To all my analyst friend here, just to introduce the management team, I am D. Chand, MD and CEO, Bank of Baroda.

With me, we have Mr. Lalit Tyagi.

He is the Executive Director looking after Corporate Credit, International Banking, and Treasury. With him, Mr.

Sanjay Mudaliar, he is the Executive Director. He looks after the IT function and more importantly the retail asset of the bank.

We have Mr. Lal Singh.

He is Executive Director. He looks after HR function, recovery function, and also the MSME vertical of the bank.

We have Madam Beena Vaheed. She is Executive Director, looks after the control and assurance function and more importantly the retail liability function of the bank.

We have the CFO, Mr. Sridhar, who have joined earlier also, he's joined with you.

With this, I would request the CFO to make a presentation, and then I'll have my quick comments, and then we'll go for the question and answer. Over to you, Mr.

Sridhar.

Thank you, MD, sir. Good evening, everyone.

It's my privilege to present before you the financial highlights of Bank of Baroda for the quarter ended 30th June 2026. As at the end of Q1 FY 2027, the bank's global business stood at ₹30.5 lakh crore, registering a YoY growth of 15.4%.

Our global advances have grown by 17.4% YoY, with domestic advances growing at 16.1% and international at 23.3%. Within the advances book, the bank has continued to focus on RAM advances.

Our organic retail book grew by 18.4%, agriculture by 18.7%, and organic MSME by 20.3%. Corporate loans have grown by 15.3% YoY.

Within the retail segment, we have seen smart growth across the portfolio, with education loan at 10.8%, home loan by 14.7%, auto loan by 25.3%, and mortgage loan by 27.4% YoY. Regarding deposit growth, our total deposits have grown by 13.8%, with international deposits growing by 8.9% and domestic by 14.7%.

The domestic CASA deposits have grown by 10%, and term deposits have registered a growth of 17.8% YoY. As of 30th June 2026, the bank's domestic credit-deposit ratio stands at 83.31%.

The CASA ratio stands at 37.72%. With regard to our quarterly profitability metrics, our operating profit for the quarter stands at ₹8,127 crore.

As you're aware, the bank entered into an out-of-court settlement to resolve a legacy litigation issue of NMC Group. The liability of the bank in these proceedings is limited to the sum of $600 million, which was paid on 1st July 2026.

The settlement amount has been debited to the profit and loss account for the quarter ended 30th June 2026. Therefore, our net profit for Q1 FY 2027, after absorbing the impact of the settlement, stands at ₹1,278 crore.

Without the impact of this exceptional item, net profit for the quarter would have been ₹5,528 crore. Return on assets stands at 25 bps.

Excluding the impact of the exceptional item, ROA would have been 1.10%. Return on equity similarly stands at 3.89% for the quarter.

If we don't include the impact of this exceptional item, return on equity would have been 16.57%. With regard to key ratios, our yield on advances stands at 7.37% for the quarter.

Bank's cost of deposits for the quarter stands at 4.66%, reduced by 12 bps on QoQ basis. Our net interest margin stands at 2.77% for the quarter.

Now we come to the asset quality, which continues to remain robust. Our GNPA ratio has improved by 29 bps YoY and stands at 1.99%.

Net NPA ratio is below 1% at 50 bps, an improvement of 10 bps YoY. Our provision coverage ratio, including TWO, is comfortable at 93.28%.

Our slippage ratio for Q1 FY 2027 has reduced by 25 bps YoY and stands at 91 bps. Credit cost for Q1 FY 2027 stands at 29 bps as against 55 bps in Q1 FY 2026.

Coming to our SMA and collection efficiency, our CRILC SMA 1 and 2 are as a percentage of our standard advances reduced to 7 bps as of June '26 as against 40 bps for June 2025. Our collection efficiency excluding agriculture remains robust at 99.2%.

In terms of capital adequacy, our capital position continues to be strong with CET1 at 13.9%, Tier 1 at 14.41%, and CRAR at 16.30%. Our quarterly average LCR remains healthy at approximately 127%.

Thank you. Over to you, MD, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Sridhar.

Again, friends, Mr. Sridhar has said about all the financial numbers.

You better in terms of numbers. Only I'll make a couple of comments here that the bank growth engines are all intact, growing, strongly kicking and rolling also.

The numbers you would have seen that the June quarter numbers has been better than the full year of March. March 2026 for the full year we had a very strong number.

The credit growth in March was 16.2% and June now 17.4%. The deposit growth in March was full year was 12% and now it is 13.8%, and the domestic is almost above 14%.

In terms of the growth engine, the bank's ability to grow has been significantly the capacity it's all performing well rather doing better than the system, I would believe. I will only say asset quality it's the benign asset quality continuing.

The CRILC data, the slippage ratio, you would have seen the collection efficiency is now all-time high at above 99%. I think the asset quality the journey continues.

Marginal in terms of YoY, the GNPA and net NPA it has significantly gone down, but sequentially you would have seen a marginal uptick. That precisely because of the lower denominator, 0.1, and secondly a conservative write-off that we have followed in this quarter as compared to the same quarter last year.

The write-off last year June quarter was almost ₹2,200 crore, here it is ₹625 crore. In that way, the bank's business growth, asset quality continue to be strong, robust, and that something is also getting reflected in the profitability, more particularly on the NII growth, and also on the operating profit.

I will come to net profit later. In terms of guidance, the credit growth we continue to have the same guidance of 12% to 14%, although we are outperforming, but then geopolitical is something that allowing us to be slightly cautious at this point of time.

The deposit growth we again put it at 10% to 12%, same as earlier we articulated. The credit-deposit ratio we wish to operate between 84% to 86% as we carry a significant excess SLR.

The NIM this quarter has been 2.77%, but earlier guidance was 2.75% to 2.95%. We continue to hold the same NIM guidance.

The credit cost this quarter has been 0.29%. It is less than the 0.6 guidance we had given earlier.

The slippage is also at 0.91%, better than the Q1 of last year, and the guidance is 1% to 1.25%, we'll continue to hold that. ROA for last 17, 18 quarters we have been doing ROA in excess of 1%.

This quarter, because of the full impact of the settlement has been taken in June quarter, the ROA is 0.25%, but suppose you exclude that exceptional item, it is at 1.10%. Our ROA guidance will hold on watch now.

Possibly the full-year guidance will give it after we migrate to the next quarter, but at least Q2, Q3, and Q4, we expect the ROA to be more than 1%. Full-year basis, we will give a guidance later.

ROE, we continue to have dipping to 16%. Let me come to the NMC case.

Because of the silent period, we didn't articulate the post our announcement to the exchange on 2nd of July. As the CFO also talked about, we entered into an out-of-court settlement with the joint administrator and the payment of $600 million was made on 1st July and the exchange was notified on 2nd July.

This settlement resolves all the claim. I repeat the settlement resolves all the claim between the parties without any admission of liability or wrongdoings.

The bank liability in this proceeding, both the proceeding, ADGM and also the UK court, is limited to $600 million. The terms of the agreement is confidential because the case is sub judice vis-à-vis other defendants.

The claim against the bank has already been discontinued in both the court. The financial impact has been fully absorbed in June.

We have not touched the floating provision, that's continue to be ₹2,500 crore there in the books. Typically, we are, the ECL migration, we have kept the provision for that.

This brings closer to a very complex and long-standing cross-border dispute which inherently complex in nature involving multiple jurisdictions, different legal systems, and extended legal processes. Commercial settlement are a well-established global practice for achieving certainty and finality in such matters.

The decision to settle the case was taken after careful assessment based on the legal advice, and it is based on the commercial consideration involved, including time, cost, and the uncertainty of prolonged litigation. It's a commercially a prudent decision taken without any admission of liability or wrongdoings.

It allows us to close a legacy matter. I repeat it allows us to close a legacy matter and focus on our customer, stakeholder, and long-term sustainable growth.

You would have seen those numbers in the June quarter itself. The Bank of Baroda remains strong, well-capitalized, and financially a resilient financial institution.

The bank continue to hold the floating provision of ₹2,500 crore, which I said earlier. Our capital adequacy remains very strong, rather in June it has improved vis-à-vis March, a stronger asset quality, and also we have seen the growth momentum across all balance sheet parameters.

We remain committed to highest standards of governance, prudent risk management, and a strong compliance framework across all our operation, both domestic and international. Thank you very much, and we are open to question-answer now.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Ajmera sir.

Sir, even if you take out this out-of-court settlement, this one-time $600 million hit, if you see the quarterly result of June quarter, on most of this parameters, sir, we have little bit faltered because if you see the credit growth, the deposit growth, the business growth, I think after many quarters, it is down then the previous quarter. The settlement may not be a reason for that.

Having said that, even that asset quality you are saying is robust, in this quarter especially you see both our gross NPA and net NPA has gone up in absolute term as well as in the percentage terms because there is no growth. Even the percentage terms also it is higher.

Now CRAR comfortable because you have not done the credit, naturally CRAR and all will be, you say, is comfortable. Sir, on the whole, we are a little bit disappointed.

We have taken the hit. We have agreed.

It may be a very good judgment assessment for from the management point of view. Otherwise if you look at the quarter, because the provisions also reduced to see that the profit is at least there ₹1,278 crore.

Secondly, even if you add this to the settlement, I think some part of settlement amount was anticipated and provided for also in the past. Even otherwise also, the profit would have not have been even equal to the last quarter.

On some of these things, sir, can you clarify that why we have not only muted, but a negative growth in this quarter on many of these fronts? Then going forward, when we say 12% to 14% or I of this credit growth, how do we then will plan to achieve that?

In fact, even the ECL provision, yes, it cannot be touched because ₹2,500 floating is now basically earmarked for ECL provisioning. On that front, what are our plans to take care of the remaining amount of the ECL because the assessment must have been over by now fully?

It's a very broad study. Just we got the result a little late today.

If you can add something to it, because the treasury has added the even that ₹1,278 is also because of the treasury income going up to almost ₹900 crore as compared to only ₹43 crore in the last quarter. Operational-wise, this quarter overall seems to be a little dismal, a little disappointing to me personally.

Ajmera

sir, I'll just tell you, I am also slightly disappointed that, you have not read the numbers particularly. I just tell you why I am saying so I am disappointed.

My credit growth for this quarter is 17.4%. My deposit growth is 13.8% global and international is 14.5%, the domestic is 14.7%.

These are possibly one of the strongest growth not only for the bank itself in all the quarters, but the strongest growth possibly in the industry itself when I'm comparing with the large peers, large peers. The asset quality the CRILC data, the SMA 1 and 2 more than ₹5 crore for the book as a whole consisting of domestic and international from 0.18 it has gone down to 0.07.

The slippages have gone down. A treasury a book of, almost 3 ₹3,70,000 will have some treasury income, and that treasury income is ₹893 crore, which is much less than the same quarter last year of ₹2,200 crore.

I think there is not a single parameter in the balance sheet and profitability other than the net profit which has been shown a declined trend or a lower growth or a lower profitability metrics. These are all very strong numbers.

I would request, honestly request you to please have a relook on the numbers because these are no count in any way any of the number has given any negative vis-à-vis the last quarter. It is one of the strongest performance growth we have in all this quarter.

In terms of profitability, look, we said earlier in one of the earlier conversation I was telling, we cannot make a provision on a settlement case for a specific provision or a litigation case. We buffer the balance sheet floating provision looking at the floating provision of buffer for the ECL impact.

That's why the full impact of the settlement, full impact has been given in this quarter. There is no earlier floating any provision which has helped in terms of negating the impact of the ₹5,680 crore that the impact on this quarter.

On the ECL front, you said right. The GNPA and net NPA, if you compare June over June '25, there is a significant dip.

Sequentially it has gone up because of the denominator, because the overall RWA has gone down because June is typically slightly lower than that of March. Secondly, you just look at one number therein.

The write-off that we had in June 2025 was ₹2,200 crore. We have done a conservative write-off of ₹625 crore, and that's why you are looking at a absolute number of GNPA or NPA slightly higher.

Had we gone for a similar write-off, the number would have been much, much lower. I don't think any count slightly I am disappointed rather in terms of my sincere request would be please have a look.

We'll be happy to further interact to clarify all your doubts. The bank's financial strength, position, balance sheet growth are one of the strongest as on June.

Yes, this exceptional item impact has pulled down the net profit, but again Q2, Q3, Q4, I'm expecting a ROA still above 1%. Full-year ROA guidance will just see in the next quarter, but clearly full year would be may not be exceeding 1%, then we'll give a guidance in the next quarter.

I think the bank is doing well. Thankfully putting your confidence in the bank and analyzing the bank closely, I would happy to interact more with you just to clarify some of the doubts you have.

Anyway,

sir, I stand corrected, sir, because the results had come very late and I couldn't have might have not have been fully understood the numbers as you are explaining. Sir, now when this

I cannot hear you.

Is it over for everyone or you still have a claim on this for any prospects of the On this case you are referring, NMC case? Sir, the case is over for once and for all

or The case as far as the legal in both the courts are all over, but our claim against the principal individual would continue, both in India and outside.

Okay. There are chances of some recovery.

That's why I said the principal individual in this case, that's as per the agreement, we will continue both in India and outside.

Sir. Thank you very much.

Hi, good evening, sir. Thanks for the opportunity.

I actually had six questions, but short ones. The first one is on the duration of the investment book.

The question here is that the duration on the investment book has gone up both sharply QoQ and YoY, curious to understand the thought process in the context that the next potential rate action by the central bank could be a rate hike, not imminent but eventually. While the increasing duration aids the coupons right now, but in the future, it can result in MTM losses.

Just wanted to understand the thought process there. That's the first question.

Okay.

Duration has gone up typically, you would have seen this quarter the peak yield was almost at 7.13%, 7.14%, I believe. Obviously at a higher yield, the bank would like to have bit of, what do you can say, investment over there just to take upside of the yield movement, and precisely that is the reason why the book also would have seen an increase.

This book has been spread out in three component: AFS, HTM, and also the HFT. If you look at this component therein and the yield has now moved down to 6.75% or 6.80% kind of a level, you could have anticipate the upside on those investment which were made at a higher yield.

At the same time, we have positioned in terms of all the three books in a manner where any impact of a rate hike consequent to the yield going up, the bank is, adequately protected in that count. It's a very prudent decision to add bit of duration just to take advantage of the rate movement, and which has come right for the bank in terms of the subsequent yield movement, but any rate upward movement, then we'll be absolutely preparing in terms of how do you manage the duration therein.

Got it. Understood, sir.

The second question, happy to see that you have degrown your corporate loans by 7% and still the overall loan growth is strong. Could you talk a bit more about the competitive intensity in the corporate loan segment and also if you were able to shift some of the customers from the T-bill to MCLR rate in the quarter as you were mentioning last quarter?

You are right on the corporate loan growth has been very strong, but YTD there is a, that is the only component in the advanced book you would have seen there is a bit of degrowth. Otherwise, sequentially all the advance book, whether it is agri, retail, MSME, there is a YTD positive, right?

Rightly so, that is based on a strategy wherein we wanted that in the corporate book itself the non-MCLR linked, which can be any benchmark linked, considering the elevated cost structure on the deposit side, we're trying to move them upward in that way. That precisely resulted into let go some of the very fine price assets.

You are right on that. That strategy is bang on that, taking advantage of the change in interest rate structure in the industry and moving bit of non-MCLR book into be it a MCLR or near to MCLR book in that way, right?

Got it, sir. The third question is on commission and exchange brokerage fee income.

It is down almost 47% YoY, not looking QoQ given the seasonality, but even YoY it's down. What is dragging that down?

That's one element actually we need to optimize that. We need to focus more.

Somewhere on our, the pricing strategy on the commission exchange, we need to because somewhere sometimes we see on a higher growth on the advance book, then you let go a couple of at a lower processing, lower yeah. These are all overall all-in yield concept, right?

In terms of overall yield that you get from of those accounts. You're right, this is one element we need to focus more in the coming quarters.

Got it. The next one is on the revaluation of investment gain of about ₹365 crore this quarter.

Could you just provide some more color on that? What was that?

It's typically because of the yield movement that happened, no? Because then when you compare the March over the June closing vis-à-vis March, the yields were lower.

That was the reason why there is a bit of a write-back that is possible on that.

Okay. The second-last question is, sir, you did mention that write-offs were lower in this quarter versus the last quarter last year, but did mention it's conservative.

If the write-offs were higher, we would have seen even higher provisions in this quarter and the credit cost, right? I do understand that the GNPA, NNPA ratio going up because of lower write-offs, but should one expect the write-offs to be higher in the coming quarter and consequently higher credit cost?

No, look, the write-off book is a book which is fully provided, 100% provided, right? Then out of the kitty, then you decide to based on write-off, technical write-off, not the actual write-off, don't get confused with that, depending upon, the ability to get recovery of this money within a time frame.

This is all the banks would have seen this as an element in terms of finally impacting the GNPA and net NPA. This quarter we have done a conservative write-off.

Write-off won't increase your provision. Write-off rather would your PCR it impacts in terms of lowering the PCR rather the other way.

We wanted to protect the provision coverage ratio, and that's why we have gone for a conservative write-off that slightly marginally elevated the GNPA and net NPA on a sequential basis, although our GNPA, NPA in the system if you compare, this is one of the good number to have, and that has seen a significant fall from the GNPA and net NPA of the June 2025. In that way, I think it's a prudent management.

What comfort you should take out of the book as on today, as we speak, that the SMA, CRILC data has seeing a significant fall, from 18 bps it has gone down to 7 bps. The collection efficiency excluding agriculture, which was at 98.9%, it has gone past 99% now.

In terms of slippages that we have seen for this quarter, it is lower than the June quarter slippage because you can't compare with March because March is always a different quarter, productive quarter. The recovery, if you combine the recovery of NPA and the TWO, that amount is also higher than that of the June last year.

In terms of asset quality story, I think things are quite, the strong and the quality issue is something very benign in terms of the asset quality issue. As on today on the books, we do not see slightly when we last interacted possibly we mindful of the geopolitical impact on the books, but rightly the government came out with the ECLGS, particularly the segment of MSME has been protected well now.

In that way, we don't see any numbers at this point of time which talks about a stress in the book which is higher than that of the last quarter. The stress in the book, which is normally at a minimum level and which is comparable with rather lower than that of last quarter.

Fair enough, sir. Then that's my last question is on FCNR.

If you could just talk about how much of the funds you have already mobilized, what is your target, and more importantly, if you provide self-leverage on your balance sheet, how does that impact your margins, NII, and PAT? Margins may potentially go down, but it aids your NII, PAT.

Just your thoughts on how it impacts your different financials as well. Thank you.

That's all from me.

Tyagi sir, can you quickly take this last question? Yeah.

Thank you, sir. On FCNR(B), up till now, we have raised in excess of $600 million.

In terms of providing the facilities to the NRI depositors against their deposit, we are facilitating them with the loan against their FCNR(B) deposit. Apart from this, the normal NRI deposit flows are also there where the depositors are not opting for the loan against the deposit.

We aim to get into the total flows of in excess of $4 to $5 billion, ballpark figure of $5 billion, which comprises of all three components: FCNR(B), RFC, and ECB roots also.

Got it. Sir, how would you think about this FCNR impacting, how does that flow through in your margins and PAT?

Because the self-leverage when you provide would be at a lower spread, does that dilute your NIM in the near term, and then, of course, as you deploy all of those funds, it flows down into your NII, PAT? How to think about that?

MD sir, if I can take?

No. Tyagi sir, please take it.

Yeah. In terms of the Indian book, the deposit rupee deposit cost of this FCNR(B) deposit is quite competitive.

We are offering the rupee deposit rate around 6.5%, 6.4%, and this will be our landed cost for the rupee resources. When the NRI depositors take loan against the deposit at the overseas jurisdiction, they are provided by the overseas branches according to their own cost of fund, thus resulting into leaving margins at that end also.

At both the ends, the business is resulting into the margins.

Am I audible?

Kunal.

Yeah. Few questions.

Firstly, on this entire NMC case, in fact, in terms of the disclosure, even in the annual report, we just indicated that this case is pending, but in terms of the liability amount, given that it was so huge at almost 600-odd million, why there was no indication in terms of the liability which can accrue to us even closer to the settlement of the case? If you can just highlight in terms of what actually has been the nature of the transaction.

Is it obviously this is not the lending one, this is something related to the trade finance, and finally maybe there was some fraud and our Abu Dhabi branch has been maybe it has maybe people have said that's involved into it. If you can just highlight the nature of this entire case that is leading to this kind of a liability.

You mentioned that out-of-the-court settlement was better in terms of the time, quantum, everything involved. Would the liability have been much, much higher, okay, maybe had this not been settled out of the court?

That's the first question. The second question is again on ECL.

Was there on fee income, was there any write-back on account of this? Was any fee returned back or something which is leading to the decline over there, anything related to this particular transaction or not really?

That's the second question. On ECL, maybe last time also you had indicated some impact, but has there been any change in that after having gone through in detail, any change in the ECL quantum?

Margins on the core basis if we look at it, we have seen yield on advances falling lower than that of cost of deposits. Can we say that the core margins have behaved better, and was there any interest on IT refund during the quarter?

Kunal, coming to the NMC case, the nature of transaction, as I said in my statement, it's a confidential agreement and the case is still sub judice as far as the other defendants are concerned, I'm afraid that we cannot articulate anything on the matter. In terms of the annual report and the settlement that you talked about, annual report was based on the position as that point of time.

The case has gone for advanced trial post March, and the settlement has been done vis-à-vis the court litigation process both for the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court and also the UK Court based on a commercially prudent decision as advised by the legal council on the matter. As you know that the best of global legal firms were engaged by the bank, similarly the global individual also has a legal counsel therein.

That's a prudent call, but in terms of your query with regard to the case details, I'm afraid I'll be in a position to anything articulate at this point of time. A legacy overhang issue were able to resolve that, and believe there are two issues here.

The underlying cause of the issue is the overseas jurisdiction. The payment has been made out of the overseas jurisdiction dipping into their own resources.

The domestic book is insulated out of this. The legal framework, the legal processes, these are different country to country, we need to be sensitive on those.

In terms of the fee income, the fee income is a composite of many factors. There are income out of that, there are expenditure out of that.

When a book growth has been very significant, you can't load everything to the customer. Typically globally also many of the case in the advanced portfolio look into all-in cost, all-in yield.

These are the factors that impacted the fee income, and we are trying to again we said that this is one element we need to look into to optimize. ECL impact earlier I said the impact would be 125 bps minus a pull-back of 50, but both the final guidelines have been issued.

The pull-back is now almost like 15 bps, the impact of the ECL would be almost 110 bps on the CRAR, translating into something around ₹12,000 crore. We have the ECL provision floating provision of roughly ₹2,500 crore, the balance to be spread over.

We have a strong although the CRAR is adequate, we have a strong capital raise plan. I think the migration would be smooth, seamless.

The core income part of the that is what I am telling, in spite of this condition, when you look into multiple banks the financial result, the NII growth is at 9.5%. We're able to optimize both in terms of the earning potential of the book at the same time the expanded interest expended part of the book.

Obviously that has not translated into operating profit because of the lower fee income, but at the same time, the net profit has been impacted because the cost of the full settlement has been impacted this year. You may come say that why the provision was not held earlier.

As per the legal advice, on a case which is under litigation and negotiation, you can't have a specific provision there, right? These are the I think I answered all your query.

Any further query, you can raise it before us, we will clarify to you.

Sir, on IT refund?

IT refund, this it is something around 300-odd crore, I believe. CFO, what's the number?

Yes, sir. ₹375

crore.

Yeah.

Thanks. That answers all the question.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Kunal.

Thank you, sir. Sir, just taking ahead Kunal's question, just one simple question right on the NMC case.

Why were we a why did we have to settle? I believe we would be a creditor, right, unless we had given a guarantee or something.

Just a simple question out there. Secondly, I understand core margins sequentially would have gone up, right, adjusted for interest on IT refund.

That's number two. Third, if you can just quantify the one-time impact in your staff cost, seems to be up by about 20-odd percent sequentially, right?

Lastly the

Yeah.

This one, please go ahead. Lastly, sir, you did quantify about the one-time impact on capital of about 100 basis points.

What would be the sustainable impact due to ECL, right? One would be the one-time transition.

What would be the sustainable impact? Those are my questions.

NMC case, Gaurav, you have to differentiate the credit engagement and the case itself, right? The settlement has been done based on the case, the case that was going on against the bank in Abu Dhabi Global Market Court and a similar case which was pending but on hold at the UK Court.

You have to differentiate the credit engagement and this the litigation that was going on. The settlement has been done based on the advanced trial nature of the court, based on the legal advice to clear a overhang which was there for long, and again it's a dated case, right, dated overhang.

Core margin last time also when we had a 2.83% or 84%, I believe, on the NIM, I guided the market at 2.75% to 2.95%, meaning thereby there would be margin is under pressure. In spite of the fact that the NII has increased by 9.5%, obviously the average asset has increased higher than that, impacting the core margin to 2.77% on that.

The one-time impact on the ECL is a impact of 110 bps, which can be spread over as per the amortization plan therein. Per-year impact can be something around 20, 22 bps, and we have a huge capital plan.

As on today, we are highly capitalized, there is no impact on that. Staff cost has gone up.

In fact, this vis-à-vis March, but if you look at the staff cost compared to the June, it is below that level. Over March is because of the AS 15 provision, which again tracks the yield movement.

In that way, that is the staff cost, otherwise we have a good control on the operating expenses. The operating expenses is contained, rather it is flat to negative.

The staff cost is also contained. the increase that you are looking at the staff cost in June over March is precisely because of your AS 15 provision, which is tracking the yield movement, right?

How much would that be? Can you quantify the AS 15 amount, the one-time impact?

I don't have data. Either Madam Beena or CFO, you have data, you can, otherwise you can share it.

Madam Beena? Sir,

we'll share the data, sir.

We'll share the data. Okay.

Yeah. That is it from mine.

Thank you.

Okay.

Gaurav, thank you very much. At least I got one congratulation now.

In terms of equity, I just tell you before I hand it over to Mudaliar sir on the IT budget. Equity, we have already announced earlier.

It was we intend to raise ₹8,500 crore of equity over a medium-term outlook that's ending up to March 2028. Currently as on today, 16.3%, I do not feel there is a immediate requirement, but since the bank is growing strongly because 16%, 17% advance growth is something sustaining that on the capital fund is difficult, bank may raise capital, but that will depend upon the timing of that our equity raise and the price at which we can raise the market, right?

That's what. On the IT budget, Mudaliar sir, can you just take this question?

Yeah.

Thank you, sir. The IT budget is currently what we are having both opex and capex put together is in excess of ₹4,000 crore.

Yeah.

Hi. Good evening, sir, and congratulations on a steady quarter barring the NMC thing.

Sir, on NMC, I wanted to check have you internally fixed any responsibility, any disciplinary action sort of a thing now that the matter is closed from your end?

Okay. Thanks, Jai, for congratulation.

I think the bank had a strong quarter, and you appreciated that well. On the NMC, look, for any staff side, every bank, we are a government-owned bank, it has its own processes in terms of how do you take through all these accountability issue.

In line with the guidelines that we have in place, we are a government-owned bank, again I repeat, whatever required to be done in terms of the staff responsibility, anything either would have been done or is going to be done, in that way, right? That's internal to the bank in terms of how do you look at this issue.

Currently we have resolved a large overhang, legal overhang, which was going on for long, and we need to see the settlement vis-à-vis the court process itself rather than any creditor or any other relationship for that. In terms of our claim against the principal individual will continue even if after the settlement, right?

That's a point I want to

mention. Sure, sir.

Second is around the ECL. Now if I heard you correctly, you said that the total transitional impact will be around 1.1% of RWA.

If I remember correctly, then earlier it was a slightly lower amount, right, 0.6%, 0.7%. Of course, at that time maybe the guidelines were draft and now you have the final guidelines.

Still if you can elaborate, sir, this is only for credit or, there is something else on investment or any other heads there, or this is purely credit-related provisions?

Actually earlier maybe prior to the last quarter, I used to say 125 bps is the impact, but there is a pull-back of roughly 50 bps because of the project loan guidelines. The project loan guidelines, when the final guidelines came, the pull-back was not 50, it was something around 15, 20 bps.

In that way, the net impact is 110 bps now the calculation, the guidelines has been issued. The banks are trying to migrate to the new framework as early as possible so that we can have a parallel run.

The impact that we see one-time is 110 bps, which can be spread over as allowed in the guidelines itself. You have this ECL or any other question you had?

I just missed it out, Jai.

No, sir. That was it on ECL.

Secondly, sir, on gold loan, right? QoQ there is a dip in both retail gold as well as agri gold.

Of course, there were new rules which had come in, but any color there? Is this conscious or you are seeing any changes in internal policies, etc., to have such kind of a gold loan growth on a QoQ basis?

No. Actually, there are two heads in the advances you would have seen: gold loan and the corporate loans slightly there is a YTD negative, whereas remaining all is YTD positive.

This is typically seasonal in terms of demand scenario, right? Particularly in the corporate loan book, we see either we allow some of the fine price asset to go or there is a inflow coming because of the corporate is having now getting cash because of all these release of their payment from different agency or different company.

It's typical seasonal, there is no strategy therein. We are growing at the same pace at which the gold and the book in terms of the asset quality continue to be strong, absolutely we intend to grow in this segment.

Sir, I was talking about gold loan. Corporate I understand.

No,

I would have seen the element of gold loan and also corporate. Sometimes these are seasonal in terms of because normally June is a slack season, no?

In that way, these are seasonal. There is no strategy change in terms of slowing down or anything, that is what the point.

The gold loan also will continue to grow in the same manner and the asset quality looks quite, quite okay at this point of time.

Okay. Just to come back on ECL question, sir, this 125, 1 110 bps, in fact, again, is this gross or, if you can just elaborate if you are deducting, let us say, Stage 3 provisions because you have a very strong PCR or, are you deducting any HTM or any sort of a gains that you have or is this number 110 the net number of gross number?

I understand this 15 bps of project loan.

I tell you the I'll give you the absolute impact on this. The net impact on the absolute is roughly around ₹12,000 crore, right?

On ₹12,000 crore, we are holding floating provision to the extent of ₹2,500 crore, almost a ₹9,500 to ₹10,000 crore you have to really give the impact on the capital, and that is spread over as per the amortized time.

Sure, sir. Last question, sir, on LCR.

Last quarter was our LCR was also 127%, this quarter is also stable. During the quarter, we had LCR release you would have had from bulk deposits and some of the non-financial corporates.

Any thoughts why did we not sort of see the LCR going up like other banks? Thank you.

No, actually see on liquidity, solvency front, we need to maintain LCR. Actually that is what we can't maintain a very high LCR because then that would drag on your income and the yield.

Earlier also I said we want to maintain at 120% kind of a level. It's not that we can go up because of the bulk issue, but then we need to manage the book in a manner where the LCR maintains around 120%.

There is no other strategy on that.

Right. Sir, after this guideline, you can actually borrow more from more on bulk, right?

Because we have this problem of quarter Q1 corporate growth, corporate book growing, de-growing and then you take advantage of bulk and then you grow corporate again. This new guidelines, does this help or is kind of neutral for some corporate growth?

What is the new guidelines you're referring, which one?

Sir, on bulk deposits, now you have a lower run-off, right? You can actually Run-off factor, you mean to say.

No,

overall actually, look, we can manage. As long as we maintain 120%, we have absolutely internal threshold is okay as far as 120%, right?

Lower run-off would help, but bulk has again there are two factors. Bulk is also price sensitive, you must understand that, and it moves quite frequently along with the market change, right?

We need to have a trade-off actually. Bulk as a component of the overall domestic deposit, we want to maintain that level.

If our entire deposit is growing, then you need to maintain bulk at a certain percentage. It's a overall issue both maintaining the interest side of it and also the liquidity side of it.

The run-off is definitely going to help the LCR. We have grown on bulk actually, in case you would have seen.

The bulk is now almost bulk and CD together, it is ₹2,31,000. Out of that, the bulk is at ₹2,11,000 and the CD at ₹1,06,000.

In that way, we have grown on those segment. Then LCR will be maintaining almost 120% on this matter.

Sure, sir. Thank you and thanks, sir, for answering all these questions.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you so much. Congratulations on the quarter.

Sir, firstly on the interest on IT refund, just a data-keeping question. What is that number this quarter and last

quarter? Hello?

Sir, the interest on IT refund, what was the number for this quarter and last quarter? First that question.

I think, CFO, can you take this? Sir, you are

This question often we are getting from the analysts. Earlier also management has articulated that don't see it as a separate line item, it's part of the regular interest income.

Depending on the completion of the assessments, we keep getting these numbers, please consider it as part of regular interest. Sir,

would it suffice to say that the core margins are adjusted for this are stable quarter-on-quarter?

They're stable. That's why the guidance MD sir has given is in line with this.

Sir. Fair enough.

Second question on the ECL, sir. Sir, some of your public sector peers, the run-rate impact they have called out say between 10 to 15 basis points.

Any reason our run-rate impact when you said is 20 to 22 basis points should be higher relative to your peers or are we being conservative?

No, look, actually that based on their book and their calculation, I have not read about other banks what they have said, but I think our numbers are comparable with any other bank on the matter. Rather we hold ₹2,500 crore of floating provision in the books.

Not many banks are holding that provision. In that way, our ability to migrate is much better.

Secondly, when all the factors we look into, the factor is the capital position of the bank as on today, which is almost at 16.3%, and we do have a plan to raise capital. The impact on the credit cost side that you are referring, we are also at the same range of 15 to 20 bps on the credit cost.

We are very clearly articulating the impact both on the CRAR and also on the credit cost, and I think these are consistent. The only statement which I made sometime back earlier couple of quarters is a there was a project loan provisioning draft guidelines was giving a pull-back of almost 50 bps.

That's not going to happen this time. Actually the final guidelines has been issued and the impact is coming for us roughly around 15 to 20 bps in terms of a.

Run-rate I'm not seen other banks, we have a comparison, but I think fairly the numbers are comparable with the market and also fairly based on our books that as on we have as on today. Rather in terms of the asset quality, you would have seen the numbers that we have given in terms of rating and all, it's much better.

Fair enough, sir. Sir, one question again on this ECL.

Sir, see, what I understand the loans are generally priced as say your repo-linked rate, RLLR, plus the base spread plus the cost of risk, right? If the cost of risk is going up because of ECL provisioning, shouldn't that reflect in your lending rates as well, on both your back book as well as your incremental loans?

Which means, sir, shouldn't the pricing take care of the ECL cost? This is something I wanted to understand, sir.

Yeah.

See, there are a couple of guidelines on the retail loan while changing the spread, actually. What is the frequency at which you can change the spread?

A frequency you can change the spread in case there is a creditworthiness deterioration therein or a force majeure kind of thing. The ECL migration and consequent impact on the pricing, we have to take a call based on the regulatory guidelines at that point of time.

Obviously if the cost is coming to the bank, the bank would obviously like to pass on to the customer to maintain the margin. As on today, I can't comment is that pricing the spread we are going to change because of this.

We have to see the regulatory guidelines because there are certain condition at which you can change the spread before that 3 years norms that we have, so that we have to see on that.

There should be, sir, this flexibility you will have on your back book as well?

Obviously, yeah.

Perfect, sir. Very clear.

What is your ability to pass on actually, that's something that also we have to see. Bad book in the sense you are talking about NPA or

No, your the loans you have already given out. There you can increase the spread, the loans that you have already given out on your existing book.

Yeah. Absolutely.

Perfect, sir. That's what I wanted to understand.

Thank you so much. Congrats on the quarter.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity, sir, and congrats on a good operating quarter. Sir, first question is on the margins.

If I heard correctly, you mentioned last quarter core NIMs were around 2.83 or 82 and which has come down to 2.77. Is that correct or did I misunderstand something?

If that is correct, sir, then the

Last quarter the NIM was higher than 2.77, the 2.8. Actually at that time itself, I had given a guidance of 2.75.

See,

look, in terms of the pricing of asset-liability, the NII growth tells you about the pricing of asset-liability that we have prudently managed. Obviously the asset growth has been higher so that the NIM getting impacted, right?

In terms of the core NIM and look, we run a higher international book, and the international we operate at a much lower margin of 1.4% or 1.5% therein. Now it has improved slightly.

The domestic NIM more particularly, it is at 2.93% in excess of 2.90%. When I talk about the domestic NIM or even the global NIM, you would have made comparison across many of the banks.

In that way, we again say it's a top quartile. In that way, we are quite confident that we maintain the margin going forward, and the guidance range continues to be 2.75% to 2.95%.

Sir,

why I was asking is if sequentially if we had, let's say, a small 5, 6 bps contraction in core NIMs, then what gives you the confidence that we can arrest it at 2.77 and not go down below our 2.75 guidance? I'm talking about core NIMs including IT excluding IT refund.

In this, sir, what is giving you more confidence? Is it your actions on the asset yield side or is it the funding cost environment that is looking much better to you to confidently guide for no more decline from here?

Two things you said right. One is on the asset side because last two quarters we're seeing on the pricing on the asset.

I'm talking about non-repo linked loans. It has been slightly we are able to price in better.

Particularly non-MCLR corporate book, we are able to take them to near to MCLR or at MCLR, so that's a upside there in the books already. On the deposit continue to be elevated, but one positive you would have seen that the bulk deposit rates or the CD rates had gone down post the announcement of the FCNR(B) scheme.

In terms of incremental bulk deposit, I think the average cost is now lower than that of March now. Considering those two scenario, but the asset continue to grow faster, actually asset growth of 16%, 17% would put pressure on margin and also on the capital adequacy, which we are managing it well.

Considering those scenario, I think still we are upbeat that we'll be in a position to hold on to 2.75%

to 2.95%. Sir.

Sir, second question was on ECL. There is a bit of confusion.

In the previous answer, you mentioned 15 to 20 bps, whereas I think before that it was 20 to 22 bps. Which of the two numbers is the correct number, sir?

What the steady-state impact, is it 15 to 20 or 20 to 22?

Look, there are two impacts. I think I would ask one of the ED to support me, possibly I'm not clarifying well.

The overall impact is 110 bps on the CRAR, so that is going to spread over. In case you spread it over 4 years or 5 years in whichever manner we'll decide, that is 20, 22 bps is the impact on the CRAR.

There is a impact on the credit cost. Credit cost earlier we talked about around 15, 20 bps impact on the credit cost.

Again, computation of the credit cost is going to be evolving rather than the impact on the CRAR because CRAR you know the book has been frozen, right? Credit cost would evolve with regard to the fresh flow of book happening after 1st April 2026.

As on today as we speak, the impact can be 15 to 20 bps slightly in those range. Madam Beena, anything you want to support because Sir,

if this is the case, sir, how do we then continue with 1% ROA if there's a 20 bps impact on our steady-state credit cost?

Obviously, I don't know you were asking or somebody was asking after ECL whether you are going to price in asset in a manner which pass on the ECL cost, right? So

That would have to be an industry move, right? That will have to be an industry move, right?

It has to be. It has to be, obviously.

Madam Beena, anything you want to support on the ECL slightly to make

No, sir. It will be roughly between 15% to 20%.

What you said is

something

Okay. Thank you, sir, and congrats once again for a good operating quarter.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to thank all the participants for joining us today for the announcement and discussion of our financial results. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me or my Investor Relations team.

Thank you once again for your time and continued support. Have a great evening ahead and weekend.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.