IIFL Finance Ltd
NSE:IIFL
Earnings Call Analysis
Q3-2024 Analysis
IIFL Finance Ltd
IIFL Finance Limited reported a significant leap in its financial metrics for the third quarter of FY '24. The profit after tax soared by 29% year-on-year to INR 545 crore. Ensuring robust operations, the pre-provision operating profit also climbed 28% from the previous year, indicating effective cost management and operational efficiency.
The consolidated loan assets under management (AUM) witnessed a remarkable year-on-year growth of 34%, reaching INR 77,444 crore, with a special emphasis on the company's core products like gold loans, home loans, microfinance, and digital loans, which collectively grew by 35%. These core segments now constitute a formidable 96% of the total AUM, spotlighting the company's focus on its key business strengths.
The company's gross non-performing assets (NPA) remained below the previously provided guidance of 2%, demonstrating a disciplined credit approach with a low gross NPA rate of 1.7%. Provision coverage for NPAs stood at an impressive 151%, underlining IIFL Finance's prudent risk management practices.
Aligning with its capital optimization strategy, IIFL has been effectively utilizing assignments and co-lending models, which now represent 39% of the total AUM. The assigned loan book witnessed a growth of 17% and the co-lending assets increased notably by 103% year-on-year, a clear signal of the company's strategic focus on leveraging partnerships and alternative lending avenues.
Despite significant shifts in the market lending rates, IIFL Finance maintained a stable cost of borrowing. The average rose year-on-year by a small 28 basis points but remained largely unchanged quarter-on-quarter. This stability reflects the company's strong treasury management capabilities in a fluctuating rate scenario.
The company fortified its liquidity position with INR 10,081 crores in cash and credit lines, highlighting strong financial health and preparedness to support its future growth strategy while comfortably managing near-term obligations and funding the ongoing expansion for the upcoming quarter.
Investors can be pleased with the robust return on equity (ROE) at 19.7% and a stable return on assets (ROA) of 3.8%. The earnings per share (EPS) also grew by a notable 29% year-on-year, which points to the company's profitability and efficient use of shareholder funds. IIFL Finance stands well-capitalized with a capital adequacy ratio of 19.6%, which is above the regulatory requirement, ensuring a solid foundation for future growth and operational requirements.
Looking ahead, the company expresses confidence in the economic environment, predicting a downward trend in interest rates later in the year. With strong economic growth and political stability driving capital flow, particularly into equity markets, IIFL Finance is well-positioned to leverage these macroeconomic tailwinds. Additionally, the firm anticipates notable improvements in the affordable housing segment, signaling potential areas for growth and expansion.
IIFL Finance has strategically opened branches in smaller locations where it can command slightly better yields. Asserting its ability to adjust pricing to suit different markets, the company is aligning its yields back to normal levels, reflecting adaptability and thoughtful market strategy in its operational approach.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Ladies and gentlemen, good day, and welcome to IIFL Finance Limited Q3 FY '24 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this conference is being recorded. I'll now hand the conference over to Mr. Kapish Jain, CFO, IIFL Finance Limited. Thank you, and over to you, sir.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. It's a pleasure having all of you here and wishing all of you a very, very Happy New Year. And on that note, I would like to just update you on for the quarter 3 of fiscal '24. So for the quarter, IIFL Finance, at a consolidated level, reported a profit after tax before noncontrolling interest of INR 545 crore, up 29% on a Y-o-Y basis and up 4% on a quarter-on-quarter basis. We recorded pre-provision operating profit of INR 960 crore, up 28% Y-o-Y and up 4% on a Q-on-Q basis. For the quarter, our consolidated loan AUM grew by 34% on a Y-o-Y basis and 6% on a quarter-on-quarter basis at -- to INR 77,444 crore. If I further dissect the AUM and concentrate on our core products, which is driven by gold, home, microfinance and the digital loan, there, we grew by around 35% and 6% quarter-on-quarter to around INR 74,066 crores (sic) [ INR 73,066 ]. This segment now comprises 96% of our total AUM, and we also crossed a key milestone in our housing company of an AUM of around INR 25,000 crore at a -- for the firm. Our gross NPA is below the guidance that we gave of 2%, which stands at around 1.7%, a shade lower than what we reported last time. And also, our net NPA now stands at around 0.09%, which is significantly lower by around 36 basis point and 20 basis point, respectively, when we compare the same to the same period last year. With the implementation of the expected credit loss under Ind AS, provision coverage on NPAs stands at 151%. Now, in line with our capital optimization strategy, and we've been considerably following that, our AUM under the assigned or the co-lending portfolio stands at around 39% of the total AUM. And going forward, we will see a larger share of co-lending emerging in this number. The assigned loan book stands at around INR 18,648 crores, up by 17% and 1% on a Q-on-Q basis. Besides this, there are co-lending assets of around INR 11,586 crores, which is smartly up by 103% Y-o-Y and 10% on a Q-on-Q basis. Our quarterly average cost of borrowing increased by 28 basis point Y-o-Y, in spite of the big change that you saw both in terms of MCLRs and the repo rates. And on a quarter-on-quarter basis, it's marginally flat, down by around 4% to 9.07% -- sorry, up by around 4 basis points. A brief update on our liquidity. Now during the quarter, we raised INR 5,046 crore through term loans, bonds, refinance and around INR 3,976 crore was raised through direct assignment of loans. So the key highlights of the fundraise that we did in this quarter was around JPY 7.5 billion, which we raised from Mizuho Bank through the ECB route. And we also raised funds from the U.S. -- from DFCs in the -- for financing affordable housing book. We also closed our first maiden public issue of NCDs in Samasta, which was subscribed by over 2x. So our cash and cash equivalent and committed credit lines from banks and institutions aggregates around INR 10,081 crores, which is adequate for us to meet not just our near-term liabilities, but also to fund our growth momentum coming for quarter 4 as well. We are positive on our ALM across every bucket and exceed the expectation of outflows around them. And we've also -- our net gearing also shade low at around 3.3, which is in line with our capital optimization strategy. Our annualized ROE for the quarter stands at around 19.7%, while the ROA stood strong and stable at around 3.8%. This all translates into a basic earnings per share for the quarter at around INR 12.9, up 29% Y-o-Y and 3% on a quarter-on-quarter basis. From a capital position perspective, we are fairly well capitalized. Our capital adequacy stands at around 19.6% compared to the regulatory requirement of 15%. And for the housing finance company, it's around 45.8%. And for Samasta, it is also at around 24.2%. Our [ CRAR ] well above the threshold as I just mentioned, and which is well supported through the internal accruals and the off-book as well. With this, I come to an end of the session and now we'll open it for Q&A. And before that, I just hand it over to Nirmal...
Thank you, Kapish. And I think I'll just take a couple of minutes on the macro strategy and then we can have Q&A. So our liquidity has been tight, and that has pushed up interest rates a little bit. But I think the good news is that interest rate is stable and interest rate seem to have peak down from here, this will be trending down maybe the later part of the year -- later part of this calendar year. And -- but on the economy, things are very good. The economy is growing very strongly. And with the political stability in sight for the next 5 years, the flow of capital and the flow of money into equity is also very strong. So we see a spate of IPOs and the capital market is in a good state. But at the same time, the credit demand and the business activity in the MSME sector that we mostly cater 2, 3 different products is good. Affordable home loans and affordable housing growth has been slower in the last calendar year compared to, say, luxury homes, but it looks like that this year it should improve significantly, and the demand already is showing signs of picking up. Maybe with this, probably I open the floor for Q&A, and we can take up more queries there. Thank you.
[Operator Instructions] The first question is from the line of Mona Khetan from Dolat Capital.
So firstly, I just wanted to touch upon the gold yields. We have seen a continuous rise in gold yields, especially over the last 3 quarters. So what is driving that? And do these yields include the entire AUM or are calculated only on an on-book basis?
So gold yield is on entire AUM. And in fact, it's getting back to the normal level because as you'd have seen in the last few quarters, particularly the last year, last quarter and the second half of last quarter, yields were impacted by some cutthroat competition and [indiscernible] which competition had introduced. Also, our newer branches are in smaller locations, where we have a slightly -- and I'll say slightly, not very significantly better yield or better ability to price ourselves. So I think they are getting back to the normal levels and the marginal rise is because of the base, which was lower last year.
Okay. So what is a little contradicting is that on one side, you are seeing the average ticket size increasing, and on the other side, typically, when the ticket size is increasing, your yield should come down, but that was increasing, so just wanted to understand that.
So Mona, ticket size increase is all gold price related. So I would say that broadly what has happened is that gold prices have gone up. And for the same quantum of gold, people are able to borrow a little more. And I mean, adjusted for inflation, so there will always be a certain rise year after year, which is more inflationary. But other than I mean -- still our gold price ticket size at INR 70,000, INR 75,000 is very low.
Got it. And when we look at this 19% yield, is it for the entire 9-month period or this Q3 because the charts are not very clear, we see both kinds of charts?
Okay. This is for the 9 months, yes.
Okay. So from a Q3 perspective, the rise is actually more than 50 bps in that case from Q2 to Q3, if I want to understand?
Yes, it will be that in that range, yes.
Okay. And secondly -- yes.
I'll also caution that in Q4, the rate may -- the yield may moderate by a few basis point in the -- this, again, is a little peak quarter in terms of volumes and competition tends to become intense. So what we have seen in the last couple of weeks or last month or so that, again, the competitive pricing pressure is coming by other gold loan companies also.
Sure. And secondly, typically, we had this step-up in yields across gold financials. So just wanted to understand that on average, what percentage of customers, typically delay payments and undergo step-up in yields in your case? And if you could also share what's been the trend, say, pre-COVID and now in this percentage of customers?
So COVID was a little exceptional time period in terms of people needed a lot more loan also, so -- and that is behind us, it's like almost 3 year old. But what you say is that [indiscernible] interest and because people don't pay in time, that is not very significant in our case. It will be around -- I think if you see the -- our stage-wise break up, so 1 to 30, 30 to 90 for gold loans is about 15% in total. So those are the customers where not all but many of them, probably there can be increase in interest rate. So if you see our presentation Slide 13, so you have a stage-wise breakup. In gold loan, you'll see that 85% of people are 0 DPD, they are paying in time. So you won't have any increase in interest rate for them. And the remaining, again, it depends. But in some cases, in that 15% remaining, we can take higher interest.
Got it, sir. That's very useful. And this 15% was it very different pre-COVID, not so COVID, but just wanted to understand pre-COVID?
Again, it's a question of what kind of customers you target, what kind of products you have. So when our many competitors were targeting [ premium ] product, then there was a tendency to increase the rate more aggressively and quicker. But then I think most aggressive players were realized that it doesn't work and customers basically they just reject and they move away from the competition. So the industry practices are maybe also getting aligned a little bit. I really don't have the numbers at what it was pre-COVID. It may be slightly higher, but not very different to my mind.
The next question is from the line of Renish from ICICI.
Congrats on a good set of numbers. Sir, just 2, 3 questions from my side. So one on this -- the entire noise about the unsecured loans, including, let's say, sourcing via digital or fintech partners. And given our digital loans are largely sourced from these fintech partners, plus we do have some, I think, 2-odd percent exposure to person loans. Wherein regulators incrementally it's been very watchful. So do you foresee because of this, there can be a big moderation in our AUM growth or you would like to revisit our growth assumptions in near term?
No, good question. And what we have done is -- so we had a few partners, but now in last quarter itself, as soon as RBI came up with this policy, we have scaled down those partners almost like kind of discontinued with many of them. So today, our personal loan portfolio is around 2%. And last quarter, it degrew, it did not grow actually because whatever old loans are running down because in the middle of the quarter we could break. So it will not have any impact on our AUM growth, one. This 2%, what you are seeing, will also go down now because we are not doing incrementally personal loans. We may do very sporadic, very, very insignificant to our existing customers if need be. Like suppose, I got a home loan customer, I got a customer with good track record, but by and large, this product is discontinued for us. So what you are seeing right now, the portfolio of 2%, which will also go down. So a negligible impact of this on our AUM as well as yield or profitability.
And on digital loans, I mean, digital business loans?
Yes, so digital loans, we are focusing only on business loans. Also, what we are doing is that we started supply chain financing. So there's a company in which our fintech fund is invested and taken a controlling stake, and they had the software and the relationship. So these are short duration loans, but with the dealer or with distributors as some of the companies like FMCG companies and automotive companies we can tie up. So the supply chain or the invoice discounting is 2 months, 3 months or less than 6-month product. Yield is lower, and that will basically fill the gap of whatever digital partner that we earlier had and probably will also help us grow faster. But this will also have a moderating impact on the yield of digital loan. So you'll see that this quarter, there is a bit of a fall because the short-duration loans are at 11% to 13%, 14%, But they are in a way if the anchor dealer is like quality AA or AAA, so they are more like treasury, but so you can price them competitively. So that's how the business got to be involved.
Got it. So you don't foresee even if let's say regulators tomorrow asks this fintech partners to tighten their credit rules, we don't see any AUM growth implication because of...
No, our contribution of fintech partner is negligible and we are also scaling it down. So our strategy and philosophy has always been that we want to do credit underwriting ourselves. So we really don't believe in the FLDG model because you're giving FLDG only when you want your partner to take part of the risk, and that means that you are not doing a full underwriting or you don't have access to the entire data. So that is -- I mean, we had, to a limited extent, this kind of partnership also. But that is not what we are encouraging, and we are discontinuing. Some of the times, you can't discontinue overnight because some of the fintech partners are dependent and you also have earlier portfolio that you need to collect. But strategically, we are not into that business model. So for us, even if digital partnership becomes zero, it hardly impacts me.
Got it. Got it. So I mean, just to summarize, I mean, we are just fine-tuning our model at least as per what regulation wants. I mean, is that...
I've about 38,000 employees on the ground so -- and almost 4,500 branches, including all the subsidiaries. So for us, we exhausted so much in people and branches primarily because we want to source our own loans.
Okay. Got it. Got it. Got it. This is very helpful, sir. Secondly, again, if I look at the stage-wise, product-wise breakup, surprisingly, our LAP stage 1 is the lowest at 83-odd percent. So just wanted to understand, I mean, why is that? And structurally, does this portfolio is actually to behave same way or there is some seasonality into it?
No. Actually, we have tightened our credit policies. And in some of the businesses like microfinance or whatever, we've slowed down the growth, but we want to be a little more stricter on the credit underwriting standards. So I think that is what will be reflected in the stage-wise loans.
Sorry, sir, actually, my question is for a LAP portfolio, wherein I was...
LAP portfolio, okay.
Yes, yes, at 83%. So basically, they're dealing with 17%, 1 plus DPD customer. So I just wanted to get a sense what is happening there?
Because if you see our loan against property is a very small ticket loan against property. So loan against property is a product where you can have typically INR 50,000 to INR 50 crores and still everything can be LAP and can be MSME. But our average ticket size of loan against property is about INR 7.9 lakh, which is -- you can imagine that less than INR 10 lakh of property loan. And there actually -- okay, this is a product where collections were also done physically. So typically, you can have a little higher than the normal larger LAP in the stage 1 and stage 2, but they get collected. So our experience of this product has been fairly good.
Got it. Got it. Got it. So basically...
INR 7 lakh, INR 8 lakh of LAP loans and they will be in Tier 3, in Tier 4 towns, the self-occupied residential property. That is how incrementally we have built this business.
Got it. Got it. So -- I mean, do you see this proportion normalizing to 90-odd percent or this will continue to remain this way only?
I think this will continue like this if you have to maintain the yield. Because see, if you see our LAP yield, it's around -- see, okay, there's always compromise in yields. So we are getting 18% yield, around 18%. So you can do a LAP at 11%, 12% and have a very high quality of assets. But for our kind of yield, I think it will remain broadly in the similar range.
Got it. Got it. Got it, sir. And sir, just if I may, last question from my side on the microfinance yield side. So again, regulatory yields, various commentary has been mentioning about MFI lending rates to be on the higher side. So any risk we foresee? I mean directionally MFI yield should come down or we'll be able to sustain at current level?
So maybe they will come down by around 50 basis points in the next few quarters for us as a [ slow moto ] this thing. But what is happening in MFI, they are very small MFIs who are charging even 28% and more. And I think that should be there on the RBI's mind when they are talking about this. Because for the cost structure that is there in MFI, even many banks in the subsidiaries charge interest rates similar to what we are charging.
Yes, yes. Got it. Got it.
But still I think we would like to say that the yield may come down by 50 basis points over the next few quarters.
The next question is from the line of Shubhranshu Mishra from PhillipCapital.
So the first question is on the housing loans. Given the fact that the CLSS terms over, are we expecting any kind of revamp or relaunch of CLSS with a new name or another CLSS move every current in budget? That's the first on housing because it has had an impact on supply of affordable housing. Second is on the gold loans. If you can spell out what's the top 50 branches contribute in terms of disbursement and the yield and top 100 branches, just want to understand the concentration there in terms of disbursement as well as area. Also, what sort of LTVs are we working with in gold loans in this quarter or in the last 2-odd quarters with the gold price going up? And my third question is around, again, harping on the digital loans, because given the fact that we are doing business loans, what sort of businesses do we select or maybe what sort of businesses do we reject? I think that would be the question. And if we reject, what would be the key reasons for rejection of those businesses?
So you are saying the businesses we reject for housing loans, you're saying?
Yes, what sort of rejection parameters would we have for...
So maybe I think -- okay, I'll -- I have Monu take the housing loan questions in a minute. Maybe Monu, just why don't you take the housing loan question first.
Yes. Yes. Shubhranshu, so I think your first question was on CLSS, will it be back or not, right? So as per the initial indications, it seems it should be there, but maybe in a new avatar. So we are all expecting that it should be part of the budget, expectedly. Although as far as we are concerned, if you can see our disbursements have been pretty stable and marginally growing as we have had the distribution in place. So I think Shubhranshu, that was your question for CLSS?
Correct. Correct.
Yes. So was there any other follow-up question on HL? I think...
Did you see a supply side squeeze because of the lack of CLSS?
Sorry?
Did you see a supply side squeeze because of the lack of CLSS?
Yes, yes. For sure, especially in the metros and Tier 1s, we do see a lack of supply because of developers not coming out with new supply and also the fact that the mid-segment and the premium segment is doing exceptionally well. So yes, absolutely, there has been a constraint of supply in the metros and the Tier 1s, no doubt about it.
Understood.
Right. Coming back to your gold loan question, I don't have the data handy, but at least because we monitor all the branches, so I don't think there's any concentration as such. So even if you take top 50 or 100 branches in terms of, say, they have double than the average AUM, and I don't think it will be significantly more than that. If you've taken 100 branches or 50 branches, then the -- still it will be less than 5% or 10% of our product portfolio, for sure. So there is not much -- okay, to answer your question is there a concentration in gold loan branches, it's not significant at all.
Understood. Understood. That was helpful. And the part on LTV and because the gold loan -- gold price...
Right. Now LTV, as of now, is around 68%, 69% or so, maybe 75% is a statutory thing, but our LTV would be around a little less than 70% at this point in time.
Which was -- last quarter would have been how much?
Something similar, maybe 1% here and there, not significantly different.
Understood. Understood. And my last question on business loans, what sort of businesses do we reject?
What sort of businesses we reject for which product?
In digital loans, you said that we'll largely do...
Yes, yes. So okay, there's a whole lot of. So first of all, PIN codes that we reject. Then there are many businesses which are like mobile or -- so I think there's a very long list and also it varies from area to area. So every state probably might have a different rejection list also. But typically, mobile phones, restaurants and these businesses we are more careful about. Also, the -- because we do smaller loans, so typically, we don't have jewelers as our customer segment for business loans, so -- because our ticket sizes are smaller. So we are mostly grocery, textile and these kind of products.
Understood. So is it a fair assessment that these would be largely traders and not manufacturers?
Yes. I think largely shopkeepers and traders and very few manufacturers. But there can be a few ancillary units, but bulk of it will be traders and shopkeepers.
The next question is from the line of Abhijit Tibrewal from Motilal Oswal.
Sir, the first one is on microfinance again. I've seen that you've calibrated the growth a little bit, given that we were already growing at a very, very strong clip. So I mean is this, I would say, sequential decline in disbursements that we've seen in this quarter a conscious strategy? Or how should we look at?
No, I think it's a conscious strategy to tighten the credit rules and the amount that we give. So last quarter, as you have noticed, that sequentially disbursements have fallen. But even -- I mean -- so we have still grown by 10% on a quarter-on-quarter basis. So we'll maintain this pace actually, but this is conscious, it's very thought through strategy.
Got it. And sir, where are we tightening things in microfinance because I mean the ticket sizes are largely same...
So what customers we accept and what customers we reject is a key thing. So if the -- like suppose if customer has 3 loans or 2 loans or 1 loan and if the customer give a score now or 15 days or earlier before the settlement, there's a whole lot of criteria that we put in. Venkatesh, you have joined? Venkatesh, no sorry [indiscernible]. So I think the number of criteria that we are trying, Abhijit...
Excuse me, sir, he is available.
Yes. From the zero up, also microfinance customers have their zero data. So I think the policies you can tighten at different levels. And in different states, it works differently. I mean, does this answer your question?
Yes, yes, it does answers my question. Sir, the second question I had, again, on digital loans, you've said already that you have kind of tightened standard fairs, stopped working with a few of the fintech partnerships that we have incrementally, we are not doing personal loans now except as a cross-sell product to other product customers. But sir, I mean, will it be fair to say that, I mean, the lending that we did in the past, let's say, until March '23, there, our onboarding ticket sizes used to be around that 30,000, 40,000. From there, we are continuing to see flows because if I look at it as the gross NPAs and digital loans on an absolute basis, it continues to inch up. And even if you look at the G&P on a lagged basis, 6 months or 1 year, it is only inching up in digital loans.
Yes, you are right, actually. So those are the loans of very small ticket size and some through from fintech partners. So -- but typically those loans are a shorter duration, but we have held the flow from those loans.
Got it. And sir, typically, what are those -- what is the tenure of the loans? By when can that pool of loans, 30,000, 40,000 average ticket size pool run down?
So typically 6 months to 12 months, they run down very soon. I mean, it would run down, but maybe another quarter or so. So I think it would have run down significantly.
Got it. Perfect. And maybe my last question here is on home loans for Monu sir. Sir, just wanted to understand co-lending in home loans, both in forms of, I mean, disbursements or as a percentage of the home loan AUM, and has been on a declining trend for the past few quarters. Is it being done intentionally? Or are banks not too keen on co-lending home loans now?
So in this case, in home loans, as we saw that two things, one, we were sitting on pretty adequate capital, number one, the demand hasn't slowed down really. And also, we have this principal business criteria, which has got kicked in by NHB, which is that we have to have a minimum percentage of individual home loans on the loan book itself. So otherwise -- so we are pretty much very well on the capital and this principal business criteria is just keeping us on track to how much we can put it off book. So otherwise, no other reason for us. We are very consistent, and we see this is a long-term strategy.
Understood...
Abhijit, just to add what he's saying is that the HFC has 3 components, a very small component of construction finance and LAP and the home loans. So banks are very keen to do co-lending of home loan, but if they don't do for other product, then the criteria applies for loans on my books. And there, I have to maintain the home loan percentage to remain HFC. So that is one. But other than that with 45%, 50% capital adequacy, there's no compulsion to do co-lending at existing pace. But we'll still continue to do that because we have a long-term relationship and it's a part of our long-term strategy.
And there's no demand, Abhijit, on the other side.
Yes, yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. And sir, just squeezing in one last question. Sir, I mean, we keep talking about, I mean, retail products, all retail products are doing exceptionally well for you. I mean the wholesale piece that we have in CRE, I wanted to understand how are you thinking about it? I mean, while we keep doing the construction finance in the HFC more from getting more retail home loans. But other wholesale book that you have in the stand-alone entity, are there any plans of running it down, I mean, whatever loans, if at all, they are, I mean, stressed and are there any plans of kind of getting into some ARC transactions and disposing them off in the next 6 to 12 months?
So Abhijit, okay, there are 2 parts to the question. One is construction finance through HFC, which will continue, but typically ticket sizes are small, maybe INR 30 crores to INR 50 crores odd. And there also Monu's preference will be -- and probably consciously we'll look for developers where we can be a priority or a preferred partner to do home loan, so that dovetails into our core business of home loan. Am I right, Monu?
Absolutely, that's what we are doing.
Yes. And then secondly, coming back to the wholesale piece in NBFC. We are looking at -- so what has happened is that in last COVID period, the projects have been delayed. The project's [indiscernible] is good. Touch wood, we don't have any problem with any of the borrower as such. So we are looking at various options. And the option may be not to transfer to ARC as such, but transfer to a different entity or sell down or some of the debt, which we -- as a builder, we convert that to -- maybe get another builder who can take over the loan also as I -- it depends like a sale of the project. So there are certain alternatives we are looking at where we can do a bulk reduction of these loans in the NBFC book. And that will help us restore our capital adequacy also and then again the core strategic focus will remain on the retail that way. Here, we have some alternatives there, but it's still too early and if we have something concrete, then obviously, we'll convey it everybody.
The next question is from the line of Anusha Raheja from Dalal & Broacha.
Congrats on good set of numbers. Sir, firstly, on post RBI increasing the risk weightage, which entity of yours have seen the rise in the borrowing cost? I don't think, sir, it would be for home finance, but MFI and this stand-alone entity?
The borrowing cost impact has been there on all the entities, but yes on HFC less, but there is impact, at least 10 basis point increase you see. So I think the impact, it is there on all the entities. And the interest rates have gone up a little bit, which is there on our Slide 9 -- no, Slide 11, sorry -- no, Slide #12, you will see the rate increase impact.
So how much has been the increase?
So standalone has gone up by 12 basis point. Home finance is flat actually, down by 2 basis point. But what you're saying is right, home finance has been steady. Samasta is up by 11 basis point on a quarter-on-quarter basis.
That would be the blended yields, but incremental rate at which you borrow, how much that...
Up by 50 basis point.
Up by 50 basis point across home finance and...
Home finance, how much is the impact on incremental any idea?
It's hardly any because we have NHB refinance, so incrementally, it's just about 20 bps -- 20 to 25 bps, that's it.
Okay. So other businesses will be 20, 25 basis points, I think that will be the impact.
Because we also expanded our volume basket. We went and raised funds through ECB, from Mizuho Bank, Japan. We're also leveraging the opportune rate funds through the shorter window, which was near 0, which is helping us in addressing the requirement the increases coming on the bank borrowing, which again is around 25, 30 basis points. So in all, the impact on the overall borrowing is ranging between 15, 20 basis point.
Okay. And so do we...
On the incremental side.
Yes, yes. So do we see further rise in the borrowing cost? Or you expect that it will remain at this rate?
I think that now at least, in my personal view, but nobody can have -- but my view is that, I think interest rates seems to have peaked out. So from here, they may remain at elevated level for some time and may come down the later part in this calendar year or from the later. But I think, for next few months, they remain at this level, but they won't go up from here.
So we've got outlook changed last month from CRISIL. Even Samasta entity, I would like to highlight that we have got a rating of AA from India Ratings, which is helping their ability to borrow from wider window as well. And the element of shorter opportunities that we have. All this will help us in keeping our cost of borrowing under tap from an incremental perspective as well.
So CRISIL has upgraded our outlook to AA positive from AA stable. So that -- these things will also -- they're helping us to make sure that we can mitigate the level of interest rate increase in the system. And incrementally, we should look at interest rate coming down after a lag of maybe a quarter.
Okay. And if I just observe on the asset side, I think largely whatever the increase that has happened on the borrowing cost, you have passed it on to the customers, right? So we have seen sequential rise in the lending rates as well. So on a spread basis, I think we are up by around 10 basis point on sequential basis, right? So just one question there. I mean, how much you feel that customers will be able to absorb it and your growth will not be impacted?
So the current yields are fairly normal. So I think it remains [indiscernible]. Maybe if I think this is point up and down, they can go down, but then [indiscernible] if anything. But I think what we are seeing right now is looks to me stable scenario in terms of what customers can take for the underwriting that we want to do.
And sir, broadly, I mean is it early to comment like broader [ call ] on the margins in the -- for the next 2 to 3 quarters, how do you see it?
We see stable margins at these levels, Anusha.
Okay. And in -- I see in gold loans, I mean, growth rate has been quite strong at around 35% in MFI. Do you see that? This current rate to continue ahead as well, without diluting on the asset quality side?
You're saying microfinance or gold one?
Both, both.
Yes. So I think this growth will continue. I mean, we don't see any -- as the economy does well and become better than this can become stronger, but -- I mean, if you want to be -- I don't see any challenge to continue this growth, Anusha.
Okay. And if I just look on your asset quality. The Stage 2 assets has increased to around 4.7%-odd, if I'm not wrong. So is it more to do with the seasonal nature of the book or how is it? I mean, Stage 3 has nearly come down from 1.8% to 1.7% on a sequential basis.
It's 4.2 [indiscernible] slightly this quarter. It has not gone similar. Might come down actually. Hello?
Yes, yes.
It is 4.2%. 4.2% is our Stage 2 as you see [ price have been ]. You're comparing the Stage 1 or you're comparing the last quarter?
I'm comparing Stage 2 this quarter versus last quarter. So how is that...
Last quarter of 4.4%. This is be 4.2% this quarter.
Okay, okay. I think broadly, I mean how has been the asset quality performance across the segments?
Have been very good, actually. So asset quality is improving, or we are able to maintain at a high level of quality. So Stage 1, Stage 2, I mean, they're 20 basis points here and there, but then the same range where we are comfortable with.
The next question is from the line of Devesh Kayal from Monarch AIF.
As the current participant is not answering, we'll move on to the next question, which is from the line of [ Sanket Jira from Dan Capital].
Yes. My question was on credit cost. So far, the credit cost has been a little over 2%. It has been operating in recent past. But as we move deeper into the summarizing macro, do we expect it to...
No, I think, sir, we expect it to remain in similar range. I mean, unless some event happens that we are not means that we can't foresee at this point in time. So our credit cost on an [indiscernible] basis would be the [indiscernible].
It's 2% range?
Around 2%. Yes.
Okay. And sir, in last 2, 3 years, we have almost tripled our housing branches and also there's about 50% increase in the gold branches as well. So from here on, do we see some moderation in the branch expansion? And what will the number of branches we'll look to add on an annual basis? And if it moderates, do we see a possibility of some operating leverage taking in FY '25, '26?
Yes. So in housing, for sure, there's a past kind of thing. Gold has slowed down, but we'll continue to set up some new branches. In microfinance finance also that there are larger pantry we them [indiscernible]. But to put everything together, the pace has slow and will moderate, and the operating leverage impact also should be now in the next few quarters, you should see that.
In the last quarter, we stepped up -- may be this financial year, we stepped up advertisement and marketing campaign, and that has impacted our cost to income. But going forward, I think we should see that impact coming in the operating [indiscernible].
And last question from my side is that our Stage 1 gold is higher. It has been high in the previous year as well. It comes down materially in Q4, along with the sharp growth also. Now I understand Q3, usually, seasonally. But do we expect a bounce in Q4 on growth also in moderation on the Stage 2 as far as gold loans are concerned?
Yes. Growth bounce back we should see in Q4. Still the gold loan customers, typically, they have -- they are in touch in our branch people. And they also know that the payback by 90 days, thenno company is okay because it's NPA. So definitely, we really many go to small customers, they [indiscernible] for 30, 60 days, 90 days and they just paid [indiscernible] before time. So [indiscernible] about skewed in terms of Stage 1, Stage 2 will be there. I don't -- maybe they'll continue this quarter, so they won't be much different because as long as you have a [indiscernible] fully covered, branches are also not pushing customers too much to pay or liquidate if the [indiscernible] 60 days. So obviously, this a much stronger and tighter follow-up and current loan between 60 to 90 days.
Sure, sir. I was talking about the trend usually by Q3. We have 8% to 10% in Q2 and Q4, it falls maybe 5%, 6%. So is that a seasonal fall whether it will continue...
Maybe what we've taken it that in Q4 there can be a little moderation in this.
The next question is from the line of [ Jeet ] from Pinpoint Asset Management.
Congratulations on a great quarter. My first question is on the financials for the stand-alone entity, which is given the latter in the presentation. So this [indiscernible] entity, we've seen good growth across gold and digital loans, gold loans [indiscernible]. But if I look at the interest income, that's actually declined 7% Q-o-Q, and the net interest income has declined quite a bit on a Q-o-Q basis. So if you could just explain that progression, please?
So in gold loans, in particular, what has happened is that what we were doing earlier assignment. Now the assignment used to have upfront income as per [indiscernible] accounting. And we are moving towards coal lending, and quarterly income is accrued consistently. So even the incremental what last year we had assignment and what we have, so the assignment is moving to co-lending then we see that the [n upfront ] income, which comes as a part of that not fund-based income, that goes down significantly.
Secondly, we have taken fair value based on [indiscernible] model, started reduction in our -- in the devaluations of the AI [indiscernible]. And that also is reflected in fair value decline. So these are the things that are impacting the income that we are seeing. The profitability has gone down because this has also been coupled with our increased spend on the branding budget and [indiscernible] budget.
Right. But this assignment, income which is upfronted, has that be directed in the interest income line item or does it that reflected in the [indiscernible] base income?
So [indiscernible] interested in the interest income line item is not from the front-end income.
Okay. Understood. And more on a strategic level, what are you thinking behind going more towards co-ending in [indiscernible] assignment and expect the reason...
Coal lending is a very stable model because if you do assignment more transitory bundle asset every quarter, you go to the bank, they negotiate, they check the model. They get the rating done and they do it. Co-lennding is simultaneous. So in a way, both banks and the partners, they are dependent on each other. And over a period of time, we have a stronger relationship. So co-lending happens at the [indiscernible] basis. The assessment can happen only after assets have season for 30 -- sorry, 90 or days depending on the tenure. So co-lending -- so okay, we want to have a mix of it. But co-lending still will become obviously a larger or [indiscernible] because it's a long-term relationship. Every day it happens, so you're [indiscernible] with that.
The next question is from the line of Shweta Daptardar from Elara Capital.
I have 3 set of questions. So number one, you mentioned earlier that the margins are looking stable visibly going forward But what reinforces your confidence, given the fact that there is a recalibration of NFI portfolio, digital loans have been planned down due to regulatory forbearance, and also affordable disbursements are declining. So which are the vectors that you believe will drive the stability in margins? That is number one. Number two, to amicably there this line shop obtained on a portable housing finance side, right? So can you just throw light upon how are we faring on productivity [indiscernible] in light of, say, presumably think -- inquiring how this might have come down or before that we handle for month, what is the status there?
And thirdly, you mentioned that on the microfinance business side, there will be recalibration of [ this ], right? I mean you also mentioned that RBI might come hard probably on smaller players with higher interest rates on 28% [ north ]. But then still, we are sort of recalibrating both growth and yields. So are we coming from the past that we are seeing some systemic risk building up over leveraging of customers. You also quoted an example wherein somebody might be having [indiscernible] loan or such. Are we seeing that? Or maybe you will also sense that somewhere due to aggression led by regulator of this sector, probably a regulator maybe 1, 1.5...
So can you just speak a little...
Okay. Is it anyway better.
Yes, better go ahead.
Okay. Okay. So yes, sir, I was also wanting to know the reason on why the recalibration on the recent growth on micro finance side? Sir is this not you believe that the over leveraging of the customer has gone higher? Also, can you believe, are there may be probably 1 or 2 years down the line, might again sort of bring the cap on the net interest margin? Or the sense that there has been certain markets or geographies, which sort of would have [ heated ] up for you or for industry in particular? Those are my 3 set of questions.
[indiscernible] may I answer the affordable one first?
Yes, please go ahead.
Yes. So Shweta, affordable housing is concerned, you're absolutely right. There's been a constraint of supply in the metros at Tier 1. I think at if you look back our strategy for the last 2.5 years, where actually we have gone more deeper into the country into Tier 3, Tier 4 cities. And so hence, what is getting incremental business for us is the deeper geographies. If you see sequentially, in the last 3 quarters, our affordable housing -- our housing home loan disbursement has increased from -- it's also gone up from Q2 to Q3 as well.
So Shweta, we believe that the kind of branches we have opened, they're yet to reach an optimum level of productivity. So we don't see -- although the slowdown in the metro and Tier 1, but it will get offset by our deep distribution. So I think we should be good as far as the continued growth of affordable housing is concerned. But Tier 1 and metro, yes, it slowed down. But we're offsetting by that. And it's shown in the numbers as well.
Yes. Okay. And how are we faring on, say, AUM per employee or AUM per branch?
Right. So if you see, we have 2 kind of set up, one which we call as hub locations, other is called as expansion locations. So expansion is typically a very lean model we have, which is very technology backed. And most of these locations are, say, less than 1 year old. So all of these locations, as of now, to average out the AUM, will come out in few years. But otherwise, as far as the hub locations are concerned, we have about 50 locations and they constitute almost -- as a housing finance company, they almost have about INR 24,000 crores of portfolio. You can so easily say it's about, holding about INR 500 crores plus portfolio.
Right. Okay. That helps.
[indiscernible]
Nirmal, should I answer on the microfinance?
Yes, please go ahead on the microfinance.
Yes. In terms of -- if you look at the credit cost post -- I mean during pandemic, it had gone up and subsequently, our pricing was slightly calibrated because of that. But if you look at [indiscernible], this quarter onwards, we have reduced our prices by 50 basis point. And also, if you look at it in terms of the growth, I mean we have been a little more cautious in terms of how we have been growing the business in certain pockets and all those things. As such, there's not been anything, but we just wanted to make sure that we are taking the cautious approach in terms of how we have been growing the business over -- in the last 1 year.
And given the new regulations, which came in about last year and the new -- the loan -- I mean, the overall rejection percentage, if you look at our credit bureau team, has gone up also substantially.
Okay. That's a fair point. And sir, last question on the [indiscernible] stability margins, because the higher-yielding portfolios are sort of getting recalibrated in my understanding.
Hello? Yes, can you come again, please, sorry.
So what are the factors for margin stability? What reinforces your confidence because I believe that all the higher-yielding products have been sort of getting recalibrated especially on the yield [indiscernible] digital loans, affordable disbursement declining, microfinance yields are slightly coming down. So what gives us confidence on margin stability ahead?
Yes. But if you look at our -- we have also substantially brought down on -- I mean with -- especially with the aspect of microfinance, we have brought down -- our OpEx is on a downward spiral. And also, we are also looking at borrowing cost also has come down with aspect to microfinance. We will be able to maintain the [ NIMs ].
Okay. And even control like across the NIM should be maintained, right? Overall book.
Yes, Kapish, can you comment on this?
I'm so sorry. Can you repeat?
Guiding stable margins. So how do we see that? What reinforces our confidence on stability margins going forward? Correct me if I'm wrong, most of our high [ yielding ] products are getting recalibrated on the yields front. So what is the confidence on margin stability ahead?
Okay. Just -- so there are -- one is that they're getting recalibrated in terms of in a very narrow band. So it's not that there's a significant impact on the product and the [indiscernible]. Secondly, if you see that the growth that we have, like in microfinance, even after slowing down, was 7% quarter-over-quarter last quarter. So it's around 30% growth is something, which we will maintain. So it's not that growth is going down to a negative level. Secondly, as the mix of so -- if you really see last few quarters, and the mix change, which is -- so we have a home loan, which is a low-yielding product. LAP can be relatively still lesser as we go ahead in terms of -- but the digital loan microfinance is a high-yielding product. So they've been growing faster, but it's growing much faster. They continue to grow fast, but at a pace which we are comfortable.
So if you work out the [indiscernible] average of everything, we don't see much impact on the margins, on the yield also. And as I said, that later part of the year, you'll see probably cost of funds also coming down, in line with the systemic interest rates coming down, and that probably will give us more leeway to bring the rates down. But supposing for argument's sake, if we don't bring the rate down of gold loan or microfinance, there's also -- I think we are not really validating, we are really not in terms of RBI or any other complex [indiscernible] pressure in a situation where we have to do any radical reduction in our yield. Yes, any other more questions we have?
We'll take the next question from the line of Rajiv Mehta from Yes Securities.
Congratulations on good set of numbers. So I've got a few questions on gold loans and micro finance. On gold loans, if you can spell out what was the movement in overall tonnage? And also if you can throw light on how is the average pledge per customer moving in the last 3, 4 quarters?
Aggregate?
Customer moving in the past 3, 4 quarters.
So the [indiscernible] you can work out based on the LTV, as I said...
I'm saying average tonnage per customer
Also customers, I think will be [indiscernible].
So average [indiscernible].
[indiscernible] So you can concur that it changes based on the current adjustment. So it will be a few [indiscernible] or whatever. And then it of tonnage growth, I think we are about 2% tonnage last quarter, quarter-over-quarter. So the [indiscernible] is a lot of legs, but still we had a tonnage growth of around 2%. Year-on-year, it's [indiscernible].
Correct. Correct. And sir, what is driving the improvement in gold loan yield because we've been seeing a lot of competition having come in and there was also a competitive reduction of rates 1.5, 2 years back. And now the yield for us has been continuously improving. What is the driving it?
So, one, Rajiv, we were -- so it's the base that you see last year or earlier when there [indiscernible], the yield has come down artificially or not artificially, but maybe unsustainably low than what is a relative sustainable model, which is around here. We are still very competitive vis-a-vis the yield of competitive players. And the newer branches, which have been set up in smaller areas, there we are able to come out a little better yield. So all these factors are combining to give us slightly more in the last quarter versus previous quarter. And the trend in last 3 quarters, if you see.
Sir, can you the breakup of the gold loan book in terms of, say, taking size below 1 lakh to 5 more than 5 lakh. That will be helpful to understand the profile and also the yield.
Not much change in what we had last time. I think this question was asked earlier. Because of the millions of customers, [indiscernible] more or less similar, but the data is [indiscernible]. I don't think I have [indiscernible] it to be checked.
Sure, sir. [indiscernible] move to microfinance. So micro finance, we have got 1 plus 3.7%, which markets are driving this slightly higher number?
Yes. Yes. If you look at certain markets like for us maybe MP, Rajasthan and Odisha is slightly on the higher side. And if you look at the older markets like Tamil Nadu will be on a -- slightly on a higher side for us.
Okay. Okay. And amongst the new borrowers being added in microfinance, where do we come in, in terms of being -- which number in terms of being the lender? I mean, are we unique, or we also take up a customer being 1/3 of the fourth lender as well?
Yes. We now took credit would be close to around 9%. New to Samasta is close to around 40%. And we have close to -- I mean we don't go to the fourth lender at all. We have -- I mean, one of the things, if you looked at why our growth is [ famously ] we recalibrated, and we are not looking at this [indiscernible] of customers and all that. And we don't want to be the fourth lender in the thing. And in some of the cases, we are okay with giving higher ticket size to our existing customers who have been with us for a longer time, and looking at customers who have been borrowing from multiple borrowers.
Okay. Okay. Just lastly, I wanted some more color in terms of Nirmal, sir, spoke about recalibrating underwriting in [indiscernible] MFI. So one was the aspect of not chasing a borrower and becoming a fourth lender. Which are the other aspects of what we have changed in terms of underwriting of customer selection in MFI?
Yes. We have looked at very geographic specific things, how the market is playing out in a couple of these geographies. And certain geographies are slightly -- if you look at the borrowing levels have been [ seen ] and the overall economy in those places have been not supporting. So we normally slow down in certain geographies and [indiscernible]. And we take a call on time to time basis. I mean, so if you look at -- if the rains are not sufficient or something, we look at it in a different way. Once thing that we go back and see more traction in those geographies.
[indiscernible] actually. So it's about the AIF provisioning and [indiscernible] loans all that will come for that. So we had certain units in our HFC, which were [indiscernible], and we have done the full producing for that. So the INR 900 crore portfolio on our book of our [indiscernible] INR 77,500 crores and our loan book, which is close INR 47,000 crores is not very significant. That is one. Secondly, we have some to take some provision, as I said, in the fair value of the units in this quarter.
And this AF is [indiscernible] for 3 years is coming to an end in the month of June, 9th June, maybe someday, but in the month of June of this year, where we expect it to be closed liquidated or completely distributed. So I think -- I don't think there's a serious concern from the way our numbers will impact numbers of our capital, the provisioning or income. We have taken some provision, and if required more, we can take it. But it's just one more quarter and after that we get liquidated. By the way, I can go to the next question. I just thought that I'll take up this question because this has come through some social media.
We'll take the next question from the line of Jigar Jani from BNK Securities.
Just wanted to understand our Stage 1 provisioning is down sequentially from 1.9% to 1.5%. So having devised the retail model this quarter?
So sorry, what is 1.9, 1.5?
The provisioning on Stage 1 assets, which was in Q2, 1.5% --.9% has come down to 1.5% this quarter. So have you revised the ECL model this quarter?
It's 1.9% this quarter, right? Okay. You're [ saying that came down]. Okay. So maybe I will have to check this, where is this change in terms of the plan? Or [indiscernible] different? Yes, yes, actually, in CRE portfolio, I think there is a revision from 10% to 8%, yes. So that is [indiscernible]. These are all based on the actual performance of the assets, the work out of the numbers. But what we have done is we have increased Stage 3 promising from 44% to 49%.
Okay so this is on account of some roll forward? Or is it...
[indiscernible] because Stage 2 and Stage 3 has changed more aggressively. So if you see has increased from 78.2 and Stage 3 has increased from 44.5% to 49.6%.
[indiscernible] they calculate these numbers.
Okay, I understood. And sir, any update on -- or any time lines on the QLC? When can we expect some update on that?
So we have taken approval for a year, which is now vary for another 10 months to [indiscernible]. We are not in a hurry to do this thing, but an appropriate time in market and other conditions are okay. We'll look at that. But I mean it's not even [indiscernible].
The next question is from the line of Abhijit Tibrewal from Motilaln Oswal.
One question on micro finance. If you look at the last 3 quarters, the NPAs have been pretty much sticky at around the last 3, 4 quarters, NPA has been in pretty much stick at around 2.1% your Stage 3 numbers. Despite we taking provisioning write-offs in the Samasta MFI. So I mean, why is it that we are still seeing enough incremental continuous flows in microfinance?
And I mean if I look at all the other NBFC MFIs [indiscernible] for them is largely over I recall we've done some amount of restructuring. So I mean, when can we really expect this number, the gross Stage 3 number in micro finance to start trending down and credit costs in the micro finance business to start coming down?
Yes. In terms of -- if you look at our provisioning in the Stage 3, it's gone up from 63% to 80%. And if you look at -- also, if you look -- in a couple of places, there have been some kind of a thing, but all those have been evened out in terms of how the book has performed. And in the last 4 quarters, it's on a downward spiral, and loan book also is on a similar level, actually.
[indiscernible] 2%. So I think we need to compare this to the industry players to figure out whether a Stage 3, 2% is the normal or is below or higher than the other peers.
We can discuss it separately, if I compare my late NPA numbers over the last 4, 5 quarters, they've been smartly coming down there. And I think we become [indiscernible] competition yesterday itself. It's not [indiscernible] handy, but as you see that the latent which is the right measure has been showing improvement.
The next question is from the line of Shubhranshu Mishra from PhillipCapital.
Two questions. The first one is on the risk management. What is our collection infrastructure? How many people out of that 38,000 do we deploy across businesses and collections? So that's the first. Second, just a clarification. Did you mention that we do an panel of gold loans because gold loans are [indiscernible] loans than be regulated by low assignment of securitization transactions for gold loans?
Sorry. You're saying. Can you repeat please, I couldn't hear you?
Right. Can you hear me now?
Yes.
So the first question is on the collection infrastructure, how many people do we deploy in collections out of the 38,000 people across businesses, which is MFI or mortgages digital loans and other gold loans, so on and so forth. That's the first one. Second is, you mentioned that we do assignment on gold loans. But the regulator mentioned that we can't do assignment or securitization transactions for gold loan, given the fact that they have bullet loans and not term loans. So if you can clarify on this -- that part.
No gold loan assignment [indiscernible]. So gold loan -- no you are saying the across don't do gold loans from there.
Okay. We do EMI gold loans there.
Okay. And if there may be a small portfolio of boat loan that we don't assign. But our [indiscernible] portfolio is very negligible. In collection, so we have 125 people in our digital loan and LAP [indiscernible] many people are there in collection [indiscernible].
There are more than 500 people in collections for HF.
500 people. And the [indiscernible] branded added or there will be a small team to overseas. Out put together, we'll have about 800 people in collections. And then [indiscernible] support in certain buckets as we require.
How many agents do we have across hard buckets?
At local levels, there'll be multiple, but most of the -- Monu, how many agencies we deal with?
So in HFC, we don't employ agencies, really, we all do in-house. So we have different buckets of rational people. We don't employ agencies and HFC, we do...
[indiscernible] capital is visible, but still they are supported for a hard bucket or whatever, but there are a few locally tied up. So I don't have that number. But they are not like very significant in our total contribution to collections of cost.
Understood, sir. And you mentioned that we largely do EMI gold loans in assignments. It that...
[indiscernible] interest regular interest payment. So the bullet loans are -- so gold loans, what we do -- okay, they are not really AI, but it just is paid on a monthly or quarterly basis.
So no, what is written on the customer loan sheet? Or is it a bullet repayment loan, and we are collecting the interest on a monthly basis? So that is how we define it as a monthly interest loan? Or have we told on the customer loan sheet that it is a monthly interest loan?
[indiscernible] cash loans are clearly, we'll take of interest. The option to change the loan if they want to, but otherwise written clearly.
Right. So just a [indiscernible] question to this. So if we are doing it on a monthly interest in the interest would be [indiscernible] the yields of the yield dilute, if we are collecting on a monthly basis rather than doing it on a bullet loan basis. But our yields are pretty much closer to the other gold loan HBFC.
No. If you see the -- okay, there are 2 things and how fast you go real your branches, but other gold loan entities have higher yield than us. What you're saying is right that if you try and attribute it, then obviously, you can come and higher yield because of the IRR work that you can charge [indiscernible] or high rate interest. But our yields are lower than the [indiscernible] in the industry.
The next question is from the line of Anusha Raheja from Delalin Rocha.
Just on the CIS exposure, how much is the provision that had come in this quarter?
So this quarter, we have done particular provision in the [indiscernible], we had done INR 40 crore provision in our NBFC and in our HCS, the INR 180 crores is completely out from the capital itself. So we [indiscernible] that is the provision.
And there was INR 10 crore provision than last quarter also for the year.
So come down again.
So about [ INR 180 crores, ] we have wrapped up from the capital itself. So obviously, just reading provision because we have not considered it in capital and [ capital ] provision.
Okay. And how much would be the pending part or you have fully provided in this quarter, sir?
No, we -- okay, we don't how to fully provide it. It's not that these assets will become 0 [indiscernible]. But as I said that we are compliant with the guideline. So one is that the guidelines basically were that the receivables which are transferred in the last 12 months. Now our AIF has been there for 2.5 years, and we have not transferred any new receivables. So these receivables are transferred 2.5 years ago when [indiscernible] was formed. So really, that particular class of the [indiscernible] is not applicable to us. Okay. But still we are [indiscernible], we are trying to make adequate provisions for this, in case of liquidations or in case of closing down of the [indiscernible], yes. Thanks.
[indiscernible] If you are still the call are actually lagged NPA is down by 40% to what we call in March. I listen with you separately, but MFI is actually showing [indiscernible].
Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question for today. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Kapish Jain for his closing comments. Over to you, sir.
So thank you very much for joining this call and for a very attractive conversation that we had. We're happy to take any further questions, queries or anything that you want to understand further. You can reach out to our Investor Relations team or you can also connect with us separately for any conversion that you wish to do. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. On behalf of IIFL Finance Limited, that concludes this conference. We thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines. Thank you.