Ladie`s and gentlemen, good day and welcome to the Q2 and FY 2027 analyst conference call for Bajaj Finserv Limited, hosted by JM Financial Institutional Securities Limited. As a reminder, all participant lines will be in the listen-only mode, and there will be an opportunity for you to ask questions after the presentation concludes. Should you need assistance during the call, please signal an operator by pressing star then zero on your touch-tone phone. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I now hand the conference over to Mr. Ajit Kumar from JM Financial Institutional Securities Limited. Thank you, and over to you, sir. Thank you, Rayo. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Q2 FY 2027 earnings conference call of Bajaj Finserv Limited. First, I would like to thank the management of Bajaj Finserv for giving us the opportunity to host this call. We will have the opening comments from the management team, post which we will open the floor for Q&A. From the management side today, we have Mr. Tapan Singhel, MD and CEO of Bajaj General Insurance Limited, Mr. Tarun Chugh, MD and CEO of Bajaj Life Insurance Limited, Mr. Ashish Panchal, MD and CEO of Bajaj Finserv Direct Limited and Group Strategy Head Bajaj Finserv Limited, Mr. Deepak Matai, CEO of Bajaj Finserv Health Limited, Mr. Ganesh Mohan, MD Bajaj Finserv Asset Management Limited, Mr. S. Sreenivasan, President Insurance and Special Projects, Mr. Ramandeep Singh Sahni, CFO Bajaj Finserv Limited, Mr. Vipin Bansal, CFO Bajaj Life Insurance Limited, Mr. Avais Karmali, CFO Bajaj General Insurance Limited. With this, I would hand over the floor to Ramandeep sir for his opening comments. Thank you, and over to you, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. We welcome you to the conference call to discuss the results of Bajaj Finserv Limited, BFS, for quarter two, FY 2027. As before, in this call, we will largely be concentrating on the consolidated results of Bajaj Finserv, the results of our insurance operations through Bajaj General and Bajaj Life Insurance Limited, our emerging companies which include Bajaj Finserv Health, Bajaj Finserv Direct, and Bajaj Finserv Asset Management Company, and lastly, where material, the standalone results of Bajaj Finserv. Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Housing Finance, our other two material subsidiaries, have already had their conference calls, and hence we will pursue only very high-level questions on these companies. To start with a few hygiene points, as a word of caution, we affirm that any statements that may look forward-looking statements are just estimates and do not constitute an assurance or indication of any future performance result. On the basis of accounting, as required by the regulation, Bajaj Finserv prepares its financials in compliance with Ind AS. The insurance companies are, however, currently not covered under Ind AS since we have sought one-year forbearance from the regulator. Therefore, Bajaj General and Bajaj Life have prepared Ind AS financials on Ind AS 104 basis only for the purpose of consolidation, and the standalone numbers for them are based on non-Ind AS accounting standard, which is referred as Indian GAAP, as applicable to insurance companies today. Further on this subject, in line with the recent regulations from IRDA, both our insurance company would transition to Ind AS from 1st of April 2027. Additionally, regarding the recently published consultation paper by IRDA on recalibrating economics of insurance distribution, we appreciate and support the IRDA's intention of fostering a customer-centric, competitive, efficient, and transparent distribution ecosystem. As this is a consultation paper at this stage, it would be followed by draft regulations for comments, and then the final regulation shall be issued. Hence, in that sense, it would be premature to come to any conclusion basis this consultation paper. However, as has seen in the past, any large-scale initiative which aims to improve the customer proposition may lead to short-term impact for the insurers as well as distributors in this case. However, in the medium to long term, the sector only bounces back much stronger, as has been seen during the past in terms of the GST exemptions or various changes in ULIP norms which we've seen in the past, or surrender value changes and so on. We hence continue to support any initiative which improves the customer proposition and expands insurance coverage. As part of IRDA's reach out to seeking feedback on the paper, our insurance companies have also been providing necessary feedback to the authorities. I'll now move to giving a high-level update on the consolidated financial results for the quarter, which have been put out in the press today. The consolidated total income grew 17% to INR 43,416 crores. The consolidated profit after tax grew a healthy 25% to INR 5,952 crores. The consolidated profit after tax attributable to the owners grew 23% to INR 2,758 crores. Let me now deep dive and give you further texture on the performance of each of our companies. I'll start with Bajaj General. GWP for Bajaj General grew at 10% for the quarter to about INR 7,556 crores, which is marginally lower than the industry growth of about 12%. However, if we were to exclude the bulky tender-driven crop and government health business, the GWP for the company increased by a very healthy 21%, which is significantly higher than the industry growth of close to 13%. This was primarily driven by the health and the motor segments, which grew at 31% and 18% respectively. The underwriting loss for the company stood at INR 115 crores for the quarter, as against INR 92 crores for the same quarter last year. This was largely impacted due to the NATCAT claims of INR 75 crores net during the quarter. Accordingly, the combined ratio was also elevated at 104.5% for the quarter, as against 102.3% for the same period last year. The combined ratio, excluding NATCAT claims, is around 102%. And if you were to exclude both NATCAT claims as well as the impact of 1/n regulations, which is only a temporary difference, the combined ratio stands at 101.4%. PAT for the company degrew for the quarter at INR 420 crores versus INR 517 crores for the same period last year. This was largely attributable to lower capital gains due to the volatile equity markets and the challenging external macro environment. It is also impacted by what I indicated earlier, NATCAT claims of net INR 75 crores, and there is also an impact of about INR 50 crores due to the capital reduction we have done through buyback and dividend in the last six months. The annualized ROE for the company at 200% solvency stands at 16.2%. AUM as of September 30 stood at INR 36,313 crores versus INR 34,974 crores for the same period last year. The lower growth in AUM is largely attributable to the buyback and the dividend payout last quarter, totaling close to INR 3,500 crores. In summary, these operating results underscore Bajaj General's disciplined focus on delivering balanced and profitable growth in the most challenging, difficult, and highly competitive market. I will now move to Bajaj Life. Bajaj Life's financial outcomes are in line with the plan for sustainable and profitable growth. The retail weighted received premium grew at 5% to about INR 1,942 crores. Growth was milder compared to the industry. However, that came with a continued increase in term mix, which went up by about 3.4%, which has a lower ticket size. Retail protection contributed to 11% on the overall retail business, growing at a significant 51% year-on-year. Group protection business also registered a very healthy growth of 81% for the quarter. The VNB for the quarter grew 40% to INR 512 crores, and the NBM was up at 21.6% for the quarter, as against 17.1% for the same quarter last year, an expansion of healthy 4.5%. I am also happy to inform that on a rolling 12-month basis, despite the impact of GST, our life insurance business has crossed the NBM of 20% and ended at 20.8%. Bajaj Life's GWP grew at a healthy 23% during the quarter, which includes a renewal premium growth of 17%. We have been seeing some persistency dips over certain cohorts, which is in line with the industry, and the company is making efforts to improve the same. On retail weighted received premium basis, the product mix for the quarter continued to be well-balanced, as has been seen in the last few quarters. Profit after tax for the company was at INR 55 crores, as compared to INR 13 crores for the same period last year. However, the PAT growth was on a lower base, since last year we had a one-time GST impact of INR 112 crores, partially offset by lower capital gains attributable to the external macro environment. Bajaj Life ended the quarter with an AUM of INR 146,322 crores, up 11%. Bajaj Life has also commenced operations in GIFT City in the month of October and is also expected to start the retail business with IndusInd Bank from quarter three of this year. Overall, the quarter for Bajaj Life has been good and in line with our expectations. We continue to reap the benefits of revamped strategy of Bajaj Life 2.0, which is focused on sustainable and profitable growth. Finally, both the insurance company continue to be financially strong with the solvency of Bajaj Life at 255% and General at about 230%, and are well poised to weather any external adversity. Let me now move to our lending businesses, Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Housing Finance. Starting with Bajaj Finance, an excellent quarter across all key metrics. The number of new loans booked grew 11% to INR 1.34 crores for the quarter. The company's diversified business model has enabled it to record a strong AUM growth of 26% for the quarter at about INR 584,000 crores. The net total income grew by 23% to INR 15,974 crores. Profit after tax was at about INR 6,267 crores, registering a very healthy growth of 29%. OpEx to net total income was flat at 33% for the quarter. However, with visibility of green shoots in operating efficiencies due to AI implementation, the company is confident of improving the OpEx to NTI ratio by 25 to 40 basis points in FY 2027. Loan losses and provisions in the quarter were at INR 2,166 crores as against INR 2,080 crores for the same quarter last year. Quarter two also includes a prudent management and macroeconomic provision of close to INR 340 crores. Loan losses to AUF ratio declined to 1.56% this quarter versus 1.88% for the same period last year. Accordingly, the gross and the net NPAs stood at 1.06% and 0.42% respectively, much lower than the same period last year. Capital adequacy remains strong at 20.3% as at 30th September. On 1st October 2026, Bajaj Finance's board has also approved an additional capital raise of INR 11,700 crores through equity shares by QIP to qualified institutional buyers and INR 5,800 crores through preferential issue of warrants convertible into equivalent number of equity shares to Bajaj Finserv Limited. The BFL board's decision on raising additional capital subject to shareholders' approval is driven by various factors, including the strong India growth story, underlying growth momentum of the company and its subsidiaries, and increasing focus on building resilience across various dimensions of business. I'll now move to Bajaj Housing Finance, our mortgage subsidiary of Bajaj Finance. Overall, a good quarter across growth, asset quality, and profitability metrics. The company surpassed the landmark milestone of INR 1.5 lakh crores of AUM. AUM grew by 25% year-on-year. The growth was very well distributed across all business segments, including home loans, which grew at 22%, loan against property grew at 26%, LRD at 39%, and developer finance at 13%. The net interest income grew 12% to about INR 1,055 crores. The operating efficiencies continue to improve with OpEx to net total income at healthy 19.1% as against 19.7% for the same period last year. Healthy asset quality continued to be maintained with a gross and net NPA of 29 and 12 basis points respectively as of 30th September 2026, in line with the same period last year. PAT grew by 18% to INR 757 crores on account of higher variable fee income, operating efficiencies on OpEx, and lower credit cost during the quarter. Capital adequacy ratios stood at 21.2% as on 30th September. In summary, another very strong quarter for both our lending companies, BFL and BHFL. Now I will give you an update on the emerging companies. To start with, on Bajaj Finserv Health. Bajaj Finserv Health executed about 5.7 million healthcare transactions during the quarter. However, revenue for the quarter registered a de-growth on account of restructuring required in some partnerships, attributable to the RBI's revised circular on business conduct by NBFCs. The company is, however, trying to mitigate this issue, specifically given the impact of revenue for some of these parties coming from the distribution reforms. So we will have to wait and watch how the H2 for the company plays out, given the impact of these two circulars. Bajaj Finserv Health continued its expansion of provider network, which includes 130,000 plus doctors, 32,000 plus hospitals, and 10,000 plus lab touchpoints. Utilizing this network strength and its tech platform, Bajaj Health is able to offer integrated OPD, IPD, and wellness experience to both retail and as well as corporate customers. I will now move to Bajaj Markets. The total disbursements for the quarter stood at INR 2,500 crores as against INR 2,269 crores in quarter one and INR 1,549 crores for the same quarter last year. The company ended the quarter with a total unique partner count of 106. The operating revenue for the company has increased to INR 120 crores in quarter two, with a healthy growth of 45%. Revenue is back on growth trajectory after the planned digital customer journey enhancements, which impacted growth in the last year. Further, some of our revenue structures are now trail revenue-based, providing stability, predictability, and non-linearity to future revenue. The company is now on track to hit the planned break-even target for the quarter in quarter four of this year. I will now move to asset management company. The asset management company sustains its strong growth momentum in the quarter, crossing the INR 40,000 crore AUM milestone before closing the quarter at about INR 35,760 crores, registering a robust 24% growth year-on-year. Bajaj AMC retained the 26th spot amongst all mutual funds in India in terms of AUM. Within the AUM, equity mix for the company stands at a healthy 60%, and the non-group share of AUM constitutes about 91% of the total AUM. Further, the company's incremental SIP books saw a surge of 42%, with SIP folios also increasing 41% year-on-year, reflecting sustained investor confidence and strengthening retail participation. On the other emerging businesses, with respect to the alts business, happy to confirm that we have commenced business operations with the launch of our PMS business, and the first close of our real estate AIF has happened in the quarter. With respect to the reinsurance business, we are in the process of filing for necessary approvals with IRDAI. That is from my side on the performance updates before we open the floor for questions. Considering the paucity of time, I would request the audience to kindly keep the questions brief so that we can cover more participants during this call. With this, I invite questions from the audience. Thank you very much. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask questions may press star and one on their touch-tone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use handsets while asking questions. Ladies and gentlemen, we will wait for a moment while the question queue assembles. Participants who wish to ask questions, please press star and one. The first question is from Mahek from Emkay Global Financial Services. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, good evening, and thank you for the opportunity. So I have a couple of questions. First, I'll take on the general insurance company. So, basically, we have seen an increase in the loss ratios for the health segment. Could you just help us with some color on which segment particularly is driving this increase in the claim ratios? Secondly, on the motor as well, we have seen higher loss ratios due to NATCAT events. Could this kind of lead to a lower retention ratio going forward for the motor segment? These two are my questions on general insurance. I'll take the life insurance later. Avais, you want to take that? Sure. So, thank you for your question, and good evening. The loss ratio on health is an overall I would recommend you look at it on an overall basis. There, you would have to see then the NEP mix. Essentially, what you're seeing is that the NEP mix for the quarter has come higher from our tender business. Now, tender business, one has to look at it holistically, where you see that it comes at a much lower expense ratio. So, from a sustainability perspective, the loss ratio in health is something that we envision will come down because the tender business is 2+1, as we mentioned it before. On the motor side, as you said, it is driven by CAT, and therefore, we expect it to not continue at the rate as it is in the next quarter. In terms of retention, that is something that is looked at annually, and we will make that strategic decision at the end of the year. I hope I have answered both your questions. Yeah. Just a follow-up on the last one. I just wanted to check, in the last few years, we have been seeing NATCAT events coming through. Is there a kind of a normalized NATCAT rate which we should look into or we should assume into going forward in our retentions? At this point in time. Sorry. Please. Sorry, maybe I can take it. See, while NATCATs are evident now every year, there is a lot of variation year- on- year. There are some large events in some year, and if you see across, and that is what we have been seeing across, if you see a decade, every second or third year, you see one spike. Otherwise, they have been in control. I think that is a trend we are seeing, that every three years, you will see one area having a large event, but otherwise, it is sustainable. That is what we have been looking at, and hence, we have not seen any real need to change our retention limits at this stage. Yeah, I will add to that. I think the way to look at NATCAT is, when you report a quarterly number, an event happening usually in Q2 when you have more floods, it does tend to distort that quarter's results. But over the year, they tend to sort of normalize. The same happens with large fire claims as well. While the gross amount of claims may be very large because of the retention and the reinsurance arrangements, the net loss is significantly contained. As a company of our size, I think if you look at the net impact of NATCAT over time, it has not been unreasonable. And that is something where every two, three years, you could have a larger NATCAT. You could also have a situation where a large number of large claims which are not technically NATCATs, accumulation of claims. But these are what people insure for. And generally, over cycles, if you have maintained a good combined ratio, that's an indicator that your economic model is working well. Also, just to give you a flavor, see if you look at the large NATCATs which have happened in the last 10 years, I think the maximum hit we've got on net basis has not crossed close to INR 100 crores. So that's the extreme situation we've seen in the last few years. And in the good years, it's close to zero also. So that's what we've been seeing. So like Sreeni said, it's not as extreme as one may envisage, and hence, there's no need to change the retention at this stage. Got it. Thanks for the detailed answer. Secondly, if I look at the life insurance business, the agency as a channel has seen a slowdown in the growth. Could you just help us understand what is driving this slowdown? Secondly, if you look at the growth numbers for the non-par versus annuity. So we've seen basically non-par going down and annuity growth picking up. Should this be read as a shift from non-par towards annuity products? Also, if you can just help us with some color on whether the margin profile of both these products is in the similar range, or maybe which one is at a higher range in terms of annuity versus non-par? Thanks, Mahek. Good questions. Agency, the growth number does look slow because we focused largely on getting our product mix. We saw an opportunity that we can streamline their protection mix in the agency business more and more. As a result, there has been a significant growth in protection as sold by agency by 54% over the same quarter last year. Similarly, we actually saw this similar impact on the proprietary sales, the institutional business, face-to-face institutional business, which themselves rapidly grew on term by 49% and 62%. As a company, we could clearly read the signals from the regulator that the ask is towards protection, and we had made this early move last six months. While we weren't really expecting, and I remember last time there was a question on whether we'd be able to go any further on term, but as you see, this growth has been consistently high. At this point in time, our face-to-face channels, including agency and the rest, in the entire sector today have the highest percentage of product focus on risk products. While other people might depend on aggregators and brokers, I'm talking of face-to-face. I think that's what we intend to achieve because that's more sustainable, it's more difficult, and because it's a change in culture, I think that's gone on quite well. We may just follow the same route for another quarter, and then we'll feel more comfortable on it being on a regular path by itself in a sustained product mix. As far as non-par is concerned, yes, non-par has grown, and so has annuities. We find that on the non-par, yeah, there is a product mix is looking at about It's not showing up here. 19.7% versus last year of 17.1%. I was just looking at the data. But last year, what we could see is that it was largely because of the short pay product where there was a benefit available. This is proper regular non-par product mix, which is a better quality non-par product, and benefits straightaway going to the customer. On the annuity side, we have seen an uptick, and that is an impact we would see sustainable. Of course, in the new guidelines, there are some things that have to new consultation paper, there has got to be some streamlining on the commissions there. So let's see whether that is there or not. But we do see an opportunity on the annuity side, and we'll take the benefit of that. In terms of margins, I'll have Vipin answer that. Mahek, like Tarun mentioned, quarter two last year is when the mix started moving between non-par and annuity. If you would recall, even in that quarter, we called out, we observed very significant pricing pressures and intensity in non-par segment, and we thought it is better to move to another place, and we found opportunity in annuity. That is when we did different products, launched some new opportunities in annuity, and that has been quite holding up since then. If you look at quarter one last year, our non-par was about 80%- odd, annuity was 5%. In two quarters, the mix changed to about 13% non-par and annuity at about 10% plus-minus. I think that mix has been holding up. It is almost for a year, we see our non-par and annuity running in this profile. To your question on margins, I would not say we should compare margins like this, because it is always a question that we deal with on a daily basis. Like I mentioned, we saw pricing intensity in non-par, and that is when we said it makes more sense to do more annuity and do different things there. I think that is the flexibility we will continue to exercise. Got it. Thank you so much for the detailed answers. Thank you so much. Thank you. Before we take the next question, a reminder to participants that you may press star and one to join the question queue. The next question is from Sanketh Godha from Avendus Spark. Please go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity. My first question is on general insurance, especially on the motor side. We are growing in the range of 14%-15%, which is better than the industry. But if I look at your loss ratios, especially on motor OD, it has deteriorated. Just wanted to understand which vehicle segments are driving the growth, where we are gaining market share. Second, this growth somehow is linked to our reinsurance strategy because of the better treaty. We are okay to chase growth despite having little higher loss ratios. Just wanted to understand the motor bit better. Second business on general insurance is, just wanted to understand how much is our credit attachment business across the lines, whether it is SME, fire, or health, or accident. If regulation goes in the proposed format, I know it's a consultation paper, but hypothetically, if it goes in the proposed format, then do we see impact in that line of business? That's on general insurance. Then maybe I'll ask for life. Okay. If it's all right, I'll take the question on motor, and I would ask the CEO to step in for any topics related to distribution of funds. For the motor business, if you look at it, we are seeing that there are still pockets where the [inaudible] model that we have, we see a positive outcome. The [inaudible] model, as you know, for new business, it has the 1+3 and the 1+5. That would then have a loss ratio that would be slightly higher in the first year and then taper down over the horizon of the contract. For motor, when we look at it, we look at it from a sourcing loss ratio standpoint, and therefore, we are currently comfortable with our sourcing mechanism. Does that mean that we moved around between four-wheeler, two-wheeler, and PV? That is yes. That is something that we continue to do on a weekly basis, in fact, where we look at the profitability based on market conditions. As and when we see pockets, we make those tactical changes. From motor loss ratio standpoint, I would say that I would encourage you to not get colored by the NATCAT amount, and I would continue to focus on the sourcing loss ratio mechanism as our driving philosophy. I hope that answers your point on motor. For the other question on distribution forms, I would request Tapan to step in. Thank you, Avais. [audio distortion]. I am sorry to interrupt, Tapan, but your voice is breaking, so we cannot hear you very clearly. Sorry. Can you hear me? No, sir. You are breaking a lot. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm traveling. Hello? You're audible now, Tapan. [audio distortion]. No, it's still- One second. Tapan, your voice is breaking again. Okay. Hello, is this better, Raman? Yeah, much better now. Okay, done. What I was saying was, if you are a distributor, now, any reforms, would you want your business to go down, or would you want to provide customers to come down? I said no, because it serves a purpose. I think the big thing that the regulator is looking at is to get mis-selling down. And the GI business, the mis-selling is very low if you look at it. Very low means it is next to negligible, which has historically been so because it is a short-term contract. It is like a one-off contract. My personal thinking is that the business for bank will not be affected even with the changes happening, because I think it serves a purpose in terms of the partnership which is there to the customers of the banks. I remember clearly way back in 2014, Chennai floods happened, and the bank did not have any NPA because of floods, because the customers were all covered for, paid for it. It does work. I think there's no cutting corners. My personal feeling is those businesses are not going to be affected. Okay, sir. I think you were not that clear, but what you're trying to say is that because of NPAs and it's not a mis-selling product, you don't see any much negative impact on the business because of any regulatory change. That's the simple conclusion I should make, sir? Yeah. Because we look at the impact, it will be on the distribution commissions, which is there. It is not on distribution of products, which would be there. I think, GI, if you look at, let's say, it's insurance of the factories or these insurance of, and the stores they have. It serves a purpose. I've seen this many times. I think banks will still want to continue serving their customer, protecting the customers. Understood. But sir, can you quantify or, I mean, we- [crosstalk] as a person, not as a company. Normally I don't, to be honest, give you micro numbers because those are business strategies. But I can tell you that I'm not the top player in terms of the credit attachment business in the country. So that I think should give you a kind of understanding where we're positioned. Understood, sir. Thanks. Again, I will just add to the response Tapan gave. I think one big evidence of what Tapan said is, if you just go before the pandemic, the amount of credit protection which was being sold in the country was negligible. After the pandemic, people realized that it is not only a sale for the heck of selling it, but it is actually achieving a purpose. So the amount of NPAs we were able to protect because of the health cover we gave was very, very significant. Banks over a period hence have realized that this is a way of mitigating a large part of their risk of NPAs in case a calamity were to occur. To the point Tapan is making, while there may be some impact, but we do not see a very, very large impact coming from this. See, also understand, like I mentioned in the opening remarks, that the current reforms, the way they have been articulated, are only draft, and there is a lot of iteration is expected. I think most of the representations will talk about this segment of the product because it caters to a very, very large amount of the population. Out of all the lives we write, both on health and protection, about 80% plus is done through group products. If somebody were to take on, call on reducing commissions to that extent, then it could have a serious repercussion on the overall business for insurance companies, because it will have a large impact on penetration. Hence, I think it is better to wait and watch what finally comes out in the reforms, then conclude at this stage. Understood, sir. Perfect. Actually, probably I had a similar question for Bajaj Life also, because we are decently very big in credit life. So, maybe if Bajaj Life can also share the view, or if it is a similar view, then I am happy to take that as an answer probably. Thanks. Our impact is going to be a little different, Sanketh. We are large on credit life, but we are very well spread. What we do find is that we have all sorts of distribution, including MFIs, non-MFIs, and so on and so forth. Last couple of years, we have invested in diversifying into various loan types, and that is what will hold us good. We do see an effect overall on credit life, but we also see various opportunities where we find that there could be bulk covers and retail term life also possible, because they do have customer access, and they do want to cover, as Raman, I think, pointed out very clearly, their NPA on death as well. That capability is not with them. So, more to be seen there. And while you see an impact, for us, I think it is more important to keep focusing on the retail life business, and which is where the focus on retail term has been. Understood, sir. Second, just on persistency, given we have seen a drop in life insurance, is it easy to do with predominantly ULIPs, and especially the higher sum assured ULIPs what we have been incrementally selling? Or we have seen it across a little more in traditional products on persistency drop? Sanketh, Vipin here. On persistency, look, you would recall we have been calling out that there was a non-par product- Yeah that was sold, and that effect is running through. That's largely seen in 13th month. A small bit is sitting in 25th month, right? But on persistency for 25th month, where you are seeing a bigger dip of about 4%, that's largely coming because the markets have not done well, and we are seeing some decisions. But eventually, that money comes up, because if people don't pay, this becomes discontinued, and the returns are very negligible, guaranteed 4%. To your point, even if I was to dissect and take that hypothesis of large ticket size, those people eventually come back. They may want to time the market, but that's not really a big concern for us. I think the real point where we are seeing a dip is what we called out earlier as well, the non-par product which impacted us, and some of that is flowing through. Understood. Actually, Vipin, I was of the impression that the non-par is more reflected now in 25th month, not in 13th month. I was just wondering- Sanketh, we actually started that product almost last one in the market. Some part of it is reflected in 13th, and some of it is in 25th. Understood. Just on margin outlook. We are at 19.2 for first half, maybe on rolling 12 months, almost 21. Just wanted to understand if the current product mix broadly remains, is it fair to say we might be better than and then given the GST impact will not be there from second half onwards, where it will be factor of the base effect. Is it fair to say that at least what you are reporting on 12 months rolling number will be the new normal for 2027? Do you expect this to continue in 2028 for some other levers in that sense? Sanketh, while we do not give a guidance, to your point, we are at 20.8% on rolling 12 months, and I think that is a reasonable baseline to consider from here on. Our aspiration will be to only expand it from here on. I think that is the way we look at it. The only thing is, we would not like to raise your expectation on the expansion. The expansion has been very high in this quarter as well, which I guess in our last calls, not many people were expecting. I would like to say the 4.6% expansion is very good, but I do not see this kind of an expansion to sustain. I would lower your expectations of that. Understood. Lastly- Sanketh, it is Sreeni here. Can I just add to what Vipin and Tarun have said? While margin is an indicator, it is also affected by a variety of things, as you know. It can change because of product mix itself, as well as various other parameters. When you look at value of new business, which represents, I would say, effectively earnings, and that is growing at, for the half year, it has grown at 53%. It encapsulates both our volume growth, our efforts to contain cost, and product mix, as well as the mix between group and retail. If I were to take a parallel with an ordinary business which is not insurance, this would be the equivalent of earnings growth and what you people would call compounding, you know? Yeah. End of the day, I think this business has such a wide range of margins across products. What will capture the risk as well as the volume and the margins of the business is only value of new business. Our quest for the management and for us has always been to continue to grow value of new business faster than our top-line growth. Understood, sir. Perfect. Lastly, sir, you called out in the initial remarks that IndusInd Bank will be available as a channel from third quarter point of view, and we believe we will be probably the fourth large player there. Just wanted to understand whether you have quantified the size, what counter market share you can achieve there. Just a strategy around that channel, if you have anything in mind, it will be great if you can share maybe a potential APE growth opportunity there. No, so let me clarify, Sanketh. A, we don't get into such kind of detail. We've signed up only recently, and we will not be the fourth, but not everybody's been allowed in the branch channel. We are allowed in the entire branch banking channel, and we are now going and manning it and starting that work right now. You could expect some pickup from Q4 on that. As you know, IndusInd Bank would be among the top six or seven banks in terms of insurance distribution. So, we're very happy that they have included us. With some other tie-ups that we've done in the last 18 months, which is Yes Bank, AU, and Federal as well, this should also now make up a significant part of our growth in the institutional business side. Understood. Perfect. That's it from my side. Thank you, sir, for the answers. Thank you. The next question is from Nischint Chawathe from Kotak. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my question. I am probably just going to double-click on the health business. I did not quite follow why the claims ratio in health went up. I believe the government business was, I think, down YoY, right? So, I am just curious, what was the big change here? Yeah, I am happy to take that. So, the government business that you are looking at is from the GDPI perspective. The loss ratio, as you know, is calculated on NEP mix. That NEP mix has a higher proportion of the tender-driven business. That is how you get to that number. And if I look at the, I mean, if I can get a sense on the underlying trends between retail and the employer-employee, have the trends been stable, improving, deteriorating? Because various players are reporting divergent trends. Sorry, did I understand you are talking about trends in terms of frequency trends? What exactly do you mean? I mean, if you try to really split the ratio, right, between various segments, my question is that, are we able to see any segmental trends of ratios increasing or decreasing, or is it kind of more or less steady? Or is it just a big change that is driving this? I think that's my question. No, it's primarily driven by the mix change. If you look at trends, we don't give the breakup, as you are aware, and that's the trend we don't want to change. What I could tell you is that the seasonality for Q2 during the monsoon season is something that we have observed, and the experience across the three lines, I would say, is largely similar. And the current discussion that's happening between the boards and the hospitals, do you benefit from this? I think, Tapan, if I could request you to take that one. Yeah. As Tapan is leading the charge there. Yeah. If you look at it, the current payment initially, in terms of the health insurance premium, that was the discussion. That what we had mentioned was, if you break up the health insurance premium, about close to 80% goes to hospitals. And that time, there's [GST 18% going to government]. About 20% remain insurance companies for the distribution cost, running the business, and putting it together. If you want the health insurance premium to be at a reasonable level, you have to address the biggest component. Because the insurance company making a premium also, what impact will it have? That is where the discussion happened on GST. Now, GST, the government said, "That's a fair thing. They may receive it." Next discussion on hospital payments. The majority of claims is hospital payments. Nearly 100% claims in health is for hospital payments. The hospital inflation is more than the average inflation of the country. That is going to lead to a scenario where the healthcare will become unaffordable for the user. That is where I'm very happy to see the government taking steps to see how to bring that into a reasonable standard. Obviously, that will help bring down the claims cost. That will help for the end consumer in terms of pricing of health insurance premiums. What proportion of your claims are a part of package? What do you mean a part of package? The negotiations that you have with hospitals, right? The packages for various packages. Yeah. If you look, [audio distortion], if you put that all together, about 80%-85% [audio distortion]. Sorry, Tapan, your voice was breaking. Can you just repeat that? Okay. Okay, just a second. Yes. If I look at more than 67% or so is cashless. Obviously, that is the package rate. If you also add up 15% on there, so 80% plus would be negotiated rate, as you are going to have. Other also would be very close to that. Got it. Helpful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just one question. Sorry. Yes, your help. Yes. Yes. Thanks. Just one question is, Raman, if you could give some color in terms of the investments that are required by various businesses in the next one year, and how you will be able to fund them, including the investment that you are making in the finance business. Yeah. Like I had articulated in the last quarter also, if you look at our emerging companies, let's go one by one. Bajaj Finserv Direct, like I indicated in my opening remarks, will hopefully break even in this year, last quarter, on a quarters basis, and on a full year basis next year. They have not been taking capital, so we don't see that there will be any need for capital going forward. While what we've indicated in the past is that they will now go beyond just the lending marketplace to get into insurance marketplace, and thereafter investment marketplace also. At that stage, would we need some capital? I don't think it'll be material at this stage. That's on Bajaj Finserv Direct. On Bajaj Health, like I had indicated again, that this year they'll consume less than INR 200 crores. Next year it'll be much lesser, and the year after that, we should hopefully break even there also on full year basis. Again, endeavor is next year, last quarter, hopefully we should try to break even there as well. Bajaj Asset Management Company will need, I think, another INR 300 crores till we achieve break-even, which will probably be in FY 2029. Ganesh, please correct me if I'm wrong. This actually depends on the market, because we believe that somewhere between 90,000 to 1 lakh crore of AUM is where we should hit break-even. But like I said, again, no need for material capital there. What we've recently called out is our venture in reinsurance, and there, if you recall, in the last quarter, I had indicated in the next two to three years, we'll probably need INR 500 crores. All of these put together will be about INR 800 crores- INR 900 crores. Then the big investment will be in alts business. There again, we will be putting in sponsor capital. It will not be capital to burn as we grow, but that will be sponsor capital. Probably in another year, we'll need about INR 1,100 crores there. In all, for all these businesses put together, less than INR 2,000 crores in the next year, 18 months, is what we believe we'll need. Then obviously, there are other investments which we've called out, 25% of which has to happen now, and the balance over 18 months. Currently, the situation is that we are sitting on a surplus of about INR 5,000 crores of capital, to be precise, about INR 4,700 crores. As you know, we've been receiving dividends from all the material subsidiaries, whether it's BFL or it's the insurance companies. This INR 4,700 crores plus the dividend should be sufficient to fund these investments going forward. We will be happy to have more surplus, and hence we'll have to also wait and watch what IRDA takes a call on in terms of the surplus which will get generated at the one-time migration on Ind AS. Because there we believe, because of discounting and the reserves adjustments on the life side, there could be a one-time relief. Whether that can be plowed back or no, and the timing of that, we'll have to wait and watch, but that's a buffer we have. These are some of the things which we have in mind. There are many more options which we had presented to the board when we actually agreed to subscribe to the warrants. This is where we stand. The position is comfortable to answer your question. That's helpful. Thank you. Just one thing if I can squeeze, given the fact that the distribution guidelines are taking away a lot of bandwidth, is there a chance that the Ind AS implementation can get pushed out a bit? See, as of now, there's no clarity. The way IRDA is engaging, we believe that April 1 should be the date of implementation, and both the companies are working towards that. At this stage, there is no indication from anybody that this could be pushed back. Including the [crosstalk]- If you have a different view, please let me know. No, you are right, Raman. That has been the line that IRDA has maintained. They now have a member actually, and the first task is around getting the Ind AS implemented. We are pretty confident that Ind AS RBC also will happen by 1st of April. Perfect. Thank you very much and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from Prayesh Jain from Motilal Oswal Financial Services. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Thanks. My question is actually on the consultation paper and the impact of it, and more so on the motor TP line of business, where we are seeing a massive cut on commissions. While there is an industry ask for a tariff hike for quite a few years now, how should we think about this as this change in the commission? Do you think that the cut in commissions will be retained by general insurance companies, or how do you see this kind of shaping? I know it's kind of guessing, but still your insights would be helpful here. Tapan, you want to take that? Okay. Yeah. Is this audible right now, Raman, or? Yes, you are. Okay. Fundamentally, if you look at motor as a business, it is mandatory by law for you to insure your vehicle, no? I have seen the era, before 2001, the commission on motor was 5% and zero on hypothecation. Then the problem was in terms of servicing. I think when people had to insure motor, they either went to the branch to get insured, or they would request for somebody to come over. It was not attractive from a distribution perspective to take it up. In terms of business being there, business was there because it was mandatory by law, no? The issue, if you hypothetically think that there is a share that the commission happens, from terms of business, that doesn't change. Business in the market changes, no? It is how the situation happens is what changed at that time. I hope it answers your question. Sorry, couldn't barely hear you properly. Probably I will take that offline with the team. Yeah, I can just add to what Tapan said. Yeah. I think, basically what we are saying is that motor third party is a tariff product. The tariffs are fixed by the government. The two-wheelers have to be sold, new two-wheelers have to be sold with five-year TP, and new private cars have to be sold with a three-year TP. This has this mandatory, and that is the way all new vehicles will be sold. Commission, whether it is paid or not, what happened was because of EOM, there were no product-level commissions. Therefore, it was always paid on the aggregate comprehensive premium. To that extent, motor TP per se, out of the overall consultation paper, we cannot look at it in isolation. We have to see about the final guidelines which come out across all lines of business, across both life and general insurance. It is because of that, the sales of cars is not going to reduce, nor is the coverage of new vehicles going to reduce. If that answers your question. Got that. The other part was on the life insurance bit for you in particular is if you look at the EOM, it is pretty high, and how do you see, again, only the commission cuts would kind of not make you meet the target. What other initiatives? I understand there could be changes to the final glide path and everything, but if it comes as it is, what are the kind of cost-cutting levers that you would think of to kind of meet those targets? Prayesh, I think all of us are trying to look at it mathematically, and if I have to answer it that way, if you compare with last year, and because that is the number you are looking at from a GWP expense ratio, we already had about 1% drop in that ratio because of the optimization that we have been doing. That is point number one. If we were to just overlay the commissions as proposed in paper, our ratio, and plus if you exclude the GST and stamp duty, which is the representation and was excluded in the [inaudible] regulations as well, that knocks off another 8% of it. Roughly 9% is what we are talking of getting knocked off from where we were in FY 2026. That is FY 2026, we have to comply with this by FY 2028, 2029 end. So, essentially, there is a three-year walk, and that doesn't have a lot of gap to recover. We feel comfortable, if at all, if this was to come in the same shape and form. But I think we must remember, like Raman mentioned in opening remarks, if customer proposition becomes better, and assuming that costs come down and all of that, then customer proposition becomes better, then the mathematics that we are trying to do now ignores the fact that the volumes will change. It could increase, there could be short-term impact as well, right? We are also ignoring at some level the fact that we will have three years of renewal coming in, which come at low cost currently as well, and including the proposed paper. So, I would say mathematically, we are not very worried, but we will have to wait and watch what finally comes out in the drafted initiatives. Got that. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. That was the last question in queue. I would now like to hand the conference over to the management team for any closing comments. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for all the good questions and wishing you all a very happy Diwali well in advance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, we conclude today's conference. Thank you for joining us, ladies and gentlemen. You may now disconnect your lines.