ICICIGI — earnings call
The transcript as filed. Every paragraph is addressable: its link names the page and the position it sits at in the call.
Prepared remarks
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you very much.
We will now begin with the question- and-answer session.
Our first question comes from the line of Supratim Datta from Jefferies.
Please go ahead.
Supratim Datta
Hello, thanks a lot for the opportunity.
My first question is on the competitive environment in the industry.
There have been articles recently indicating that competition in the Commercial Lines has been fairly elevated.
You indicated that the Motor Lines combined ratio remains elevated.
So, if you could give us an idea about how competitive environment in the different segments is panning out, that would be helpful.
And is there any improvement due to now the EOM guidelines kicking in?
So, that's my first question.
The second question, coming to the loss ratio side, this year's 4th Quarter Motor TP loss ratio has been significantly lower than what we have seen in the last year.
So, just wanted to understand what has played out for this significant improvement versus the run rate that we have seen previously, and why is the crop loss ratio negative if you could give some color on that.
Lastly, on IFRS, Gopal, would it be possible for you to give us some understanding or clarity regarding how your PAT under IFRS would look versus the IGAAP PAT?
That would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Gopal Balachandran
Maybe I can take the second and the third, and then maybe Sanjeev can respond to the first one.
I think on the loss ratio, Supratim, I think this obviously comes to us every quarter, and I think our response will still remain the same, as in to say that one, you have to keep looking at Motor as a category as compared to one looking at separately Motor-owned damage and third party.
That's one.
Second, I think we would continue to again request all of you to keep looking at numbers more on a full year basis as compared to, let's say, any given quarter.
And just to refresh what we have been telling the street is, I think the range that we are comfortable on Motor is between 65% to 67%.
I think that is the range that we have maintained.
And if you would have seen for the full year current year, I think we ended at roughly about 66.3%.
It's well within that range.
And hence, to that extent, I think that's the range that we would be tracking pretty closely.
So, in that sense, there is nothing that has changed.
If you ask us, has any of our reserving philosophy undergone a change, the short answer is no. And we continue to maintain prudence in terms of maintaining our loss reserves.
So, hence, I think we have to keep looking at numbers more on a full year basis as compared to any given quarters.
So, that's one.
Crop, I think time and again, we have talked about it because generally again, just to refresh, most of the businesses in crop get booked around Quarter 2 and somewhere around Quarter 3 and maybe early Quarter 4.
Because those are typically the two seasons that largely get exhibited.
In our case, we had predominantly large exposure on crop, largely from one state, of which a large part of our premium was something that had got booked roughly around Quarter 2 of the year.
And as we have said, it obviously takes time for the season to play out in terms of actual loss experiences.
And in any quarter, when you see the experience play out, then to that extent, obviously, if you recollect, even at the time of booking the policies, we obviously follow a very, very conservative approach of providing for almost 100% loss ratio at the time of writing the risk.
And as the actual experiences play out, obviously, to that extent, in case if you see some a positive change, then to that extent, that gets reflected again in the given quarter.
And hence, to that extent is why possibly you are seeing that number in line with the loss ratio outcomes for Quarter 4.
Here again, I would continue to urge that you should again look at the numbers more on a full year basis.
On a full year basis is pretty much range bound, whether you look at FY25 or whether you look at FY26. On Ind AS, I think, in line with what we are also going to put out as a part of the opening transcript, at this point of time, if you ask us, now there is a definitive date in so far as transitioning to Ind AS is concerned.
So, hence, that's a very, very welcome step in so far as the overall industry is concerned.
I think that's what rightfully so the regulator has done it.
In terms of our own transition, I think we have been working on a plan of action in terms of getting our processes internally up and ready so that we are able to start reporting numbers to all of you whenever we are ready for it.
At this point of time, I think we will continue to give in line with what we have done even in the past.
We have been submitting pro forma numbers for the last two years.
So, we will continue even for FY26-27 on a quarterly basis in line with the requirements.
We will continue to submit Ind AS based results to the regulator.
And maybe we will come back to all of you at an appropriate time.
And then we will possibly start talking about more specifics in terms of the impact that it does on both the combined ratios and maybe the return on equity objectives.
Because those are the two things that the market obviously wants to hear from us.
So, we will come back on that.
Sanjeev Mantri
So, also, just to close out the IFRS part, we have always said in the past also, that the year of adoption, there would be a significant decline in combined ratio.
It can be in the range of 300 basis to maybe 400-450 basis point.
But look, that's only the accounting part of it.
The economic value over a period of time, it is expected to converge and have the same value creation for the Company as it happens.
So, our stance pretty much remains the same.
And yes, from next quarter one, we will end up doing our submissions on that count.
With respect to Supratim on competitive pressure that is there, and we spoke about that also when we were giving the overall briefing for the year that has gone by.
Yes, it has intensified on Commercial Line of business.
At the same time, the capacity overall on the reinsurance side was very high available and we have been able to see to some extent is getting negated.
Will this continue?
My own belief is market forces will play out.
But our own understanding is when we see intensive competition, the selection has to get sharper, will we compete in the market?
Answer is yes.
But what we have been able to write and what we will write, we will be creating differentiation.
If you remember last year, over quarters, we had said that there was a marginal loss of market share for us on the fire side purely was on account of the fact that we will do what is comfortable and the output is in some ways here to see.
These are all very exposure-driven products, and you have to be cautious of what you pick and what you don't.
And we continue to follow that.
There is no overarching worry.
We are very well placed as an institution in terms of what practices we have to counter any such measures that come up in the market.
And overall General Insurance in particular, have seen these kind of conduct at multiple levels and we are well-placed about it.
On Motor also in a similar vein, yes, the industry is being stressed at multiple counts.
The combined ratio which I just spoke about for the nine months stayed at 128 clearly not a workable one.
We continue to pick and choose and deliver a result which is differentiated from the market.
It's purely led by on multiple count distribution and underwriting practices which differentiates in own damage as well as third-party which briefly Gopal spoke about.
Thank you.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Our next question comes from the line of Prayesh Jain from Motilal Oswal.
Please go ahead.
Prayesh Jain
Hi everyone.
A few questions from my side.
Firstly, I just wanted to take a view on your solvency which is very high at 2.7 because you have been generating good profits over the past few years and in fact from FY22 to FY25 and even now the solvency has been increasing.
So, how do you see whether you can utilize the solvency better in terms of paying out dividends or in any other form, because unless the growth is really exceptional, I am sure that we would not need that excess solvency on the balance sheet.
That's question number one.
Second, Sanjeev, you have been talking about Motor TP price hike and we have discussed this in the last few calls as well, but given the trajectory on the Motor TP loss ratio that about 63.2 in FY25 and 63.8 this year for you, do you think that Motor TP price hike can come in?
And my last question is on the Health Insurance front.
Gopal, if you could split up the loss ratios for Retail and Group.
Gopal Balachandran
So, Prayesh, so the first one, I think, I think as a Company, what we have always maintained is sufficient margins when it comes to solvency because the Indian market is still on Solvency 1 Regulation.
I think, of course, there is a roadmap to maybe eventually transition to risk-based capital, which again, as what the regulator has rightfully done on Ind AS, I am sure they would possibly try and do a similar thing even on transition to risk-based capital as well.
So, obviously, one will have to wait and see how that plays out.
But till that point of time, I think the Indian market continues to be guided by Solvency 1, which, as I said, still mandates capital asked to be maintained basis the gross exposures that you have as an entity.
And hence, to that extent, we will have to be mindful of and prudent in terms of the levels of solvency that we carry as an institution.
Having said that, I think to your point on the last few years, I think fair observation.
But if you see, I think last couple of years in specific, I think we have been relatively lower when it comes to growth.
But that's something that we have already seen clear positive reversal of trends emerging for us.
And with the momentum that we have seen, in all fairness, one would obviously want to make sure that we are able to get it extended even as we head into FY27. And the moment you will see as what you have seen, let's say even in the second half of this year, growth coming back.
So, to that extent, obviously, one will look at consuming some part of the solvency that we have.
And three, our solvency is also guided by obviously a mix of what is it that we want to drive in terms of the growth objective.
And two, at the same time, make sure that we are appropriately rewarding the investors who have obviously placed faith in us.
And in that context, I think if you would have seen historically, we do have a Board-Governed Dividend Distribution Policy in place.
On an average, I think what we have been able to distribute is roughly about 25% of our PAT.
And this year, again, as what we had put out in our opening transcript, roughly about ₹ 13.5 per share for the full year, roughly translates to almost about 25% of our profit after tax.
So, hence, it obviously will be a continued combination of both rewarding the shareholders appropriately and at the same time making sure that we are able to use the capital for growth.
And the third part, as I said, we will obviously keep a watch on the transition to risk-based capital.
So, that's one.
To your point on the breakup for the Health loss ratio numbers, thankfully, this time the question has come ahead of time so maybe we will answer it.
So, I think Q4 of last year, this right now, I will give you the numbers for Quarter 4, employer- employee book.
Last year, Q4, the loss ratio was 98%.
And this year, that number is almost the same at 98.1%.
On the retail indemnity book, the loss ratio for Q4 last year was 64.8%.
And this year, Quarter 4, the loss ratio on the indemnity book is at 57.6%.
Now, the same year numbers on a full year basis, employer-employee book for last year has been at 97.2%.
And this year, full year, the employer-employee book loss ratio stands at about 91.9%.
On the retail indemnity, full year last year was 67.9%.
This year, full year is at about 64.6%.
So, just, therefore, to sum it.
Again, on the indemnity book, I think the range that we have spoken about is between 65% to 70%.
And that's what we have been largely talking through even in the past several quarters.
And broadly, if you see the experience that one has seen, the good part is, I think, one, we have been able to build a book which is pretty much to our liking.
And it has played out both in terms of growth in market share and also staying within the loss ratio range.
So, those are the responses to the two questions.
Sanjeev Mantri
So, yes, I think, possibly, it has been almost five years now since the industry has got a hike.
At the loss ratio, at the industry level, as far as Motor TP is concerned, is at around 85% and thereabouts, which is significantly elevated.
If you see, and Gopal briefly spoke about it, we have to also reconfigure our portfolio to get aligned and drive the efficiency, which we have been able to reflect.
It does, at times, leads to a loss and whenever we end up having discussions, whether individually or collectively, there's so much of questioning as to why has the market share gone up that is what it takes to reconfigure.
We have also recalibrated our practice in terms of ground surveillance and doing what is required to avoid fraud, which probably we would easily say is among the lowest in the industry.
There's no way we can claim to eliminate it.
So, there are multiple factors that go about it.
We remain desirous of the fact that, yes, the TP hike for the industry is overdue and sooner than later, that should play out.
But we can only control what is in our hand.
This one definitely is not and in line with that, we continue to forge our own understanding and deliberation to penetrate market at multiple counts and make it work for us as a Company.
And from an industry standpoint, sooner than later, we do hope the relief comes through.
Prayesh Jain
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Our next question comes from the line of Sanket Godha from Avendus Spark.
Please go ahead.
Sanket Godha
Thank you for the opportunity.
My first question is that last year, we lost market share in Commercial Lines.
And given the market is soft, as you highlighted, is it fair to say that we will claw back market share in the softer market or we will remain as cautious as we were last time?
And in these lines, I just wanted to understand, given the soft market growth outlook, given your second half growth is 16% and maybe crop being a new tendering year, how do you see growth of 16% to continue for the next year?
And any color if you can give on that, those lines will be very useful.
That's my first question.
Maybe I will ask another one later.
Sanjeev Mantri
Okay.
No, Sanket, I think last year, I am saying when you say last year, the year before the one given the result which is Financial ‘25, we didn't lose market share, we had gained by 0.1%.
We had a quarter here that we missed, but overall, we had gained.
We are talking about a market share which is in the range of 13.7%, which was year before last.
This year, we have closed by 0.8%, 0.7% basis point lower.
And it's driven through multiple configurations when we meet up personally.
I am more than happy to, Sanket, run through that.
That a share that we draw, these fluctuations to ensure that we select right can happen.
But the Commercial practice that we have is very unique in the industry.
And it's not driven by what business we are able to write, it's about how we are able to even manage teams.
There's a significant contribution on large corporates to mid and to small.
Honestly speaking, from an entity standpoint, we have done a much more recent job on the large corporate side.
And over the last two to three years, which we have been briefing to you, it has been a more distribution-led growth.
And we have been able to diversify our portfolio in a significant manner.
We do believe that we have a very significant edge in the overall practice.
And we will be able to have a reasonable presence as far as Commercial is concerned.
I don't want to jump the gun to say where the market share will be, but we will be a very relevant player.
And it's not easy to see us losing foothold on that on an overarching basis.
Crop coming into play and yes, the market opens up significantly.
We are still awaiting the details in terms of what contours this market will open as in when those guidelines come in, we will be able to comment as to what it is.
But we have always maintained our stand that crop will be purely on selection basis of what we feel is appropriate, rather than a targeted segment where we say we have to do this much at least.
That's not the way we look at it.
Do we want to participate, it is a bold ‘Yes’.
Do we want to chase it?
The answer is no. We are very well-placed overall, and we are excited actually in terms of the opportunity that will present itself.
Our current crop number vis-à-vis what was there a year before last or this year is virtually half.
And there is some play available for us to make it count in this year.
Sanket Godha
Sanjeev, when I meant April last year, you lost market share in Commercial Lines because you believed the market was too soft.
And if you are assuming it is too soft again maybe full year you caught it up.
But given April is very strong in the renewal for fire, whether it will have any implication in 1Q growth or April growth, which is significantly very big.
And lastly, on crop, I just wanted to add is that whether you confined till last three years to one state.
I don't know what final contours will be, but it is fair to say that you will be expanding beyond a particular state in the current year or not broadly that's the way you are strategically thinking in those lines or not, is the point I wanted to check.
Sanjeev Mantri
So, one state worked out because it was a line of what we wanted to do.
It is not a plan that will continue to be a one state for this.
We will go wherever it makes commercial sense.
And we believe that it is appropriate and crop obviously can play out the way it is.
We are still awaiting structures.
So, we are open to whatever comes up our way, to be very honest, on that point.
And on the Commercial part, in terms of what you were saying, look, the growth of the industry itself will get impacted.
And we are an offshoot of that.
So, we can do better, we can do worse, depending on how it pans out.
But overall, if you remember in H1, we had a much bigger loss vis-à-vis what happened in H2.
So, we have also done what is required.
So, what cannot be acquired through large corporates, we have played out and distribution has taken its own play.
But we are very well entrenched.
So, we should be fine on the Commercial part also, overall, as an entity.
Sanket Godha
Understood and if it's a growth point of view, given...
Sanjeev Mantri
No, for growth and Commercial, because of fire being there, the industry itself may have challenges on growth.
Let me put this very clearly.
But it doesn't mean that it puts us at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis anybody else.
It would be probably single digit.
Sanket Goda
Sorry, Sanjay, just to squeeze in, I was asking that second half of our growth was 16%, though maybe weak in first half.
So, this 16% growth run rate, you expect to continue largely for FY27?
Sanjeev Mantri
There is so much happening all around that how do we predict that?
But yes, Gopal mentioned that very briefly, we are very confident of moving into the quarter one and quarter two on a positive note overall, as things stand.
But how does the industry play out overall?
We will have to watch at that.
We also presume that the tailwinds which got created from GST cuts, which led to a very robust Quarter 4 would continue to play out, definitely will be well-placed for growth.
We are excited with that opportunity, but we will have to wait in terms of how the market plays out.
Thank you.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Our next question comes from the line of Nidhesh from Investec.
Please go ahead.
Nidhesh
Thanks for the opportunity, sir.
My question is on Motor.
So, in Motor, in H1, we grew lesser than the market.
In H2, we grew faster than the market.
So, what drove that?
And what is the outlook of our growth vis-à-vis industry growth in FY27 in the Motor segment?
Sanjeev Mantri
Yes, okay.
So, Nidhesh, I think, yes, H2 was better.
There was also a significant play that came out on account of new sales for the country doing better and there is nothing which we can say that we tend to do better when new sales are very high.
And we have seen that new grew at almost 18.8% for us vis- à-vis 13.4% on the old side.
So, on the outlook of Financial Year ‘27, we will have to see.
We do expect a higher single-digit growth at the industry level.
And if that happens, it would be, again, good for us.
Another thing which worked out last year was the growth of two-wheeler.
When I was talking, I said that it was at a decadal high in terms of the overall growth that happened.
For the last three-four years, we have been saying that we have not beaten the pre-COVID number on two wheeler.
That itself is, again, a big plus overall on the Motor side.
Gopal Balachandran
The only thing I will just add Nidhesh just to what Sanjeev was saying.
I think one of the initiatives that we have also been speaking in our earlier calls is our relentless focus on improving retentions.
And we will be very, again, happy to indicate that for the full year, I think at an aggregate, let's say, Company level, a large part of which will be predominantly, let's say, Retail business line.
I think we have seen an improvement in our overall retention numbers go up by almost about 5%.
So, hence, that is something that we will continue to stay focused on even as we head into FY27. That will be an important lever that we would obviously work on beyond, of course, the point that Sanjeev made in so far as new vehicle sales is concerned.
Nidhesh
Sure.
So, basically, the growth acceleration that we have seen is the function of new vehicle sales going up and may be competitive intensity reducing and we gaining market share on a like-to-like basis.
Sanjeev Mantri
So, new and old, and I think we did sometime in quarter one last year that we had as a Company extensively worked on the retention part.
A lot of work was done on multiple counts by us.
And that's what Gopal is referring to when he's saying that we have a delta of higher retention of our customers.
Nidhesh
Sure.
So, should we expect H2 trend to play out next year also that we will grow faster than the industry?
Sanjeev Mantri
I think, let me put it this way.
We are well placed overall, but there are multiple factors.
See, if there is a challenge on the energy, if the Indian mentality moves into the saving part of it rather than spending, the Motor sales or auto sales, which probably all of you are well aware of it actually ends up getting really muted.
We will have to see how that part comes in.
But we would say that the momentum on Quarter 3 to Quarter 4 and so effectively in Quarter 1 should play out.
I would say, yes, we are going with a very positive mindset at this point of time.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Our next question comes from the line of Avinash Singh with Emkay Global.
Please go ahead.
Avinash Singh
Thanks for the opportunity.
Good evening.
A couple of questions.
The first one, I would say, if you can clarify my understanding, this ₹ 49 crore charge that you have taken for diminishing value of investment provisions in this quarter, is it largely driven by the equity market fall or bond or both?
So, that's one.
And second, in Motor TP, of course, you have explained a lot of things.
My question is that we have not seen a sort of a price hike but what has changed for you that you have accelerated your growth in CV segment?
Now, typically from whatever we hear, it is a CV by and large, where the price revision is required and it's not so profitable.
But in Q4, it seems that you have gone a lot higher in terms of, you know, that CV.
So, what has changed there?
What kind of a strategy is there?
And for the full year, around ₹ 780 crore of Motor third-parties which we get, is that number I am seeing correctly?
Gopal Balachandran
So, maybe I can take the last one.
So, again, we will keep saying, you should keep looking at the loss ratio range that we have spoken about for Motor as a category, which is between 65% to 67%.
An absolute amount of reserve number that you spoke about, honestly, in our sense, is something that would not necessarily be a right metric to track.
A better metric will be to keep looking at the loss ratio outcome, which is the range that we have spoken about between 65% to 67%.
But the good part is, I think, what has worked for us, we have seen a clear rebound of growth.
And at the same time, we have been able to maintain the loss ratio expectations that we have set out.
So, hence, to that extent, I think, is where we have been able to deliver both on growth as well as in so far as the loss outcomes.
And that's something that we are very- very happy with and very-very positive when we head into FY27. And as I said, in response to the earlier question, is there any change in the thought process of any of our reserving philosophies of reserving processes?
Absolutely no. We continue to maintain prudence.
We continue to maintain margins for any levels of uncertainty that we see in any of the books.
And more so in the context of Motor third party, which has got long tail periods of large development.
So, hence, to that extent, that's in response to the point on Motor third party.
To your first question with respect to the ₹ 49 crore diminution in the value of investment, I think this is what I mentioned even as a part of the opening transcript.
We have a policy on impairment of investments that we have in the context of equity investment specifically.
And consequent to what we have seen, the market conditions getting exhibited in Quarter 4 of this year, we have obviously evaluated stocks that we hold.
And basis the policy that we have, we have done an impairment of about ₹ 49 crore.
All of this ₹ 49 crores is with respect to the policy on diminution in the value of equity investments.
Sanjeev Mantri
Yes, okay.
So, now on the CV growth, I think you are absolutely right.
It's done better.
But there are multiple moving parts.
I don't want to get into details.
We can do it probably when we meet up Avinash and talk about it.
We have done better.
But the overall contribution of CV to the book has still been range bound at 22%.
You see multiple things.
And there's one more aspect that the cost of acquisition that comes into play.
And if we see moderation, we see an opportunity, we are also scanning the market, adding new vectors and something looks viable, we end up doing it.
We have also created a significant edge vis-à-vis the market through a fleet management system, which we are working for last almost 18 to 24 months.
And that has also started giving us some bit of an advantage as to what we can do in Commercial Vehicle.
It's overarchingly still come range bound.
And we do believe that the overall growth in CV market also for H2 was at a reasonable level, which I have given in the numbers in the details, which also again presented us with an opportunity to do what is required.
Overall, on the practice side, if you see where ICICI Lombard is, certainly private car and two-wheeler is our trend.
But CV, we continue to exhibit a lot more intensity, but the outcome used to be moderate for us and for last couple of quarters, it's come into play and I sincerely hope that we will have a similar trend going forward next year, or this year rather.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Our next question comes from the line of Nischint Chawathe from Kotak.
Please go ahead.
Nischint Chawathe
Hi.
This is slightly open-ended.
The regulator is looking at newer set of guidelines on commissions, probably capping commissions or deferring them.
Assuming that this kind of leads to some amount of tightening, how do you see this impact on the industry and for yourself?
Sanjeev Mantri
Nischint, I think we have always maintained an environment where the regulator enforces it.
In the past also, we have said that there are quite a few players who have sought dispensation or have not followed the guidelines and that does not augur well.
Any tightening on a uniform basis across the industry would place ICICI Lombard at a significant advantage because we have remained within the limits of expense of management and if others fall in place, we can only see better time ahead for us as an industry.
The only thing that remains is it should be practiced across the industry on a uniform basis.
It is a welcome sign if it comes out, we have always also mentioned the fact that we believe the expense of management should be on a single slab basis so that there's clarity of execution and let the market forces decide as to what works for each one of them in every single business line.
Nischint Chawathe
What is the latest in terms of regulatory engagement on EOM?
Is there any revision expected around the corner along with this, separately?
Sanjeev Mantri
We can only say that whatever is accessed by each one of you is what we access and we await for what the regulator has in mind.
We don't want to do any second guessing but any tightening on account of that would be welcomed by us because it puts the industry in good path with respect to policyholder and also for us as an institution.
Nischint Chawathe
Got it.
Thank you very much and all the best.
Thank you.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will take that as our last question for today.
I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Sanjeev Mantri for closing comments.
Sanjeev Mantri
Thank you so much for joining in.
We look forward to the new financials with renewed hope.
We have definitely as a team been excited as to how we have been able to close H2 over H1 and more so Q4 over the rest of it.
We are positive in terms of how things can work out for General Insurance industry at large and with the reforms that the regulator has put in place.
But at the same time, we hope that the world moves in a much more peaceful manner in times to come.
Thank you so much and all the best to each one of you for joining in.
Thank you so much.
Gopal Balachandran
Thank you.
Moderator · Conference Operator
Thank you.
On behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, that concludes this conference.
Thank you all for joining us.
You may now disconnect your lines.
Safe Harbor
Except for the historical information contained herein, statements in this release which contain words or phrases such as 'will' , 'would' , ‘indicating’ , ‘expected to’ etc., and similar expressions or variations of such expressions may constitute 'forward-looking statements'.
These forward- looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements.
These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to our ability to successfully implement our strategy, our growth and expansion in business, the impact of any acquisitions, technological implementation and changes, the actual growth in demand for insurance products and services, investment income, cash flow projections, our exposure to market risks, policies and actions of regulatory authorities; impact of competition; the impact of changes in capital, solvency or accounting standards, tax and other legislations and regulations in the jurisdictions as well as other risks detailed in the reports filed by ICICI Bank Limited, our holding company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
ICICI Bank and we undertake no obligation to update forward- looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date there.