had just one concern that I am pretty sure that just now, our share price is very much undervalued. Today, just we closed at our book value around 203 or something like that.

Below the book value, we will raise the capital, or not?

Below the book value, we will not raise capital. That much I can tell you.

At what price-to-book will we raise capital, that's under negotiation, but below book value, we will not raise capital.

That's it from my side.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Look forward to meeting 3 months later.

Bye-bye.