Good afternoon and welcome to the Q2 FY27 earnings call on 14th October. Our results and shareholders letters have been updated on the exchanges along with KPIs on the investor relations website.

For our investors who are analysts is a bot, there's also an AI earnings pack that we started updating on our website. We'd like everyone to take a note on the call that some of the statements that we make may be deemed as forward-looking and carry risks.

They're not guarantees of future performance and the actual results may differ. On that short introduction, I'd like to just open up the floor for calls.

Yes, thank you very much for taking the question. Just on a question between your interplay between cost to grow and cost to serve, is cost to grow, obviously it came down pretty dramatically this quarter, is that a function of the fact that cost to serve went up or was it just a function of the fact that the market was not suitable, you decided to pull back on on this spend?

I think let me take this. The cost to grow and cost to serve first of all is very independent costs in some ways.

Cost to serve primarily has cost related to transactions and cost related to technology from our side, and whereas cost to grow is primarily a you can say growth-related cost, where we spend some part of that in brand building, some part of that in performance marketing as well. What happened I think what you saw in last quarter, we did a branding event in IPL and there was a cost attributed to that IPL piece, which didn't show up in this quarter's cost to grow.

Because of that, the cost to grow actually was lower, whereas cost to serve the reason it was higher was independent of actually cost to grow and we have actually explained that in our shareholders' letter as well. There were multiple, I think two or three different reasons why it went up.

One reason was basically there's a AI-related cost that started coming now because we started focusing a lot on AI. Second piece was because of AI itself actually, some of the compute cost has also went up.

Second piece is actually the number of trading days in last quarter was higher and because of that also the compute cost goes up because we actually use compute more on the trading days and significantly lower on non-trading days. The third piece was due to one-time there was a issue that we faced, on a particular expiry day, the files got delayed and because of that there was a one-time hit of around 10 to 13 crores rupees and which is also kind of part of cost to serve in this quarter.

Because of these three things, the cost to serve went up and cost to grow went down because of IPL not being there in this quarter.

Got it. Got it.

Now, I understand that those are independent. I just wanted to make sure that, as you saw cost to serve increase, it wasn't that you've managed the cost to grow.

Second thing is in terms of CAS, obviously we'll hear more about what SEBI decides to do by the end of this week. Any thoughts there?

What are you expecting to hear from them? If things go as per your expectation, when do you expect to see volume start to kind of come back to more normalized levels?

I think if you look at the circular, both the options that SEBI has given in more or less are not going to impact derivatives as a segment because the closing of derivative segment will either be 100% based on VWAP or will have a weighted average. Even with weighted average also the large part of the weight will come from the VWAP piece compared to the CAS piece, and hence our expectation is that it will go back to normal in some ways.

We are also waiting for the circular to understand the date from which this will be applicable and we think that from the date it becomes applicable, the normalization will be much faster, but it will depend on from which date it becomes applicable.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Hi, everyone. This is Prayesh Jain from Motilal Oswal, and congrats on a good set of numbers.

Firstly, just wanted to touch base on the margin trade funding book side. We saw some bit of moderation and steadiness during the quarter, and then towards the end again you started scaling up.

What really went through there, and how should we see the trajectory going ahead on this?

I think stocks is volatile, right? Basically whenever some stocks goes down, people try to kind of take positions at that time, and when it goes up, they try to kind of square off some of those positions from a profit perspective.

There is always a volatility in terms of when the book is getting built and when the book kind of goes down. Another reason can be in some cases there are stocks which comes into a circuit or it changes from a group 1 security to where you can't do MTF.

Basically, all those things actually every day it changes effectively. What we are seeing is, on average, we are able to add 600, 700 crores on a quarterly basis.

Our expectation is that trend should continue, and obviously, we are still highly underpenetrated from both customer as well as the market share perspective, and we expect this to keep on growing for the foreseeable future. Obviously, between the quarter, there will always be some days in which it goes down, some days it'll go up.

Right.

Any strategy approach that you have taken of realigning the stocks that you kind of fund and the amount of funding that you do on certain stocks because of the mid-cap rally and everything, would you have realigned that in terms of any risk measurements that you would have done?

That we keep on doing on a continuous basis. This is like a underwriting in some ways on a stock level that we try to run it on a daily basis and see if we want to kind of add a stock, reduce a stock, or change a haircut on them.

There are obviously optimizations possible in some of them, which are in pipeline, where we can probably do a better job in kind of changing those haircuts on a slightly earlier frequency or not necessarily frequency, but also review probably slightly better. Even we have done some such changes, but that's not the reason why probably the volatility was there in last quarter.

The volatility was actually independent of that. Okay.

One question on financials was your employee cost seems to have gone down from 182 crores in 1Q and even 173 crores in fourth quarter to more like 169 crores. How should we read this, and how should we take the trend going ahead on this?

Lalit, you want to take it? Yeah.

Overall, our cost to operate has remained flat quarter-on-quarter, and typically we look at this cost from a cost to operate perspective, which includes my people cost, my G&A, and CSR spends. My CSR spends is the only increase from the last quarter.

Specific to this line item on employee expenses, I think structurally longer-term the cost will remain in line with how it was in the last quarter, although Q1 also had the impact of one-time kind of a slight impact of appraisal cycle, which has got little normalized, but I don't think you should think about that the cost will come down from here.

No, my question was more on, first of all, because you would amortize the variable pays, right, not take it one time, or if you take one time, then possibly this is a more normalized run rate, and this is something that we should work with, and then probably only first quarter is where we should take a variable pay number and then work accordingly.

No, the point I was trying to make is variable pay we typically amortize over the period of the year, let's say 12 months, then it is amortized over 12 months. This particular quarter had some of the blip as number of people have come down and then again we have hired them, there's a short-term blip, but structurally the cost is going to go up.

Got that. Just last couple of

Sure.

Hi, thanks a lot for the opportunity. I'm Supratim from Jefferies.

My first question was on competition. We have seen the discount brokers reducing the brokerage by half, then there are other brokers who are offering AI-led tools.

Just wanted to understand that how are you seeing the competitive landscape evolve, and how are you trying to protect your moats or your customers against competition? If you could give us some color there, that would be helpful.

Secondly, on the margin lending book, wanted to understand that in March, when the market saw a dip, there was some one-off cost that was there in the book. Did a similar thing happen this time in September as well?

Or if not, then what did you change to really avoid this? If you could give us some color there, that would also be helpful.

Lastly, on the US stocks side, I understand that you are testing that product. Wanted to understand what has been the initial feedback, if you could give us some color around that, and how is the new product pipeline, how are you thinking about that?

Recently, IRDA has proposed significant reduction in commission. Could that become an opportunity for you guys?

Could insurance become a product opportunity? If you could give us some color on the product opportunities, that would also be very helpful.

Thank you. No

thanks, Supratim. I'll answer three questions and then I'll leave the second question.

I have forgot to record that. Let me answer the first one, which is competition.

See, I think in any consumer product we have seen multiple players and so on, and the way we have thought since the beginning is to kind of be paranoid about the markets and focus on the customer. The moment you start following competition, then you kind of get biased and start thinking like them.

We fundamentally believe in kind of having the first principle insights, first-hand insights about the customer and continue building. That has worked so far good for us, and from the pricing perspective, we believe that if you are giving more value to the customers than what we are charging, I think customers will be happy if they feel fair and so on, and we'll continue doing that.

On the AI side, if you look at Groww, we have kind of added significant number of features and tools which kind of help customers to make right decisions and and everything. That is the first one.

Maybe I'll jump to the third question and then we can come back to the second, which is also US stocks. It's it's kind of very very early, just kind of started testing the water.

The feedback is really good from the customers, but as we have done with any product that we have launched so far, we go slow, we kind of continue listening to the customers, and keep making changes on what they are saying and continue launching. As we speak, the product is getting kind of visible to a lot of customers, and let's see how it goes.

On a new product pipeline. Yeah.

No,

just one clarification, Lalit. When would the full launch take place?

When would you move from beta to full?

I don't think we have the timeline like this, what we have fixed set of feedback, and we continue getting those feedback, we kind of keep building that. I don't know.

No problem.

Yeah. On the new product pipeline, see, right now, few of the products are already kind of we have talked about.

US stocks is one of them. MF Prime, we spoke in the last call, and that is going on.

In the wealth side, one thing that I think we spoke in our newsletter also, the company that we acquired, now that integration has been done, a lot of their products they are getting mainstream across multiple apps and so on, and then there are some products that we are kind of still kind of figuring out and working on. We'll probably in a position to talk about them in future calls.

Sure. Sure.

Ishan, can you answer? Ishan, Bhimani, can you answer the second?

Yeah. I'll do that.

I think it was about MTF. I think there are like a lot of policy level changes that we implemented after what happened last last quarter, last to last quarter.

We have seen goodness coming in the last quarter as well. Obviously, I can't tell you each of those rules in some ways, but where I think we are investing a lot of effort is one is how do we make the policy first of all strong, and the second piece is how do we actually implement that policy almost in the real time, because policy is as good as the execution of that policy in some ways.

We have focused a lot on kind of making sure that the execution of that policy is like much, much better. Another thing that we have realized, I think we are again trying to improve in our policy itself is we don't need to look at our balance sheet or our kind of book in this.

We have to start looking at the industry-level book as well, because in some stocks, even though we might have a smaller market share, but if the book is significantly large at the industry level, when a bad time comes, the days to sell becomes really important. In such stocks, we are more proactive now to exclude such stocks from either exclude such stocks from our MTF approved list or actually have a much higher haircut compared to what the regulator regulatory required haircut, our haircut can be higher than that as well.

There are stocks which have actually ran up significantly, and MTF book also has ran up in them, and we are actually sitting in some cases like 80% as haircut, which effectively means that we are only funding 20% in that case. Such rules are really helpful, because in a bad times, you'll be able to kind of even 80% down, you will not be able to kind of you are still able to recover your capital.

I think that's how we are looking at focusing on both of these levers on haircut as well as changing the approved list more frequently and almost in a real-time basis.

Got it. Is it fair to then understand that there was no one-off cost because of the MTF and the sharp market move in this quarter?

Obviously, there will be some cost of MTF into this, but there is no one-off cost as such.

Got it. Understood.

That's it. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nidhesh. I am from Investec.

My first question is on wealth management. Thanks for the disclosure on the AUM.

Can you break up that AUM in terms of Groww Prime and W, how much each of them are contributing?

Broadly if we look at it, I think this is the first time we are even publishing the wealth-related AUM. Because MF Prime is very small, I think you can assume that it's not a significant part of it yet, but obviously that's probably the fastest-growing part at the same time.

We don't want to disclose too much into those numbers.

Okay. Number of users have gone up by almost 50%, I think, on a Q-on-Q basis, majority of the addition is because of Groww Prime?

MF Prime. Yes.

Okay. In which line item in the revenue mix that you are disclosing in the shareholder letter, which line item the wealth management income is getting clubbed in?

It's in other operating income.

Other operating income. I think this time you have also clubbed the wealth management business in the operational KPIs.

That explains the difference between active users of last quarter versus what we have disclosed this time, right? Or?

Active user is I think independent of this.

Because active user count for the last quarter in the recent disclosure is different from the active user count of last quarter disclosures.

It might be, but that number should not be significantly different because active user hasn't significantly changed because of including wealth. MF Prime if you look at it earlier was not there and every customer was coming on normal MF and that piece was anyways adding customers.

The growth you can assume is coming from that, but the Fisdom users are actually included now in active customers. Because of that probably that number is changing.

Hm. Sure.

Second question is on the broking business. If you look at our market share for last three to four quarters on cash and derivatives, that has been broadly around 15% in cash and 11% in derivatives.

Though our market share on NSE active continues to increase upwards of I think 23, 24% or even higher. Why that is not reflecting in our cash market share, cash and derivatives market share, NSE active market share is not reflecting into that?

What is the right threshold you think is possible for us to reach in cash and derivatives ADTO market share?

Our expectation is longer run we can come to that similar level. Obviously, it's not a quarter-to-quarter basis that every quarter will have the same increase or there will be increase in every quarter as well.

We should look at from a long-term perspective. The expectation is that as our customers becomes older they will do larger turnover per customers and as our kind of more and more products coming in, or more and more features also comes in, for example MTF is growing.

As the MTF percentage goes up the cash turnover will go up. This is more like a fundamental growth that we will see, but it might not show up in every quarter because the volatility is still there on a quarterly basis.

If you look at on a Y-o-Y basis the market share will keep on growing.

Basically over longer term whether your cash market share and F&O market share should trend towards NSE active market share. Because there is a wide difference between the two numbers.

One is 15 and other is 25, 26, so. Yes,

average age is also very different. I think probably it'll take 10 years to reach to those numbers, but it will converge one day which might be like infinity in some ways.

Last question is on CAC, how

Hi. This is Ansuman from ICICI Securities.

My question was on the order per ADTV kind of a ratio, if you see. This was declining, but this quarter on a quarter-on-quarter, we have seen a increase in order per ADTV.

That has led to your revenue being flat in broking despite a lower volume. Any kind of reason of why this would happen in Q2?

I think both are not correlated because the order size and I don't know actually you're talking about stocks revenue or you're talking about derivatives in this?

I'm talking about both stocks, derivative, and commodity. All of them has been sequentially reported better order per ADTV.

If you can use a word of order intensity, that has gone up sequentially in all the categories. That's why your volumes are down, right, sequentially, but the revenues are quite largely unchanged.

Honestly I think we don't look at all of them together, but if I look at let's say commodities, the revenue is dependent on orders, not on ADTV. Every order is charged at ₹20.

Same is with equity derivatives. The difference we have seen it depends on the asset class or an asset or you can say a contract that customer is trading.

If customer trades on gold versus customer trades on crude versus on natural gas, the ticket size significantly changes. Same is the case in cash also.

ETFs have a different ticket size compared to small-cap or mid-cap, and hence the revenue only changes for cash actually. Everything else the revenue is 100% linked to orders, not linked to actually ADTV.

In cash, it's a mix of order size as well as number of orders because our pricing is mix of both. It is 10 basis points or ₹20, whichever is lower.

If you look at our brokerage income per order on cash side is actually more closer to 15, ₹16 compared to in equity derivatives and commodities, where per order it's ₹20. It's really not correlated with ADTV as much as.

We give ADTV numbers because that is publicly available number for us to calculate the market share and stuff. That's why we are actually reporting those numbers as well.

Understood. One last thing about this is did September have a significantly larger order compared to, because you don't give monthly, one because September had a significantly higher volatility.

Would it be materially higher?

I think August was probably the lowest, is one way I can look at it. I don't remember between July and September which one was higher.

August was the lowest among three months.

Understood. Thanks a lot.

I'll get back in the queue.

Thank you. This is Sanketh from Avendus Park.

My first question is on your derivative revenue. Our market share broadly remained stable on ADTV, but given we have introduced 915 and web-based trading, power trading tools for power traders, the contribution of that has increased, or how has it played any role for reporting a flat market share, or growth?

Just wanted to understand, and how do you look this to play out going ahead? That's my first question.

Let me take this. Basically, the 915 is not a significant contributor to the trading volume today.

Obviously our expectation is that the day we get a significant PMF on that product, it will start contributing significantly, and the market share can grow even faster. Today, that is not the reason why that is not a contributor to the market share or even revenue, etc., from a material perspective.

Ishan, do you see this to play out more internal customers graduating to power traders, or you think you can attract the external power traders who are active with some other brokers, and given you provide much better futures, maybe, and therefore they come on your platform. From your revenue growth point of view, how do you see this to play out, whether it is external guys coming on your platform or internal guys graduating to power traders?

Our expectation is obviously to kind of increase the market share in the power trader segment. Hence, the focus was not on our customer graduating, but the focus was on customers from other platform coming to us.

Hence, increase us overall market share for us. That's why I was saying this hasn't been yet kind of proven from our side.

That's why we are not even talking about 915 too much, because that's not adding significantly to the revenue or to the turnover today.

Got it. Maybe

Hey, hi. This is Abhijeet from Kotak.

I had couple of data questions. If you could give the number on net inflows on the platform, I didn't see the numbers getting reported for this time.

Secondly, on cost to grow, generally if we look at this number, it's up and down a lot, but on average it's about 120 crores a quarter. Even this year I think over the first half it's about 125.

Should we kind of assume that to be the run rate for second half as well?

And Sorry, go ahead.

One last question Ishan on impact of CAS. I just want to kind of follow up on that given the statement that you expect CAS to really help improve the volumes, but if we actually look at how August panned out, by the end of August I think volumes had recovered a fair bit.

I'm just trying to figure out whether you actually expect removal of CAS to really improve the volumes in a big manner or the system has already adjusted a fair bit.

Got it. I'll take I think CAS one first then.

It's easier. We don't expect it will go up.

The way we are expecting is it will normalize the problem that it created, and now because there are multiple variables that affect the volume. Volume is one I think somebody else was also asking, the volatility whenever it increases volume, and anything like, for example, disruptions like where CAS, for example, would have a negative impact on volumes.

Both of them can counterbalance each other in some cases, where you see the volume normalize. Normal for every day is a different in some ways.

With and without CAS the expectation is that it will change. Now, will it change with volatility or without volatility is more to be seen in the future.

On the second piece on cost to grow, I think we've been talking about that roughly we spend between 400 to 500 crores a year. In a good year, obviously we'll end up spending 500 plus as well.

In a bad year, we might end up spending more closer to 400. You're correct that our average is around 125 today.

Next quarter, if market does well, we will probably spend more than that as well. If market doesn't do well, we might do lower than that as well.

There will always be a some bit of flexibility that we will have to make sure that we don't overspend when it's not worth spending in a bad market, and hence we reduce cost. If market does well let's say in Q4 or in Q3 as well, we might end up spending even more than 125.

It will depend on how market does, or where we see demand coming from.

My question was answered, I'm skipping it.

My name is Manish Ostwal, calling from Nirmal Bang Securities. The company is focusing customer form for business growth, right?

If I ask you how you track this metric called product per customer, how the progress the company is making? Secondly, question on AI.

AI total investment the company is making in AI front, and both for my use case of revenue maximization, as well as the customer experience, cost reduction. Can you make some comment on that?

It will be quite useful for us. Thank you.

Lalit.

I'm sorry, I missed your second question, which was about

AI.

Customer.

My question is use of AI, what kind of investment the company is making on AI front first? Secondly, how we leverage AI with respect to revenue maximization, as well as customer experience on the platform and cost reduction in the business?

Yeah.

Sure. First thing is on AI, as we spoke, we are using it in multiple ways.

One is, of course, how can we ship things faster for customers, how can we ship better quality product to customers, and then how can we improve customer experience better? Revenue maximization, typically if you have seen us, the first way we think about it is how we kind of improve customer experience, and then if customers like everything, then revenue happen.

It's more like customer first, and then everything later. On AI investment side, if you ask, on productivity side we use a lot of tools.

We have kind of again as our philosophy is, we like to do everything in-house, we are building our own in-house stack, it also reduces per-token cost. If we had used all the kind of commercial kind of models, our cost would have been much higher.

The number of tokens that we consume is much, much higher, but because of our per-token cost we are able to kind of save a lot of money as well. I hope that answers your question.

The first one is how is product per customer growing, do we have data?

I think broadly more than 50% of our customers are today using more than two products, and actually more than 5% are using more than four products today. We keep on tracking these matrices.

We are obviously kind of rehashing some of these things because the number of products are increasing very rapidly, and how do we actually engage more and more with our customers. The thought process is basically again, instead of looking at product per user, look at one customer and what all products that customer needs, and make sure that all those products are served by us is I think the way we look at it from a fundamental perspective.

Obviously, product per user is a averaging of all of that. A lot of time what happens is a customer actually uses only one product because that's the only product that is relevant for them.

We don't want to kind of force customer or push customers to use multiple products. It is about their need and how can we become the most or only platform that they are using is more important for us than number of products that they are using.

Fine.

Hi. Good afternoon.

This is Sarang from Coeus Park Advisors. Just two questions.

Firstly, considering the good growth that we saw this quarter, is there a way that we optimize the float income, or has anything changed here? Secondly, on our lending book referring to the PL and LAS, what are the changes that we made in the last two quarters, and how should we see the scaling?

Lalit Bhimani, you want to take it?

On the lending side, the last two quarters we have in fact launched our loan against shares product, and the early two quarters I think we have seen good traction in that. On the personal loan side the business has been same as gradually growing over quarter-on-quarter.

What was your second question, Sarang?

Yeah. The first question was on float income.

Are we optimizing something here, or has anything changed that we're able to generate better yields?

No, float income there is no change because you have to look at it from two perspective. One is our own treasury.

On our own treasury side we make investments in NCDs, and bonds, and mutual funds, debt mutual funds. Largely it is the returns are as per what is getting generated from the market, whatever you'll see there.

On the money which we have collected from customers as part of the wallet, that is typically you don't have much options there. You can only invest in certain set of FDs which are prescribed by SEBI and exchange.

You won't see much change in the yield there as well.

Got it. It's the treasury that's working though.

Makes sense. Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question.

This is Pranuj from 3P Investments. My first question is on if MDR on UPI is implemented under the current framework, how much of an escalation does it lead to your cost to serve, if you can answer that?

My second question is on the US-based investing. Could you explain the opex structure over here?

I think you guys make $1 or 0.1 based on the transaction value. How much has to be shared with the partner in US, or is there any fixed cost associated with it?

Lastly, you used to give broking transacting users up till the last quarter. If you could disclose that number?

Thank you.

Yeah. I think again I'll go with the last question is here.

I think Q2U is more or less broking transacting users, so that's why we thought probably Q2U is a better metric than looking at broking transacting users. It is much closer to that.

On the UPI piece, I think we are still figuring out. One, obviously there was a circular out, and it got delayed, and the second piece is there are recommendation made from our side, SEBI side to actually have a different pricing when it looked at the capital market use cases, and we are still awaiting finally what will be the final outcome.

Our expectation is it's not going to be a material change to our cost in any case, but obviously it will depend on how much actual number that comes out to be, because if the number is with 0.4%, which they are charging for others or 0.02%, the difference is huge. What will be

I think it's 0.02% for capital market investments.

The discussion is still on. The capping is on what?

₹300 capping is

Oh, ₹5, yeah.

Insane today, and I think if the capping is lower, that number becomes immaterial. If the capping is very high, then we have to evaluate how to kind of solve for this.

You would look to increase the costs instead of rupees ₹20 that you're charging currently, you may have to re-evaluate that?

Not necessarily. I think we have to make our case to make sure that it doesn't go that high, like ₹300 is not affordable either for us or for the customer in such cases.

Because a lot of time customer doesn't really actually transact also. They add money and then they don't transact.

Still if you end up paying that cost, it doesn't make sense for us to pay that cost in some ways. Obviously, we have to work with the regulator on this and figure out what can be done for us on this.

Understood. Understood.

In the lumpsum-based mutual fund investments, you guys won't be liable to pay, right? That will be the mutual fund house that will have to pay it.

Yes.

Understood. Understood.

The broking transacting

Hi. This is Dipanjan here from Goldman Sachs.

Few questions from my side. First on the other operating income, I think there has been some reclassification also that you have done.

On a mixed basis, I think on a quarter-on-quarter, there has been a decent increase. Just wanted to get some color, is it led by distribution income, IPO-led revenues?

Some color on that. Second, I think for the past few quarters, we have been sustainably seeing rise in your cash realizations.

Now, I would presume a lot of it has to do with the increase in the MTF book. By any chance is it possible or you have done some exercise to understand what percentage of cash turnover is led by MTF?

If you can have any color on that part. Yes, those were the two questions.

One data-keeping question, if you can just give the employee number as on date or as of September 30th?

Yeah. Lalit, you want to take this?

Bhimani.

On other income, we have as of now regrouped the IPO income plus BSDA income, which were earlier part of stocks revenue. What was the second question, sorry?

Lalit, basically the second one was on the MTF portion as percentage of cash and turnover. Just a follow-up on this first one, I just wanted to understand what led to the growth in other operating income during the quarter, just.

This quarter had we have seen about 30 IPOs happening in this quarter, and some of the large IPOs in fact happened this quarter, which includes your SBI AMC, NSE, and that all these have overall contributed significant revenue to the other income line item. Second is we typically get a BSDA revenue from from authorities in terms of how many new Demat accounts we are adding in the industry.

That income has also been accrued in this quarter. Yes.

Dipanjan.

Yeah. The second one was on the MTF portion as a percentage of cash turnover, just to understand how much more scope is there for the cash realizations to go up.

Today, I think that piece is slightly above 5%, and obviously as the book grows, that number will keep on going up. I think we expect at least in the foreseeable future that number will kind of go up.

Again, percentage of ADTO can vary also. It's not directly proportional with the book.

It depends on the churn also. If the volatility is high actually, that goes up.

If the volatility is low, that might actually go down as a percentage as well. It's not necessarily that it will keep on going up every quarter, but in this quarter the volatility was high.

That's why probably it contributed more.

Thank you everyone for attending the Q2 call. Any follow-up questions, please do reach out to the IR team and the shareholders.

You have all our details, it's on the IR website as well. Thank you very much and look forward to having this again next quarter.