Thank you. Good evening to all of you, and welcome to the ICICI Bank earnings call to discuss the results for Q3 of FY26.

Joining us today on this call are Sandeep Batra, Rakesh, Ajay, Anindya, and Abhinek. At ICICI Bank, our strategic focus continues to be on growing profit before tax, excluding treasury, through the 360-degree customer-centric approach and by serving opportunities across ecosystems and micro markets.

We continue to operate within the framework of our values to strengthen our franchise. Maintaining high standards of governance, deepening coverage, and enhancing delivery capabilities with a focus on simplicity and operational resilience are key drivers for our risk-calibrated profitable growth.

The core operating profits increased by 6% year on year and 2.5% quarter on quarter to 175.13 billion rupees in this quarter. The total provisions during the quarter were 25.56 billion rupees.

This includes additional standard asset provision of 12.83 billion rupees made pursuant to Reserve Bank of India's annual supervisory review, which Anindya will explain later on the call. The profit before tax excluding treasury was 149.57 billion rupees in this quarter compared to 152.89 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The profit after tax was 113.18 billion rupees in this quarter compared to 117.92 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. Average deposits grew by 8.7% year on year and 1.8% sequentially, and average current and savings account deposits grew by 8.9% year on year and 1.5% sequentially in this quarter.

The bank continued to see healthy growth in current account deposits and individual term and savings deposits. Total deposits grew by 9.2% year on year and 2.9% sequentially at December 31, 2025.

The bank's average LCR for the quarter was about 126%. The domestic loan portfolio grew by 11.5% year on year and 4% sequentially at December 31, 2025 compared to 10.6% and 3.3% at September 30, 2025.

The retail loan portfolio grew by 7.2% year on year and 1.9% sequentially, including non-fund based outstanding, the retail portfolio was 42.2% of the total portfolio. The rural portfolio grew by 4.9% year on year and 7.2% sequentially.

The business banking portfolio grew by 22.8% year on year and 4.7% sequentially. The domestic corporate portfolio grew by 5.6% year on year and 6.5% sequentially.

The overall loan portfolio, including the international branches portfolio, grew by 11.5% year on year and 4.1% sequentially at December 31, 2025. The overseas loan portfolio was 0.04% of the overall loan book at December 31, 2025.

The net NPA ratio was 0.37% at December 31, 2025 compared to 0.39% at September 30, 2025 and 0.42% at December 31, 2024. During the quarter, there were net additions of 20.74 billion rupees to gross NPAs, excluding write-offs and sales.

The provisioning coverage ratio on non-performing loans was 75.4% at December 31, 2025. In addition, the bank continues to hold contingency provisions of 131 billion rupees, or about 0.9% of total advances at December 31, 2025.

The capital position of the bank continued to be strong with a CET1 ratio of 16.46% and total capital adequacy ratio of 17.34% at December 31, 2025, including profits for nine months 2026. Looking ahead, we see many opportunities to drive risk-calibrated profitable growth and grow market shares across key segments.

We remain focused on maintaining a strong balance sheet, prudent provisioning, and healthy levels of capital while delivering sustainable and predictable returns to our shareholders. I now hand the call over to Anindya.

Thank you, Sandeep. Let me first talk about the additional standard asset provision.

Following its annual supervisory review, RBI has directed the bank to make a standard asset provision of 12.83 billion rupees in respect of a portfolio of agricultural priority sector credit facilities, wherein the terms of the facilities were found to be not fully compliant with the regulatory requirements for classification as agricultural priority sector lending. There is no change in asset classification or in the terms and conditions applicable to the borrowers or in the repayment behavior of borrowers as per these terms.

The bank has been originating this portfolio over some years and will work to bring it in conformity with regulatory expectations. This additional standard asset provision will continue until the loans are repaid or renewed in conformity with the PSL classification guidelines.

I will now talk about loan growth, credit quality, P&L details, and the performance of subsidiaries. Sandeep covered the loan growth across various segments.

Coming to the growth across retail products, the mortgage portfolio grew by 11.1% year on year and 3.2% sequentially. Auto loans grew by 0.7% year on year and 0.9% sequentially.

The commercial vehicles and equipment portfolio grew by 7.9% year on year and 3.2% sequentially. Personal loans grew by 2.4% year on year and 1.7% sequentially.

The credit card portfolio declined by 3.5% year on year and 6.7% sequentially. During the quarter, we saw improved growth trends across the mortgage, rural, and corporate portfolios.

The sequential decline in the credit card portfolio was due to high festive spends towards the end of the previous quarter, which had resulted in high sequential book growth in that quarter and saw repayments in the current quarter. Within the corporate portfolio, the total outstanding to NBFCs and HFCs was 791.18 billion rupees at December 31, 2025 compared to 794.33 billion rupees at September 30, 2025.

The total outstanding loans to NBFCs and HFCs were about 4.3% of our advances at December 31, 2025. The builder portfolio, including construction finance, lease rental discounting, term loans, and working capital, was 680.83 billion rupees at December 31, 2025 compared to 635.83 billion rupees at September 30, 2025.

The builder loan portfolio was 4.3% of our total loan portfolio. Our portfolio largely comprises well-established builders, and this is also reflected in the sequential increase in the portfolio.

About 1.1% of the builder portfolio at December 31, 2025 was either rated double B and below internally or was classified as non-performing. Moving on to credit quality, the gross NPA additions were 53.56 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 60.85 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

Recoveries and upgrades from gross NPAs, excluding write-offs and sale, were 32.82 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 33.92 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. The net additions to gross NPAs were 20.74 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 26.93 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The gross NPA additions from the retail and rural portfolios were 42.77 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 53.04 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. There were gross NPA additions of about 7.36 billion rupees from the Kisan Credit Card portfolio in the current quarter, compared to 7.14 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

We typically see higher NPA additions from the Kisan Credit Card portfolio in the first and third quarter of a fiscal year. Recoveries and upgrades from the retail and rural portfolios were 25.39 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 27.86 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The net additions to gross NPAs in the retail and rural portfolios were 17.38 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 25.18 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. The gross NPA additions from the corporate and business banking portfolios were 10.79 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 7.81 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

Recoveries and upgrades from the corporate and business banking portfolios were 7.43 billion rupees in the current quarter, compared to 6.06 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. There were net additions to gross NPAs of 3.36 billion rupees in the current quarter in the corporate and business banking portfolio, compared to 1.75 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The gross NPAs written off during the quarter were 20.46 billion rupees. Further, there was sale of NPAs of 1.2 billion rupees for cash in the current quarter.

The non-fund based outstanding to borrowers classified as non-performing was 22.29 billion rupees as of December 31, 2025. The loans and non-fund based outstanding to performing corporate borrowers rated double-B and below was 33.92 billion rupees at December 31, 2025.

This portfolio was about 0.2% of our advances at December 31, 2025. The total fund based outstanding to our standard borrowers under resolution as per various guidelines was 16.66 billion rupees for about 0.1% of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2025.

At the end of December, the total provisions, other than specific provisions on fund based outstanding to borrowers classified as non-performing, were 226.57 billion rupees, or 1.5% of loans. This includes the contingency provisions of 131 billion rupees, as well as general provisions on standard assets, provisions held for non-fund based outstanding to borrowers classified as non-performing, funded non-fund based outstanding to standard borrowers under resolution and the double-B and below portfolio.

These provisions do not include the additional standard asset provision as directed by RBI in respect of a portfolio, agricultural priority sector credit facility. Moving on to the P&L details, net interest income increased by 7.7% year-on-year and 1.9% sequentially to 219.32 billion rupees in this quarter.

The net interest margin was 4.3% in this quarter, compared to 4.3% in the previous quarter and 4.25% in Q3 of last year. The cost of deposits was 4.55% in this quarter, compared to 4.64% in the previous quarter and 4.91% in Q3 of last year.

The benefit of interest on tax refund was one basis point in the current quarter, compared to nil in the previous quarter and one basis point in Q3 of last year. Of the total domestic loans, interest rates of about 56% of the loans are linked to the repo rate and other external benchmarks, 13% to MCLR and other older benchmarks, and the remaining 31% of loans have fixed interest rates.

Non-interest income, excluding treasury, grew by 12.4% year-on-year and 2.3% sequentially to 75.25 billion rupees in Q3 of FY2026. Fee income increased by 6.3% year-on-year and 1.2% sequentially to 65.72 billion rupees in this quarter.

Fees from retail, rural and business banking customers constituted about 78% of the total fees in this quarter. Dividend income from subsidiaries was 6.81 billion rupees in this quarter, compared to 8.1 billion rupees in the previous quarter and 5.09 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The year-on-year increase in dividend income was primarily due to the receipt of interim dividend from ICICI Securities. On costs, the bank's operating expenses increased by 13.2% year-on-year and 1.2% sequentially in this quarter.

Employee expenses increased by 12.5% year-on-year and 1.8% sequentially in this quarter, including the impact of 1.45 billion rupees of provisions on an estimated basis pursuant to the new labor codes. Non-employee expenses increased by 13.6% year-on-year and 0.8% sequentially in this quarter.

Our branch count has increased by 402 in nine months of the current year. We had 7,385 branches as of December 31, 2025.

The technology expenses were about 11% of our operating expenses in nine months of the current year. The total provisions during the quarter were 25.56 billion rupees.

Excluding the additional standard asset provision, the total provisions were 12.73 billion rupees, or 7.3% of core operating profit and 0.36% of average advances, compared to the provisions of 12.27 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. The profit before tax, excluding treasury, was 149.57 billion rupees in this quarter, compared to 152.89 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

There was a treasury loss of 1.57 billion rupees in Q3 of the current year, as compared to a gain of 2.2 billion rupees in Q2 of the current year and gain of 3.71 billion rupees in Q3 of the previous year, primarily reflecting market movements. The tax expense was 34.82 billion rupees in this quarter, compared to 38.68 billion rupees in the corresponding quarter last year.

The profit after tax was 113.18 billion rupees in this quarter, compared to 217.92 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. Adjusting for additional standard asset provisioning, the profit before tax, excluding treasury, would have increased by 6.2% year-on-year to 162.40 billion rupees, and similarly profit after tax would have increased by 4.1% year-on-year to 122.80 billion rupees in this quarter.

The return on average assets and standalone ROE would have been 2.3% and 15.5% respectively in this quarter. The consolidated profit after tax was 125.38 billion rupees in this quarter, compared to 128.83 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The details of the financial performance of key subsidiaries are covered in slides 33 to 36 and 55 to 60 in the investor presentation. The annualized premium equivalent of ICICI Life was 68.11 billion rupees in the nine months ended December 31, 2025, as compared to 69.05 billion rupees in nine months of last year.

The value of new business increased to 16.64 billion rupees in nine months ended December 31, 2025 from 15.75 billion rupees in nine months of last year. The value of new business margin was 24.4% in nine months ended December 31, 2025 compared to 22.8% in FY2025 and in the nine months of last year.

The profit after tax of ICICI Life was 9.92 billion rupees in the nine months ended December 31, 2025 compared to 8.03 billion rupees in nine months.

I'll just repeat. Gross direct premium income of ICICI General increased to 70.41 billion rupees in this quarter from 62.14 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The combined ratio stood at 104.5% in this quarter compared to 102.7% in Q3 of last year. The profit after tax was 6.59 billion rupees in this quarter compared to 7.24 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

The profit after tax of ICICI AMC as per Ind AS was 9.17 billion rupees in this quarter compared to 6.32 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. The profit after tax of ICICI Securities as per Ind AS on a consolidated basis was 4.75 billion rupees in this quarter compared to 5.04 billion rupees in Q3 of last year.

ICICI Bank Canada had a profit after tax of 5.4 million Canadian dollars in this quarter compared to 19.6 million Canadian dollars in Q3 of last year. ICICI Bank UK had a profit after tax of 5 million U.S.

dollars in this quarter compared to 5.1 million U.S. dollars in Q3 of last year.

As per Ind AS, ICICI Home Finance had a profit after tax of 1.95 billion rupees in the current quarter compared to 2.03 billion rupees in Q3 of last year. With this, we conclude our opening remarks and we will now be happy to take your questions.

hello. Hi.

My first question is on the standard asset provision. What is the size of the portfolio on which these provisions were to be made and what would be the impact on OPEX now that you have that much lower priority portfolio?

Also, what was the classification issue, as in, what was non-compliant about the classification? That's my first question.

My second question is on margins. Obviously margins have held steady.

There is a rate cut and there is again aggressive competition in mortgage pricing. How do you view your margins from here on?

Is there some amount of deposit repricing still left, which will help hold up margins at these levels in the near future? Those were my questions.

Coming to the first set of questions, I think as we have said, following the supervisory review, the regulator has directed us to make this provision of 12.83 billion, and that is what has been communicated and we have made it. The underlying portfolio that we need to work out and resolve in terms of ensuring conformity with the PSL guidelines would be between 200 to 250 billion or so.

As far as the cost aspect is concerned, I think what we will be working on is to bring this portfolio into conformity with the regulatory expectations and thereby minimize both the provisioning and the PSL impact. On the underlying issues, I think those are really observations made by the regulators as part of its inspection process.

We wouldn't want to go into those details, but the outcomes are what we have reported. Coming to your next question on margins, I think, as you rightly said, if we look at the current quarter Q3 which has gone by, we did have the impact of repricing of loans both on account of repo and MCLR, and we also had the seasonally higher non-accrual impact on the KCC NPAs.

This was offset by some amount of deposit repricing and also the benefit of the CRR cut. If we look ahead into Q4, I think that level of non-accrual will not be there.

We will see the impact of the repo repricing as well as MCLR on the floating rate loan book, the repo cut which happened in December in particular. At the same time, we should continue to see some amount of repricing of the retail deposits.

Overall, I think we would stay with our view that the NIM should be range-bound from here on.

Thank you. Thanks a lot.

Good evening, sir. I had three questions.

The first one is on, I just wanted to understand, was there any additional PSL cost due to the reclassification of these agri loans as non-PSL? Was there any cost in the P&L this quarter or any potential cost in OPEX in the quarters to come?

That's first. The second one is on the growth.

I just wanted to get a sense, are you seeing any momentum of growth improving, even on month-on-month basis during 3Q? Would you expect now the growth to improve from the current levels, within the constraints of your quality and risk framework?

The third one specifically on the credit card. What is weighing on the overall credit card book growth?

Is it merely a decline in the share of transactor loans following the festive pickup in 2Q, or there is more to read into it? Those are my questions.

First, I think in general, the cost of PSL compliance has been going up. we do meet a part of our PSL obligations by buying the priority sector lending certificates, and the cost of those has steadily gone up over the last few quarters.

Part of the increase, for example, the level of operating expenses over the last couple of quarters has been due to that. I would say that's more of, that's not been done specifically in the context of this regulatory observation.

That's something we keep looking at on a totality basis and analyzing what is the most efficient thing to do in terms of meeting the priority sector lending requirements. As far as this particular observation is concerned, as I said, we would be working to bring this portfolio into conformity with the regulatory expectations and thereby minimize the impact.

I would not want to say, call out any additional cost, etc. at this juncture.

We’ll assess it in totality and see where we go and try to absorb it in the P&L. That was the first one.

I think the second question was on growth. I think clearly we have seen a pickup in the, if you look at the sequential growth rate in the fourth quarter vis-à-vis the third quarter, despite the rundown in cards, which I’ll come to separately, certainly there has been a pickup in momentum, and we see that momentum sustaining into the fourth quarter as well.

I think even the year-on-year growth rate, which is impacted by the trailing four quarters, has picked up in the current quarter, reflecting more recent trends, and I would expect that to continue into Q4 as well. On the credit card specifically, I think we had a very strong book growth sequentially in Q2 because of, the last week kind of festive spends, which were billed and repaid in the current quarter.

That is the main reason for the movement in the current quarter. We see that the book should grow from here on.

I think in both credit cards and PL, one thing, as we have been saying, that the credit, the quality of credit has certainly improved. We have, if you look at our aggregate retail NPLs, excluding the KCC, have come down in terms of NPL formation, and we are pretty comfortable with the quality now across secured and unsecured.

In personal loans also, there’s a very, very small uptick, but there has been an uptick in Q3 on the year-on-year growth and the sequential growth. I think we are quite positive on what we are underwriting, and I think it’s a question of leveraging our franchise to grow these businesses.

Of course, there is price competition across the board, but that’s something we will have to keep optimizing and managing.

Just a clarification on the first one. While you are not calling out any additional Opex-related costs due to this regulatory observation, there would be this 200-250 billion rupees of the loans which are now declassified as PSL.

To meet that shortfall, would you be requiring to do more of RIDF bonds or PLSC, or do you think that the organic PSL generation itself will take care of this shortfall and hence no additional cost impact?

I think the first step is that we will work to bring this portfolio into conformity with the PSL requirements, and that is how we will minimize the shortfall and the impact thereof. That would be the first objective.

Thereafter, we will assess overall, as we do in any case on an ongoing basis, that to the extent after organic and inorganic generation of priority sector loans, whether we should buy PSLCs or we can live with some amount of RIDF call. That is, an analysis that we anyway do on an ongoing basis, and over the years I think we have improved our PSL compliance.

Our RIDF book outstanding currently is, on a relatively larger balance sheet, is down, I think, to one-third of its peak levels.

All right, sir. Thank you, and congratulations, Mr.

Bakhshi, for another three-year appointment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. A couple of questions, again to harp upon on the credit card side, but even now when we look at the portfolio, it is almost at a similar level to where we were in June, okay?

In fact, hardly any growth out there over and above June. This kind of a trend we had not seen in the earlier years during the festive, wherein it tends to run down.

Any particular cohort or maybe, the transactor proportion significantly going up, which is leading to this?

I think that the transactor portion has gone up across most players, I would think. In our case, there’s nothing specific other than the fact that we had an unusually strong growth in Q2, and that has got an offset in Q3.

We continue to...

How should we compare it with first quarter or maybe Q4 end? Because since Q4 end also there is a decline in the portfolio, and even from first quarter it has just been flat over two quarters despite discounts going up.

Yeah.

I see we are, as we have said in the past, we are not looking at credit card just as a product portfolio in itself, but really as part of an overall customer offering, and most of our new launches are aimed at enriching the offering to attract good customers and really be able to bank them on a 360 basis. As I said, I think in this quarter the book decline is more one-off, and we should see it gradually improve from here on.

Yeah. Secondly, on the corporate side, significant traction on a quarter-on-quarter basis, and within the risk framework, or maybe on a risk-calibrated operating profit level, earlier it was thought that maybe PSU entities would not be giving us that kind of a benefit or operating profit.

We are seeing the increase in the triple-B proportion as well. No doubt you have earlier alluded that that’s because of the business banking.

Is the larger part of the growth on the corporate also coming in that segment of triple-B, or not really?

No. I think that if we look overall, if we look at our approach to the corporate sector, to the corporate loan growth, one, corporates are well-funded and have multiple sources of funding.

To the extent that they are accessing bank funding, we are very happy to participate. It has been very price competitive.

We do look at what is the overall relationship with the corporate, and wherever we have a franchise and we want to build a franchise, we do participate quite actively. I think one of the things that has changed maybe relative to the past couple of quarters is kind of the settling of the benchmark, because a lot of the lending is happening at external benchmark-linked rates.

The settling of the benchmark kind of gives us more confidence to price and lend. From a credit quality perspective, I think we are quite comfortable with these rating grades, and we have our own limits on triple-B, for example, origination, both in terms of aggregate and in terms of borrower size, and we are within those frameworks.

We are quite comfortable with the quality.

Lastly, on overall Opex growth now getting closer to, say, 13-odd percent, we had seen Opex growth being contained almost in a single digit. You indicated some cost of compliance being there, but is there any other element, and would we see cost almost settling in a similar level, or there are maybe cost containment levers which are available and it should grow below the balance sheet growth?

We will see whatever is necessary to maximize the overall PPOP. I don't expect costs to go up at the pace at which they had gone up maybe till a couple of quarters ago.

If you would see sequentially this quarter, other than the impact of the labor code, costs would have actually come down marginally on an absolute basis. I think we will work towards maximizing the PPOP and not really cutting costs per se, but definitely leveraging it as well as we can.

Of course one thing you said, as far as the labor code is concerned, what we have accounted for is really the additional estimates of liability as they stand today. On an ongoing basis for all companies and banks, the code will marginally increase the recurring operating costs, but that's something we'll have to just absorb as we go forward.

Got it. Yeah.

Thanks, and congratulations, Bakhshi, sir, for the reappointment.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening and thanks for the opportunity. I have a few questions.

One is on the double B segment, and if I look at the growth in the business banking, it has been moderating for quite some time now. We have earlier talked about that this is a conscious kind of a moderation that is showing, while the quality overall remains strong.

How are we looking at this on an incremental basis? Do we now look to relax some filters?

Has the growth rate now bottomed out? Some color around this.

In business banking, we are at it full steam, actually. I think the moderation in the growth rate is really just a function of the base.

Even this quarter on a year-on-year basis, we have grown at 22%, and even the attrition this quarter is close to the attrition we have seen on the corporate side probably. The portfolio in itself now is actually larger than the corporate portfolio, slightly.

I don't think we are holding back, and we believe that there is enough untapped space for us to do. As the portfolio grows, the growth rate will normally moderate, but we don't have any...

the portfolio quality has also held up well. We are quite happy with growing this portfolio.

Okay. Likewise, on the unsecured, Anindya, when you say that growth rates in credit card and PL will get better, do you see this now moving above the overall loan growth, or it will just be a recovery from where we are?

Because we are currently at a very, very muted levels. Some color around this.

I think that will take some time. When overall loan growth is 11 and a half and personal loan is growing at 2%, it would be foolhardy to say that it will cross that level, but we definitely believe it should pick up from these levels.

One on this standard provisioning that has happened, earlier also we have seen this happening in another bank. Just curious to know, are large private banks more vulnerable to this RBI directive?

Whatever led to this directive from the RBI, are large private banks more vulnerable, or you can see some things happening for PSU banks also?

I really can't comment. I think we have to take the observation that has been given to us, comply with it, and resolve it as best as we can.

Great. Thank you so much.

Anindya, just two questions. One is on this no growth in deposits from the savings account side, if you could just comment what's happening there.

Actually over the last two quarters, our growth in the retail savings account, the individual savings account, has continued to be quite strong, adjusted for seasonality. That growth typically is much better in the first and second quarters because the salary accounts see a pickup in terms of year-end payments and so on.

We even in this quarter have seen a pretty strong growth in the retail savings account. Over the last two quarters, we have seen a reduction in balances in what we call the institutional banking savings accounts, which is essentially the government entities, the government schemes or departments that we bank.

There the floats, the amounts have come down in absolute terms, which has resulted in a lower growth or flat on the overall savings. The retail savings continues to do quite well.

In fact, both the retail savings and the retail term, as well as the current account, all have done. We are quite happy with the way they are performing.

On the institutional side has proved a bit of a dampener on the overall numbers. That's not that large a proportion of our deposit base, and hopefully this impact will moderate going forward.

It has been an issue in the last couple of quarters.

Okay. We assume, should we assume that when you say it's not a large proportion, it comes into a double-digit number, or it's lower than that?

I couldn't get that clearly.

When you say the corporate deposits are not a large number, it's more than a double-digit number that we are talking about here?

The institutional savings account would be 10-12% now of our, or definitely around less than 15% of the average savings.

Okay. The second question is this share of this AA and, let's say, the high investment grade, how much are you willing to take it lower as per your internal expectations?

See, I think that we are quite, comfortable with the A family and above. I think that historically those ratings have proved to be reasonably stable, and that is also where we find better risk-adjusted returns.

We are not hung up, particularly on the double-A, triple-A part of it. As I said on the triple-B, we have to do it selective and really look at the counterparty carefully and operate within our limits framework.

Thanks a lot.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question.

Congratulations to Mr. Bakhshi.

My first question is related to that. What is the thought process behind the board seeking a two-year extension as opposed to a full three-year extension?

Because there is nothing holding us back from a regulatory perspective. How should stakeholders read into that?

That's my first question.

I think the board in consultation with the CEO have decided on a two-year appointment. As the current term itself ends in October 2026.

From now till the end of the renewed term is almost three years, and nothing really further to add to that as such.

Fair enough. Just if I can follow up on that, one might read into it that this might be his last term.

That's sort of, that's the sort of signal that comes through. Anything you want to add to that?

I think, as we said, we have three years to go. On a lighter vein, we hopefully address the speculation around October 26th, and I think it's too early to speculate about October 28th.

Okay,

Okay. Thank you, Anindya, very helpful answer.

Second question, this is on the results. On, we saw quarter-on-quarter yield on advances decline of about 21 basis points.

Is this almost entirely the KCC reversal impact?

No, no, no, no.

The KCC impact would have been minimal. Yeah.

No, there would have been multiple things. For example, if you look at the repo cut, which happened in June, while all loans would have repriced, some in July, some in August, and some in September.

The portion which repriced in September would have seen only one month of impact in Q2, and two months of impact, or the full impact in Q3. Similarly, our MCLRs have also come down.

I think we are down by about 75 basis points in this rate cut cycle. That would also have progressively impacted the portfolio as it repriced.

Those would be the larger, those would be equally relevant as far as the yield on advances is concerned.

Fair enough. Thanks, Anindya.

It means the KCC... You always

as we said, just to be clear, to avoid confusion, the RBI observation on standard asset provisioning has no impact on asset classification. On a regular basis, in Q1 and Q3 of every year, we see seasonally higher NPAs on the rural product, which is what leads to the non-accrual, and that has happened this year in Q3, as it happened in Q1, and as it happened in Q3 and Q1 of last year at the normal level.

In addition, of course, we have had this whole repricing impact of the loan book, both the external benchmark-linked book and the MCLR-linked book.

Got that, Anindya. Very clear.

Last question, if I may, on the fees, right? Fee has been, core fee has been sort of soft at 6% YoY.

How should we look at it? Will this pick up when the retail loan growth eventually starts picking up, or is unsecured or credit cards, the number to track?

I think in this quarter, the cards and payments fees has been something which has been a bit of a drag in terms of growth, year-on-year growth in this number. That we hope will pick up.

On the loan growth also should contribute, although a lot of the loan-related fees, the processing fees and so on, are under some competitive pressure. It will, hopefully, we would want to grow this number from here on.

One good thing is that it's an extremely granular number. As we have said, 78% of the fees even in this quarter were from the retail, rural and business banking portfolios, and even the corporate fees are very granular, transaction banking-oriented fees.

Fair enough. Thank you so much.

Congrats on the quarter.

Thank you.

Anindya, what is your LCR this quarter?

126%.

Okay. Post the new April 2026 guidelines, would it go up or go down?

It will be kind of similar.

Flattish kind of a level. Would you want to maintain around current levels LCRs, or what exactly do you guys consider?

is there a normative level?

I think that, we kind of have a certain funding structure, and we maintain a certain amount of liquidity as a cushion, and that results in this number. Can it go up, down, two, three percentage points?

It could. This is, of course, the number that we report is the average for the quarter.

In every month there would be periods when it, for example, goes down to 120 or something like that. At an average level, this is probably an okay level, somewhere about 120 or higher.

We don't have a strict policy on that, but that's where we've been operating.

Okay. My final question is related to this because, if you look at on a YoY basis, deposit growth has lagged loan growth.

We have seen a rising LDR. Is LDR a constraint, or is just a mere outcome, as long as we maintain all these ratios intact?

Even if it goes up, it doesn't matter for the management or the board? Is that the way we should look at it?

See, LDR is a function of what is the liability structure on the balance sheet, and banks with higher capital ratios, higher capital levels, higher net worth as a proportion of loans can afford a higher LDR. It's also a function of the regulatory preemption.

This quarter, I think for the entire system, and for us and most banks, the LDR would have gone up because of the CRR cut. I think given the current level of capital that we hold and the regulatory requirements of liquidity, this is an okay level.

I don't see it going up from here. It can moderate marginally, but we are quite comfortable at this level.

In terms of our funding side, as we always say, we want to maximize the retail deposits, including CASA. Then we look at the different types of wholesale funding available, which could be refinance, bonds, wholesale deposits, and so on.

Our reliance on wholesale deposits is pretty moderate.

Thank you. Clear.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for joining us on a Saturday evening, and we'll be available to take other questions. Thank you.