Ladies and gentlemen, good day and welcome to the H1-FY26 Earnings Conference Call of HDFC Life Insurance Company. As a reminder, all participant lines will be in a listen-only mode, and there will be an opportunity for you to ask questions after the presentation concludes. Should you need assistance during the conference call, please signal an operator by pressing star then zero on your touchtone phone. I now hand the conference over to Ms. Vibha Padalkar, MD and CEO of HDFC Life. Thank you and over to you, ma'am. Thank you, Steve. Good evening all, and thank you for joining us for our earnings conference call for half-year ended September 30, 2025. Our results, along with the investor presentation, press release, and regulatory disclosures, have been made available on our website and the stock exchanges. Joining me on today's call are Niraj Shah, Executive Director and CFO; Vineet Arora, Executive Director and Chief Business Officer; Eshwari Murugan, Appointed Actuary; and Kunal Jain, Head of Investor Relations, Business Planning, and ESG. FY 2026 has progressed on a stable footing for life insurance, even amidst persistent global uncertainty driven by geopolitical tensions, trade disruptions, and uneven growth across economies. Closer home, the Indian economy continues to demonstrate resilience, supported by stable GDP growth and encouraging signals from rural markets, helped by a generally good monsoon and improving farm income. While early festive trends have lifted sentiment, high-frequency indicators present a mixed picture. Urban demand remains patchy, and some consumption indicators have moderated. In this evolving macro environment, we remain focused on disciplined execution and delivering sustainable long-term growth. The recent GST revisions are a constructive structural shift aimed at simplifying compliance and improving affordability. We have ensured that the full benefits of the GST exemption are passed on to our customers. With product pricing now more attractive to customers across segments, we expect to see stronger demand over the medium to long term. While the withdrawal of input tax credit may result in short-term margin pressure, we are confident, similar to the surrender value regulation changes, of managing this effectively over the next two to three quarters through operational adjustments and close distributor engagement. Stepping back, the life insurance sector remains structurally well-positioned, anchored by long-term savings demand, increasing financial awareness, and a deepening protection mindset. Our diversified product suite and balanced distribution architecture equip us well to navigate near-term transitions while staying aligned with the sector's robust long-term growth potential. Moving on to business performance, H1-FY26 concluded with top-line performance, broadly in line with expectations. Annualized APE, or annualized premium equivalent, this is individual, grew 10% year on year, translating into a healthy two-year CAGR of 20%. We outperformed both the overall industry and the private sector, resulting in a 90 basis points increase in overall market share to 11.9% and a 30 basis points gain in private market share to 16.6% for H1-FY26. Growth was broad-based with several encouraging trends. Tier 2 and 3 markets clocked faster growth compared to Tier 1 cities, reflecting our continued success in expanding reach beyond metros. Over 70% of new customers acquired in H1 were first-time buyers with HDFC Life, reflecting our ability to deepen reach and tap into new customer segments as we incorporate our learnings into our customer onboarding process, underwriting approach, and product offerings. Business momentum was driven by a combination of factors, i.e., higher average ticket sizes, sustained traction in ULIP and participating products, and resilient demand across income segments. Growth in the number of policies remains at a healthy two-year CAGR of 9%. Renewal collections grew by 18% year on year. Persistency ratios were stable, with 13th month and 61st month persistency at 86% and 62% respectively. These trends reflect the underlying product and tier mix. Next, on product mix, it was fairly well-balanced in H1 and aligned with evolving customer preferences and market dynamics, with ULIPs contributing 42%, participating products at 29%, non-PAR savings at 18%, and term at 7%, with annuity at 4%. ULIPs continued to witness strong inflows driven by a combination of positive equity market sentiment and a steady customer appetite for market-linked returns. Our ULIP offerings are designed not only to capture this demand but also to provide enhanced protection benefits via higher sum assured multiples and flexible rider options. Participating products maintained steady demand, supported by recent launches and a preference among customers for low-risk instruments amidst macroeconomic uncertainty. We are beginning to see a pickup in demand for non-PAR savings products, supported by the steepening yield curve and higher customer appreciation for long-term guaranteed solutions. While we have seen varied pricing approaches across the industry in recent months, we expect a more balanced environment going forward, particularly as stakeholders absorb the full implications of the GST changes. Our own approach remains grounded in long-term sustainability and customer value. The annuity segment, meanwhile, continued its strong momentum, delivering 16% growth in overall new business premium. Retail protection grew 27% year on year, outpacing overall company growth. Our newly launched Click 2 Protect Supreme combines comprehensive life, illness, and disability protection with flexible payout options and value-added features like Smart Exit and Income Boost. We are also seeing early signs of improved demand post-GST changes and are working on multiple initiatives to drive awareness and adoption of affordable protection. While it's early days on retail protection, growth post-GST changes was more than 50% in the month of September. In Credit Protect, trends in the MFI segment showed signs of revival, with growth resuming in September. Other segments continued to see steady progress, driven by improved attachment rates, wider coverage across lending partners, and new partner additions. Retail sum assured grew at a healthy 22% in H1 and a 26% CAGR over two years. We continue to maintain leadership in overall sum assured, underscoring our strength in protection-led propositions. Next, on financial and operating metrics, our new business margin for H1, prior to factoring the GST impact, was 25%. Post-GST, new business margin for H1 was broadly at FY 2025 levels at 24.5%. This translates to VNB growth of 12% pre-GST and reported growth of 10% on YoY basis, and a two-year CAGR of 14% for H1-FY26. New business margin in H1 was impacted, as expected, by the withdrawal of input tax credit under the revised GST regime. Around 80% of business in September was issued post-21st September. This, along with the effect of surrender regulation changes from previous year, also weighed on margins versus the previous year. The margin impact was partially offset by a higher share of protection and improvement in inherent product margins. We are actively implementing a series of measures to neutralize the GST-related impact on a run-rate basis over the next two to three quarters. We expect to see restoration of a more normalized VNB growth next year, i.e., FY 2027, led primarily by top-line expansion. In our view, the GST reform is a momentous forward-looking change with the potential to structurally expand long-term demand and deepen life insurance penetration in India. Profit after tax in H1 rose 9% year on year to INR 994 crore. Embedded value stood at INR 59,540 crore, with an operating return on embedded value of 15.8% on a rolling 12-month basis. Our solvency ratio was at 175%, reflecting a combination of dividend payouts, repayment of INR 600 crore of subordinated debt in quarter two, writing more protection business, and the GST impact. We plan to raise up to INR 750 crore in subordinated debt in one or more tranches in H2. The fundraise is expected to enhance solvency by around 7%. We are pleased to share that our assets under management, including that of our wholly owned subsidiary HDFC Pension Fund Management, has crossed the INR 5 trillion milestone, a significant landmark in our 25-year journey. Moving on to other distribution highlights, all channels recorded healthy growth during the period. Our counter share with HDFC Bank remains stable, while partnerships with other banks also showed healthy expansion. The proprietary channel achieved strong double-digit growth in quarter two. Agency channel has delivered a robust two-year CAGR of nearly 20% in H1-FY26, maintaining a healthy double-digit protection mix and driving profitable growth. Agent addition remained healthy, with over 50,000 new agents onboarded on a gross basis in H1-FY26, of which 80% were from Tier 2 and 3 geographies. Our focus continues to be on enhancing profitability at the branch level, alongside broader agent activation initiatives. Other updates, our Indian subsidiary HDFC Pension Fund Management continued to deliver robust performance, registering a 37% year-on-year growth in assets under management and maintaining its leadership over 43% market share. Its AUM nearly reached INR 1.4 lakh crore as on 30th September 2025. Our people remain central to our sustained success. We continue to invest in nurturing a supportive, inclusive, and empowering workplace, one that fosters innovation, collaboration, and a strong sense of belonging. We are proud to be recognized for our employee-centric practices and have been named amongst the best companies for women in India 2024, BFSI sector, honored as an exemplar of inclusion in the Most Inclusive Companies Index 2025 by Avtar and Seramount for the second consecutive year. These accolades reflect the culture we are building, one where every individual can thrive. To sum up, as the external environment evolves, we remain confident of the long-term growth potential of life insurance in India. The recent GST reform, while necessitating some recalibration for industry stakeholders, is a structurally positive step. It makes life insurance products more affordable for customers. We remain optimistic about our growth trajectory for H2, with sustained demand across segments and improving customer sentiment. With a resilient business model, a trusted brand, and a history of disciplined growth across cycles, HDFC Life is well-positioned to grow ahead of the industry. As we mark 25 years of serving Indian households, our commitment to providing financial protection and building lasting value is stronger than ever. We thank you for your continued trust and support. For a detailed overview of our results, please refer to our investor presentation. We are now open to any questions from the participants. Thank you very much, ma'am. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on your touchtone telephone. If you wish to withdraw yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use handsets while asking a question. Ladies and gentlemen, we will wait for a moment while the question queue assembles. The first question comes from the line of Avinash Singh with Emkay Global. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. Two questions. First one is on capital. If I see sequentially, our solvency ratio has dropped 17 percentage points. I would think nearly 6-7 percentage point impact coming from some retirement of your sub debt or reduction in sub debt, some part of it will be growth, and partly it could also be due to maybe yield curve movement led MTM adjustments on some of the hedging positions. Are there any other elements here? More importantly, to fund further growth, is this, I mean, the capital level comfortable and organic capital generation to support your growth, or do you have any plan to raise a sub debt or any other way to augment the capital? That's on capital and growth. Second, on this GST and margin, if I were to just glance through the sensitivity given, how VNB changes if there is a 10% increase in acquisition cost and maintenance, of course, that is a kind of a satiry sponge basis. The impact just looks sort of meaningful, assuming that 18% kind of a cost increase on a nearly 50%-60% kind of a cost that is non-salary thing. There is a reasonable amount of acquisition cost and maintenance going up. That is where my question is, as you pointed out that over the next two, three quarters, you will be kind of doing the adjustment to overcome this impact. Coming to that, is there kind of a possible way out unless the distributor also becomes or is ready to sort of share the burden? This burden to be absorbed only by maybe product change construct or to be absorbed by you, it looks a bit, I would say, on the higher side. Are distributors going to be part of this burden sharing? Will they sort of share some bit of this load as well? Thanks. I think the second question first, Avinash, on the distributors, a quick conversation. See, it's not only the distributor. It is four or five things that we will do to neutralize it. We have to be equitable between different stakeholders to be able to do it. You've mentioned distributors, and I think some, given changed economics, some of that will certainly happen. We've demonstrated that with surrender charges also. At the same time, we will be pragmatic about it. There will also be conversations with all our vendors because only around 50% of the input tax issue is due to commissions. There are others of outsourcing costs, technology costs, and so on. We will have these conversations with those vendors also. We also have a focus, along with the distributors, not only about commercials, but also on what product mix is something that we can jointly focus on and even more so than what we were doing perhaps before GST. That's an uplift in terms of, you know, as you know, unit-linked with higher levels of mortality, riders, longer-term participating policies. Every product has, you know, some further that we can extract on margins. That also will happen. We will also look at, you know, how can we look at, you know, new products? You know, is there something that is topical, variable annuities, for example? There might be some, you know, new-to-market products that can also get us that fill-up. The last point is that overall on growth, because what we are missing in all of this is that, as you said, satiry sponge based, but really, the whole point is that growth comes in a big way. We've already seen that 50%+ growth in the month of September on individual retail term. As we start evangelizing as to the monumental impact to the customer, hopefully, even in other parts of our business, we start seeing that kind of uptake. It's all of this. Obviously, we can't get into each of the specifics because these are all interstate conversations. All of this is something that we've already started working on, and many of these things we already have done and dusted with. Over to you, Niraj, on the solvency. Yeah. As far as solvency is concerned, the starting position of, say, 192% in June, you mentioned a couple of elements. There are a couple of others which we'd like to just highlight, starting with the dividend payout that we had done earlier in the year. That has about a 4.5% impact. Subordinated debt, we retired about INR 600 crore. That has around a 6% impact as a consequence of that as well. The GST impact, we've articulated about 150 basis points impact on solvency. As far as the rest of it is concerned, it's a function of more higher growth on the longer-term individual protection products. That has what has really caused this, as well as the new business strain that is basically, you know, embedded into this number. Historically, if you look at our solvency levels, they have been in the 180%, 185% band. We're reasonably comfortable running at that level. We do plan to raise about INR 750 crore of subordinated debt in this quarter. That should kind of get us to the levels that we are reasonably comfortable with. As we know, this is a fairly conservative solvency regime. As we graduate to the risk-based capital solvency regime over the next 12 to 18 months, I think the solvency position will appear to be a lot more robust than, you know, what it appears at this level. While the regulatory requirement is 150%, we believe 170% - 185% is a fairly good number to operate with. To your earlier point, also on the sensitivities that you referred to on acquisition costs, I think the numbers all kind of tie in. We've talked about a 0.5% impact for half-year. That's basically a, it's about 15% of the period's business. You could actually take a gross impact of around 3% for the year on a gross basis. That's what we basically have indicated with our disclosures. If you were to tie in the acquisition cost sensitivities, given what Vibha spoke about, not all the costs are impacted from an input tax credit perspective. Keeping in mind the composition of our business in individual and group, as well as some of the acquisition costs not having got impacted at all, it kind of ties in with the impact that we are talking about on an annualized basis of 3% with a 10% increase in acquisition costs. That's broadly our, you know, thought process around this number. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of MW Kim with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. I have two questions. The first question is about the business growth opportunities in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. Following the GST tax removal, the insurance product has become more affordable to the public, and the company has been an early mover in developing the business in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. With growing brand awareness and initial success in these regions, what is the company's target for the sales contribution from those regions over the next five years? Yeah. I just want to do a little bit more to quantify this impact. The next question is about the asset liability management. We have observed that the company's embedded value and new business margin sensitivity to the interest rate movement has decreased over the past six months. Given the current macro volatility, could you elaborate on whether this reduced sensitivity has come at a higher cost or if it remains manageable through the asset management duration solutions? Additionally, is the bond market sufficiently developed to serve as an effective hedging tool for your asset liability management needs? Thank you. Yeah. Hi. On the first question, Tier 2 and 3 is about two-thirds to 70%. It's somewhere in that range on an APE basis. On a number of policies, it's slightly higher. We expect it to continue similarly because if you were to look at the underlying growth rates, while Tier 2 and 3 is slightly at a higher clip, ticket sizes are smaller, a little bit lesser. That's how I think we will see it panning out over the time horizon that you talked about. You want to add anything, Vineet? Yeah. Hi. I just add, I think you also asked about the impact of GST on this mix. Clearly, we also have seen a lot of traction happening because of GST, more so in our term business and the protection business. We do expect that trend to continue, though it will be normalized from the kind of increase that we saw towards the end of September. We do believe it will get normalized as things become more BAU. Definitely, in a product like protection in which the GST impact is quite large and very visible, we expect that to contribute to this continued growth of protection business. To your second point in terms of the asset liability management, like you rightly mentioned, the sensitivities have been fairly range-bound and maybe even going down in the recent periods. It is basically a consequence of a couple of things. One is our hedging approach has not really changed too much. It has been broad-based in terms of duration matching single premium products and cash flow matching regular premium guaranteed products through a combination of external and internal instruments. That has not really changed too much in the past five to six years. What has happened is that, like you alluded to, in terms of is it coming at a higher cost? Not necessarily. The reason for that is that as interest rates move, we alter our pricing, and the cost of hedging is an intrinsic part of that pricing decision as well. It is not something that causes an additional dent to any of our economic metrics. Also, broad-basing this hedging approach allows us to decide between each of these instruments from different points in time, depending on how the economic aspect of, let's say, a forward date agreement works from time to time. I think that is broadly how things have been. Just to add to that, the sensitivity captures the impact of the interest rate movements on the shareholder assets and the assets in the policyholder, which are over and above the best estimate liabilities because on a statutory basis, we're required to hold higher assets. Depending upon where these assets are invested and depending upon the shape as well as the level of the yield curve, the sensitivities will be slightly different. As Niraj mentioned, it's always been range-bound. It is very important to note that in an interest rate down scenario, our values are going to be higher, which is what we primarily look at when we are hedging or matching our liabilities under the non-PAR guaranteed products. The interest rate up is an adverse impact on the embedded value and new business margin. That's because the assets are invested in bonds, and when the interest rates go up, the value of the bonds reduces. Only the excess assets are exposed to the risk. All the policyholder liabilities, they are perfectly matched by cash flow matching or by duration matching, as mentioned in our slide 17. Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, in order to ensure that the management is able to answer questions from all participants, please limit your questions to two per participant. The next question comes from the line of Shreya Shivani with Nomura. Please go ahead. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity. My questions, both my questions are around the GST only. Can you help me understand which products get impacted the most because of the GST bit in descending order? Protection, ULIP, non-PAR, whatever it is. My second is I wanted the clarity on, if you do nothing, how much of a VNB margin hit on an annualized basis comes for you? How much time should we build in for expecting that all the negotiations, etc., would get completed in? Those are my questions. Just one data keeping question. In your VNB walk, can you explain what is that impact of delay in pricing, that first bit in that chart? Those are my questions. Thanks. Yeah. We'll just start with the last bit on the VNB walk. The starting position on a reported basis was 24.6%. If you recollect, in the previous quarters, there was a point in time when we had articulated the gap in margin due to lag in repricing. That is what we wanted to just restate here, to basically say that once you neutralize that, the margin would have been 25% at the beginning of the period, and end of the period is 24.5%. On a reported basis, it's 24.6% to 24.5%. That was just the representation of. Just to interject here, Shreya, we didn't want to start off with 24.6% as a limited point. We wanted to say that last year should have been 25% in quarter two. That's what Niraj is saying. Yeah, I remember you didn't reprice the product. That happened, correct. Which is why we're saying that it is higher. Actually, the starting point is higher. Yeah. That is one. Second is you asked for the annualized impact. I just spoke about it a while back where we said that 0.9% for the quarter or 0.5% for the half-year basically is representative of about, say, one-sixth of the business. On an annualized basis, you would expect a gross impact of about 3% odd, which ties in with the earlier question around acquisition expense sensitivity. That is on a gross basis. Of course, that's not something that we would want to maintain or stay with. Our objective is to try and neutralize that over the next couple of quarters. On a run-rate basis, we would be very close to where we want to be by end of the year. That is something that we would endeavor. Lastly, in terms of impact on different product segments, I think at least from our perspective, given the market dynamics that we operate in, the biggest impact for us is on unit-linked products. The rest of the products are, in some sense, fairly benign compared to the impact that we have on unit-linked products given the cap on charges. That is something that we'll try and solve for, you know, compared to some of the other business lines. Right. Just to follow up, you said by the end of the fourth quarter, end probably we would be closer to a more normalized VNB because you would have neutralized all the negotiations that we are doing, right? That's what you mentioned. Yeah. FY 2027, we would expect a fully normalized delivery. The end of this year and beginning of next year is where we would like the levels to be very close to where we would like them to be. While we have set two to three quarters, we will try and wrap this up in two quarters. Sure. Thank you. This is very useful and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is on the line of Prayesh Jain with Motilal Oswal. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Just in extending that, extending the previous question on the GST front, you said gross impact was 3%. That obviously doesn't factor in the growth that can come in from this, right? If I look at the second half, even if you take the gross impact, it's about 3%. Obviously, even if you don't make any alterations to products or alterations to commissions, you still will have some net benefit coming in from the growth, right? Is that a fair way to look at it? Yes, you're right. We'll take you back to what we discussed at the beginning of the year. If you look at a VNB walk for quarter one as well as for H1, you do see a negative on the fixed cost absorption. That is because we are, like we've discussed in the past, capacitized for 16% to 18% growth. Currently, we are, while growing faster than the sector, still at 10%. We do expect some of this to kind of linger in the second half as well. We do hope to close the gap. We expect this to be a drag still. While H2 is likely to be a higher growth compared to H1, there could still be some lag there. We will see where we end given how things are right now. Got that. The second question is on the non-PAR side. While you mentioned that the ULIP demand has been strong, is this a non-PAR as a strategy also, given that the competitive intensity has been high? We have seen with some other players that the demand of the non-PAR share has been going up, and there has been a decently strong demand on the ground for non-PAR. Is there a strategy wherein you are letting go of the business given the competitive intensity? How do you kind of see this panning out with the non-PAR share where we are today in the first half? Do you see the second half to be significantly higher? How should we think about this? Yeah. I think we do expect some pickup in non-PAR to happen in the second half. Everything that you mentioned is right. We do see some sort of aggression in pricing, which we try and stay away from. We obviously will try and continue to innovate on the product front to try and bring more relevant and interesting propositions to customers. While we do that, in our case, I think for last year, till last year, the product mix was in the 30% odd range. It has come off from there. I think for some of the peers that you're referring to, probably they started on a much lower base compared to where we did. That's also something to consider. Having said that, it's definitely a category that we expect to pick up in the second half from a business, from a demand perspective, especially given the way the interest rates have moved in the last three months. It just makes the category more attractive. Right. Right. Thanks. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Madhukar Ladha with Nuvama Wealth Management. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you for taking my question. Just to re-emphasize this, you are saying that the overall, if you don't do anything, 300 basis point impact because of GST, that will partly probably get offset with volume growth. However, fixed cost absorption may still be a little bit negative until the end of the year. That drag may still continue as far as the margins are concerned. Is that the right understanding? Yeah. I just want to interject. If you, before all this GST happened on 3rd of September, what we had alluded to is that last year, FY 2025, we had ended at 25.6%. We said that margins will be more or less range-bound, and VNB growth will be in line with top-line growth because of investments in two areas that we had talked about, right? That was the starting point. Now, GST impact is there, and we have called it out. We are saying that we will end this year over the next two quarters, neutralizing that impact. That's really the, so intrinsically, when we had said that we are going to hold the margins, also this negative impact is due to lower growth. We are capacitized to grow at about 16%, 17%, 18%. We had said growth is in the early teens, and hence this is the carrying cost. Nothing changes on that front. Unless, of course, because of GST in the second half, overall growth starts seeing a material uptake. We are seeing that in protection. It's early days. If that were to come in sooner rather than later, even on some elements of savings, then yes, the differential should go down fairly rapidly. We're not factoring it as of now. We'll watch this space very closely. Got it. I also see that actually, if you see your product mix, that's moved more towards par and more towards ULIP, with the change in business profile still resulting in a positive impact on the margins. What exactly are we doing over here? Some sense on that. You had mentioned that we still have further levers on this count. I wanted to get a sense of how much further margin improvement can come as a result of this. Over, let's say, the next six odd months, what sort of driver could that be? Second, on persistency, 13th and 37th month, we are seeing some dip in persistency. What would be the reason for that? Yeah. To your first point in terms of the levers as well as the product mix implication on margins, if you were to just look at it from the broad categories perspective, protection has grown at 27% which is almost 3x that of the overall company growth. That obviously has played a significant role in terms of improving the margin profile from a product mix perspective. Annuities has grown at about 16% so I think that also is a fairly significant contributor to that. PAR mix has gone up, which is, you know, a little lower than company average margins, but I think it's not really creating any dent. The biggest change that has happened is on the unit-linked front, where about one-fourth of the business that we now do is on higher sum assured. That is something that absolutely meaningfully alters the margin profile of this product category for us. That has actually more than made up for some of the product mix that you would impute from a unit-linked mix going up and non-PAR going down. It's more than got neutralized by this factor, apart from the protection growth and the annuity growth. In addition to this, the flip side of the non-PAR mix going down is basically a pricing discipline, which adds to the inherent margin of the product. Of course, that's got helped with the way the interest rates have moved as well. All of these things have got the product profile to improve in spite of the product mix appearing the way it is. To your, Vineet, do you want to add? I'll just add one point here. I think you also spoke about what is the further runway for this margin increase. Now, one of the parameters that we're looking at when we are talking to distribution partners, etc., is also to enhance the contribution of this high sum assured and higher margin ULIP to compensate for, let's say, the entire GST impact. As that discussion goes forward and we are closing certain counters with those kind of discussions, we do expect this 14% number to even go up further. The mix of ULIP between the normal ULIP and, let's say, the high margin ULIP, that mix will also alter. Another point is that, you know, we've been investing and we've talked about it in our agency channel. Growth for the quarter has been materially higher than overall company-level growth, and margins from agency channel are comfortably also higher because of better product mix. Just as that, even apart from product mix, even as channel mix continues to move in favor of agency channel, some of that uplift should also come over the next six, nine months. On persistency, I think just the headline number impact is really that of the mix shift in terms of ticket size. That's really the biggest delta between what you see on the 13th month at this point in time, apart from the mix shift that we've spoken about in terms of geographies. That is something that we now kind of are building into our business model, and we'll work towards looking at improving on that as we go forward. Got it. Thanks a lot and all the best. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Sanketh Godha with Avendus Spark. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. My first question, if you want to deliver, say, 15%-16% growth for the full year, the back-calculated growth for the second half comes to around 19%-20% you need to deliver. I just wanted to understand that the 19%-20% growth, how confident you are to deliver in the second half so that the 60 bps negative impact of fixed cost absorption can be fully neutralized. I just wanted to understand the growth color there, given you might be going through a kind of disruption phase when you are negotiating commissions with the distributors. That's point number one. The second thing we want to check is that your bank channel growth seems to be flat for half year on year. Bulk of the business comes from HDFC Bank. Is it fair to say that the market share gains story largely played out till last year? Now, even to that extent, bank is still struggling to contribute anything to grow because the NOPs or number of policies on premium in general is not growing in that channel. If it is the case, when do you see the revival in this particular channel to happen? Those are my questions. One more thing, if I can add. The yield curve benefit, I believe, will play out in the second half. Is it fair to say that the non-PAR savings margins might look a little better in the second half compared to the first half? Therefore, that could be a negating factor to all the GST-related issues on the margins. These are my three questions. Yeah. On the first point on growth, Sanketh, I don't think we have alluded to the numbers that you talked about, 16%, 18%, 19% kind of growth. We have talked about early teens because we're coming off a big base. Also, like we explained in quarter one, we can't be decoupled with whatever is happening in the lending environment, in bank growth, overall system-led growth in the BFSI sector, and even otherwise. We are holding on to what we said, which is in early teens growth, and we're on track. We have also said that we will grow faster than the sector and that we have comfortably done with market share expansion, like I mentioned on the call. Right? I think your calculation is backward calculation to say if we have to eliminate the drag due to lower, you know, the fixed cost absorption, then yes, of course. That's exactly what we're saying, that because of the overall system-led, you know, a macro environment-led somewhat of a drag. That's why we have that under-absorption of costs. We are retaining our outlook of what we said in the first quarter and not factoring in any upside that could come through because of GST. We have factored in whatever downside. We have explained that. There can only be an upside due to higher volumes. That's on point number one. On point number two, on HDFC Bank, we have more or less retained our share. See, like I mentioned in the past also, it's not difficult at all. It is apparent for us to get to 70% or whatever that X percentage share. What we are focused on is in terms of improving our margins while retaining the current share. Of course, down the line, we are getting more and more nuanced. Now, HDFC Bank also has grown in line with company-level growth. It is not really a drag. On a two-year CAGR, it is a very respectable 20% growth. Also, we are very selective in terms of what parts of what the bank sells we want to have a share in. 40% growth has the channel has delivered on retail protection. We are getting more and more nuanced as to what do we want to sell rather than INR 100 of unit linked or INR 100 of protection that we are agnostic on just to show a higher wallet share. That's as far as the HDFC Bank relationship is concerned. I think the last question was on non-PAR. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. On non-PAR, yes, you are right. The margins will be better given the increase in the yields at the longer end. Yeah, that's the right conclusion. Sorry, if you can say that if the yield curve holds up at the current level, maybe any positive rub-off you will have on margin delta because of the current shape of the curve if it holds up for the entire second half? Yes, if it holds up, yes, we will have a margin delta. Yes. Okay. We will start to look at balance if competitive. Exactly. A lot of these things, you know, yes, if everything else remains the same, that is the only factor that margins would improve. However, if there is competitive pressure to, you know, bring fastest on, then margins would come back. Some of the negating of the GST, you know, so many things like this will be in fray. On a standalone basis, what you're saying is technically correct. Understood. Understood. Perfect. Thanks. Thanks for the answer. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, you are requested to limit your questions to one per participant. The next question is from the line of Dipanjan Ghosh from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Good evening, everyone. Just two questions from my side. One, in terms of your non-HDFC Bank partnerships on the bancassurance side, can you give some color on how your counter share has been changing over the past, let's say, 12 months- 24 months? Just one small question in terms of timelines for the launch of the variable NVT product. Hi. This is Vinay. I'll take your first question. On the banks beyond HDFC Bank, we have seen a lower growth for the first six months. I would say first quarter, we had a lower counter share in a few of these banks. Towards the second quarter, we have been able to retain our counter share back to what it used to be. As you know, things are panning out. We are now pretty confident of retaining our counter share in these banks. Some of these banks added more partners. It was not that we, you know, per se lost counter share. We just had more partners there in the open architecture construct. It's settled down. I think exactly it is settled down now. If you also look at our two-year CAGR on these bank counters, it's a healthy 22% two-year CAGR. On the variable NVT, we are in conversations with the regulator. Hopefully, we should be able to launch it in the last quarter of this year. Got it. Thank you and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Nischint Chawathe with Kotak Institutional Equities. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. This is essentially on solvency. How much leeway do we really have beyond the proposed assurance or further capital raise? I mean, if growth in the protection business continues to remain high, especially after getting some tailwinds from GST exemption, to what extent can we support growth? Is there going to be any need to raise equity? I think that's my, so what are the tools available out there? That's the first question. The second is, essentially, if I looked at your P&L statement, there is a decline in or a reasonably sharp year-on-year decline in policyholders' surplus. What's driving this? Just a tiny one over there is, your single premium commission rate has, again, significantly increased on a year-on-year basis. Those are my two questions or three questions. On the solvency initiative, like we've maintained, I think a level close to 180% is reasonably comfortable for us to continue growing. At 175%, adding sub debt of INR 750 million will take us to that level. The regulatory requirement is 150%. With this level of growth and product mix, we have a significant runway. We can go a couple of years and not require equity capital. Having said that, you're aware that the risk-based capital regime is likely to get implemented in this period, which will significantly alter the solvency profile of not just our company, but the industry in a positive way. Capital is unlikely to be any constraint for growth unless the growth trajectory is dramatically different and the product mix changes a lot faster than we think at this point in time. It should not be an issue from that perspective. On policyholder surplus impact, it is largely a function of how the segments have done. On the participating front, it's been fairly stable. As far as non-PAR savings is concerned, the lower business has actually improved the position there on the individual business. Credit life, which sits in the non-PAR segment, has grown at over 15%. That will cause a strain in the shorter term. That is something that is reflecting here. Similarly, individual protection has grown at 27%. That also causes a strain on the P&L. That is something that will obviously be accretive from an economic perspective, but it will cause strain in this artificial P&L construct in which we don't have a matching concept. Similarly, the artificial solvency construct in which the requirements are not as per the risk in the product. Single premium commissions here. Thanks. The single premium commission. I'll take that question. Like I think Vibha also spoke in her opening remarks, we did see a good growth coming in our CP business. We have also seen some green shoots in the last month on the MFI part of the CP business. That has shown us some good growth. Also, the growth in annuity has been healthy. Both of these would have contributed to that single premium increase. Got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Nidesh Chen with Investec. Please go ahead. Thanks for the opportunity. My question is on distribution mix. Within distribution, we have seen very strong growth in the broker channel. What is driving that and how sustainable are the current end rate? Our growth in the broker channel has been maintaining our share in some of the broker shops, as well as a large growth in the protection business happening through some of the counters. These two things have been contributing to our growth in the broker channel. We do believe it's a very sustainable growth. Even the product mix at the broker channel is reasonably healthy and giving us good margins, better than company-level margins. That also is a sustainable business for us to continue. The share of broker channel has now become around, I think, 9% of APE. Do you think that this share you will be able to sustain going forward? Yes. Yes. Sure. Sure. Thank you. That's it from my side. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Vinod Rajamani with Nirvana Bank. Please go ahead. Hello. Hi, Vibha. Thank you for taking my question. You spoke about changes that you can make on the product, whether it is tenor extension, attaching riders, higher sum assured, and so on. Also, some channel repricing and so on. Just in terms of rider attachment, any data that you can share? How many products currently do you have which you have a rider attached? What is the plan going forward as far as the rider attachment is concerned? The second question I had was on the group side. The way I see it, group can be a natural hedge in terms of this input tax credit. Is there something we can do on the group side to kind of mitigate some of the impact of this GST? These were the two questions I had. Thank you. Like we discussed, inherent margin on the products have gone up. Largely, it's about adding elements of adding riders, a higher sum assured, and a combination of all of these factors, which help us in taking the inherent margin up. Also, the factor that more longer-term products are being sold now as compared to, let's say, earlier. You can see that our sum assured growth has been healthy, and these are the ones which have really contributed to that happening. The second point around C. Any data around how many riders are attached to your products? Do you have a target in mind and so on? I think how many riders are attached is not really a straightforward answer because there could be multiple riders or different kinds of products which have different abilities for riders. Some of the products have inbuilt riders, some of them have inbuilt protection, higher protection. There is no straight answer for saying that how many riders are attached. Like we said, to enhance our margins, we do focus on a higher build of protection around the saving piece. The protection could come through higher sum assured, through riders, or any of these elements. Sure. On the group side? The group side, sorry, if you could repeat that question, this was around the GST. Yes, that's right. The group is excluded from GST, and it stays that way. There is no other implication on the group from a GST perspective. My question was around whether, since it acts as a kind of hedge, is there any strategy there to mitigate the impact of this GST? Is there, what are we planning in the remainder of the year? There is no mitigation for that. It is that group business itself is growing at a healthy pace, and that business is, let's say, immune from this GST change. Okay, thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Neeraj Toshniwal with UBS. Please go ahead. Hi. First question on the, just wanted to recheck on the guidance. Vibha kind of mentioned that the starting point we were at, you know, comparing and probably heading for a flattish margin by the year end. Distinct impact for GST, if we are able to kind of pass on, are we still sticking to that particular guidance? That is our first question. Second is on the leg-to-leg basis. Obviously, the product-level margin seems to have increased significantly because if I look at the product mix, has it been only driven by ULIP, higher sum assured, particularly in ULIP, or is it across the board in all the product categories seeing margin uptake? Or the major delta is coming only from ULIP? We are seeing an uptake throughout. There is something or the other in terms of features that we do try and be very nuanced upon and also work very closely with the distributors and construct products that will be meaningful to customers. We keep finding ways, and regulations also change and so on. It is fairly dynamic. We are X GST, we're not changing guidance. I mean, we don't like giving per se guidance given so much of volatility. Whatever we had mentioned in the first quarter, that holds. Not taking into account any upside due to positive impacts of GST. Got it. That is helpful. On the EU curve movement, are we looking to, do you just assess IRRs versus upward sloping curve or are we not looking to fully pass on, or here also, you know, it will be driven by competitive dynamics at play? How should one think about the growth of non-PAR savings in that construct in the coming quarters? Yeah. We launched this category, I think, about six and a half years back. We keep repricing, I think, upwards of 20x in this period in line with the way interest rates move. Of course, like we discussed on the call, we need to also mention competitive dynamics also play a role there. All of these things, which function on a BAU basis, we will see what is feasible given the interest rate environment, what we're able to earn, as well as, you know, where the competitive pressures are in the categories. All of that will continue on a BAU basis. Nothing different that we will do in this period. Got it. Thank you and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Gaurav Sharma with HSBC. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my question. Am I audible? Yes. Oh, yes, sir, you're audible. Yeah. First question is on the product mix of the agency channel. I'm seeing a sharp decline in the contribution of non-PAR savings from 40% last year to 21%. What explains this? Going forward, can we see the shift in the product mix that will support the margins also? That is number one. Second is on the GST cut, the changes in commission structure. I just wanted to know that if changes are communicated to distributors, whether it will be the similar type of cuts to all the distributors or it will be aligned to product mix. If a banker is doing more of ULIPs, the cuts would be higher that way. These two questions. The first point on non-PAR, I think I explained also in the first quarter, whether non-PAR pricing or underwriting in terms, pricing in terms, is all similar. We'll continue to build business at the pricing and underwriting in terms of quality, both on mortality and persistency, the way we think will be the right level. We'll continue to withdraw a little bit when it gets somewhat what we think is irrational. We will, of course, regain lost ground when we think there's a little bit more rationality. I think given GST, some of the rational behavior hopefully should percolate down. We've certainly seen that in term. We have, like Niraj alluded to, really grown well on retail term, almost 27%, and sum assured and so on. We'll replicate the same on non-PAR. Our overall growth in non-PAR in H2 should be higher than in H1. As regards all these conversations with our partners, these are all one-on-one conversations. There are so many things in the mix. Nothing is one-size-fits-all. It will be just inter se between us and them. Understood. Thank you for answering my question. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Mohit Mangal with Centrum. Please go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. I've got two questions. My first question is that, you know, we started Project Inspire about a couple of years back. Will we continue to invest in that in the future like we did in 2019 and 20 24 and financial year 2025? That's point number one. Point number two, we saw a marginal decline in individual policies sold. Do you see an uptake in H2? Yeah. I'll take your first question first, which is about Project Inspire. We have been on that road now for more than, you know, 12 months of groundwork and maybe 18 months including design. We have seen the first few outputs coming. The employees internally, operational teams have started using that platform also, of course, let's say our group business first. We will continue to do that investment, take it to, you know, logical milestones of rolling out new journeys and everything else over the next 12 months- 18 months. Your second question was around NOPs. On the NOP side. Individual. Yeah. Yeah. Individual NOPs. On the NOP side, we have consciously done a reduction of NOPs or new business policies from our lower ticket size segment where we had lower persistency, etc. That's a conscious call. All other segments which are greater than INR 50,000 have been growing healthy on the NOPs. We do expect this to play out in the next six months as well. Understood. Thanks and wish you all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our last question. It's from the line of Harshal with Asian Market Securities. Please go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity. Two questions from my end. Firstly, on new business streams, this quarter we have seen a very sharp increase in the new business stream, which has led to decline in underwriting profits. Do we expect that trend to continue further in the near future also? Secondly, in terms of renegotiation with distributors, how do we see that playing across channels, particularly if we see some color on the online channels? These are the two questions. Yeah. The new business stream has grown higher than the BPI growth. That is mainly because of the GST impact on the business that was written in the last eight days, which contributed about 15% of the business in H1. Since this business was written without any changes in the distributor commission or any other features, this stream is a little higher. Going forward, we expect that the stream will reduce because of all the factors that we discussed on how to mitigate the impact of the GST changes. Without the impact, the NB stream would have grown at a similar rate to the business growth. Yeah. I'll take the question on the online channels. The online channels largely contribute a lot of protection business to us. We have seen a clear uptick in the protection business from all the online channels, as well as from the other channels as well. In fact, in most of the GST, the increase. In the protection business, and the interest of the customers also in the protection business has been quite healthy. I think we need to monitor this for the next, maybe 60 days, to see where does this normalize. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question for today. I would now like to hand the conference over to Ms. Vibha Padalkar for closing comments. Yeah, thank you for joining us today. Should you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to contact our Investor Relations team. Wishing you all a happy festive season. Good night. Thank you. On behalf of HDFC Life Insurance Company, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines. Thank you.