Congrats on great set of numbers. Sir, firstly, on this, the cloud thing that you are implementing, what are the kind of costs that will be involved? What will be the time line period and -- so this is basically the entire RTA platform that you are moving to cloud. So what -- so are the customers on board with this?

So, Prayesh, the cloud is a multiyear project. It's a reengineering of the entire platform to make it future ready. It's the architecture of the platform. It's expected to be a longer project. The entire project would get completed in four to five years. However, there's a module -based approach that we are taking, which means that we will not wait for the entire five years to go live with the entire platform. It will be a staggard phase -wise implementation that we are doing, which will also give us enough time for us to test it out. Yes, the customers have been communicated and they are largely on board. We have communicated to all the stakeholders. However, this is something that will take some time to be implemented. Even the first module will go like probably only a year from now, a nd the entire thing would take four to five years. As you know, there's a very complex architecture project. And we are very cognizant of the fact that it needs to be future ready. From a cost perspective, we have done the numbers and we do not expect the significant on a net basis post the reductions that we get from the existing resources that we are deploying from an IT perspective. We do not expect, at any point of time, the not impact margin to be more than 0.5%. It could be higher in the initial one or two years closer to 0.5%. But going forward, because of the rationalization that is going to happen on the various resources that we are using for this platform, we expect that from the fourth or fifth year, this will become, in fact, very positive to us from an overall margin perspective. And even in the interim, I know it is not going to be a significant impact at most in a given year, you could have a 0.5% impact on profitability. Those are the numbers that we have worked on. We are confident of kind of living up to those numbers.

Got that. Secondly, on just a very basic question. With the markets correcting the way they are today, possibly and if there is further correction, your yields move back, right? The telescopic structure, if the AUMs correct below the threshold levels, you get a higher reset, right?

That's correct, Prayesh. Although it gives us no joy that the fees going up. But yes, on lower assets, we charge higher just like on higher assets, we charge slightly lower.

Okay, got it. And from an expense perspective, how do we see this year panning out, so employee cost that has come -- should we maintain that kind of run rate? And also on the opex, if I look, the run rate has gone up significantly from -- as compared to last 3 or 4 quarters, it's been moving higher. How should we look at this? And where is the bulk of it going the incremental opex where is it going?

So I'll just break it up into two, which is the employee cost and then the operating expenses and other expenses. From an employee cost perspective, as we mentioned in the earlier part of the presentation that this is the quarter in w hich you see the employee cost going up because of appraisal. Overall, on year -on-year, it's gone up by almost INR18 crores, if I'm not mistaken, out of which most of it is -- almost INR8 crores of it is because of the increment that came. And part of it is because of hiring that we have done. We have invested a lot on talent. There's a fuel program where we've invested by getting in people from IIM, IITs almost 45 people are there. They're new gen leaders who are going to take this company to the next leve l. So we continue to invest in talent. . However, from a run rate perspective, if you were to kind of model it in, I would say the current base cost will hold good. There could be an increment of probably a couple of crores coming in the current quarter because of some part of the management gets this increment effective from July but apart from that, we expect that the employee cost would not go up significantly for the rest of the year. It will be the base that you could go up. If at all, there is an increase that happens, it will be largely driven by some investment in talent, which I think we have got on board in the early part of the year. So barring a couple of crores increase because of the usual increases in manpower over the next quarter, I don't think there can be significant increase towards the base cost, what you are seeing in the first quarter. The other part of it, yes, there have been -- you would see that almost like all put together INR10 crores - INR11 crores of increase of expenses. I think INR12 crores of increase in expenses year -on-year happened on operating and other expenses. See par t of it is driven by the variable part of the cost. For example, you see the CAMS space growing 40%. And most of the variable costs are incurred, which is what we paid to the sponsor bank for its charges, et cetera, that will go on currently. Similarly, there is this data entry cost, which goes up because there is a higher cost from a NFOs and firms perspective. And we have all our businesses barring MF is on the cloud. So this is an entirely cloud -based model, opex based model we have for our Pay busines s, for our Rep business, for our account aggregator, ESP, CRA, everything is on cloud. So there will be some proportional increase that happened. The only comfort I will give you is that generally, our variable cost is operating expense including the OP. And if you see out of the INR8.5 crores increase, almost INR3 crores in OP expense, which has got a corresponding revenue line item. Keeping that aside, our growth in operating expenses is generally tactic on -- generally correlates with the revenue very even. It's around 7% to 8% of revenue is my operating expense. And that relationship has been that in this quarter too. So we don't see any disproportionate increase there. The absolute number, yes, you will see it going up because of the year will you increase on these particular verticals that we spoke about, which is the cloud-based verticals as well as the NFOs as well as the expenses that pertain to CAMSPay. Apart from that, it's largely in line with the overall trend that we are seeing. The fixed expenses, yes, this time, there was a few crores -- I think more than INR3 crores of increase on a quarter- on-quarter basis -- sorry, on a year -on-year basis. Mainly, this was also the y ear in which -- month in which we kind of do some leases renewal ,we do increase in the insurance claim, insurance facility for our employees, and some such travel, etcetera, or CSR expenses. So that's seen this increase. Broadly, I do not expect this base to be altered drastically in the coming months. The 12%, including OP and 7% to 8% other than OP correlation with the revenue will exist for the operating expenses. And the fixed expenses barring some 5% increase here and there, I don't think the base is going to change drastically.

Sorry, the only thing I would add to this is that just remember that we are also in a very competitive talent market. In that competitive talent market, this year, we chose to give right - sized increment to what we've done because it's a workforce, which has several options. And like Ram Charan said, we are now in our quest to modernize and transform the company. We're getting top-tier talent from the IITs, from the IIMs, we are now for the re -architecture program, we've hired doctors, people who applied for patents with those set of profiles coming from Indian Institute of Science and IITs. All of that is foundational because when you get people of that kind, you can -- I mean the one man will do 5 people's work, but you have to pay them the money. So the expansion in labor cost, I think, was well anticipated. It was in preparation for the future. The good thing is that all of that has happened in the first quarter. A lot of it has happened in the first quarter. I wouldn't say all, but maybe about 70%, 75% of that expansion is already in the books. So you're seeing the results post that. The productivity from this work force, the failings in the market and the wins, et cetera, will follow. But I think it's just fantastically right thing for us to do which is what we've done.

The next question is from the line of Abhijeet Sakhare from Kotak Securities.

Anuj, you mentioned about your excitement around the new business opportunities this new platform can create. So if you can elaborate on that, please? And a related question is that, generally, we viewed the RTA business as a business model, whic h has fairly stable fixed cost but with Google coming onboard, does it significantly variabilize your cost? And how does that -- what does that mean in terms of what you charge to your clients and how clients also look at your profit margins? That's the first question.

So on the first part, I think of very interesting possibilities emerging from the platform rebuild because, like I said, the current platform is a few decades old. Our ability to bring in components of taxation, charges, currency, data management, querying the data, insights and reporting will become significantly superior. Why would it become significantly superior because today for everything, I have t o create a server bank in -house. And then on these things, I may have the payload for a day or two or three every month, but I still have to build it, and it still cannot match the finesse and the scale of what you can do on the cloud. So one is just the heft offered by the cloud from a computing scalability perspective. And if we need temporary capability, that can be easily bought for a few days or hours, weeks in a month. But the second is given the fact that we are rebuilding and reimagining everything from ground up, I think a lot of components that we had bolted on from outside. So think of WhatsApp communication, for example, you got to bolt it from outside. But if you're natively building a platform, all of this can be just part of the base, which is how we are thinking of it and imagining it. So that's point number one. Point number two, at the levels of scale that we are seeing, so 8 years back, when I joined the company, we used to register 3 lakh SIPs. In a month, we registered 30 lakh SIPs, and I don't know whether this will scale 3 or 5 times. So some time, just given t he volumes and the retailization, you've seen that the transactions are growing ahead of assets. That's just 1 metric of retailization. We want the capacity model, which can scale up as we need. And beyond the point, building your own data sciences and scaling your own data centers is a job that most people have stopped doing globally, right? It's a specialized job, you either go into a co-located data center built by a global major or you just think of cloud computing. We've done at the colo centers for the last five years. We've decided to now go into the cloud instance and like Ram Charan said, every other business, although you can argue they are small and none of them is even 5% the size of the mutual fund business. But uniformly across payments, insurance, CRA, account aggregator, MF Central, all of them are on the cloud. So we have enough experience in the group. Does this change anything as far as the charging model is concerned? The answer is no. Because the charging models are neither predicated or operating model nor on the model of the cost. So from a slightly capex-heavy model, this will march into a more opex kind of model over the coming years, but I think as far as the marketplace is concerned, their belief an d agreement is that we will be significantly more efficient, faster, more contemporary and modern and our capability to both ingest technology and deliver outcomes consistent with that. So like I said, when you bring a set of IT graduates, postgraduates a nd doctorates who have applied for patents, it's our desire that we will deepen that effort, right? So to usher in that era into our operations, obviously, we had to do something different, which is what we are doing and I don't think from a marketplace pe rspective, this is going to materially alter the charging capability on the start.

Just to add, Abhijeet, if anything -- and we spent a lot of time on the drawing board with this strategy. If anything, I think it gives us some flexibility of cost management, right, in terms of making this cost variable. So I think we have what it takes to kind of monitor that on a continuous basis. Obviously, cloud is a different animal altogether. So I think from a cost perspective, we do have -- we will at least get flexibility on managing the cost as we go forward.

The second one is on the alternatives. Just wanted to get some sense how is that market evolving in terms of pricing? If you could with some examples around the large deals that you've done, whether these are the project level pricing or license type of deals or there are some AUM-linked pricing, if you could explain that will be very helpful.

So the pricing, see if you do have a close -ended fund and given the numb er of investors is not going to be more than 1,000 at any point of time, the preference for the market, and I know you're hearing a different thing from the competition, but the preference for the market very clearly has been to do this pricing based on a number of investors, right? Barring open-ended funds or Cat III funds where there could be upside in the terms of assets under management. We see a marked preference, in fact, a condition that the pricing would be determined by the number of customers. So the deals that are being closed, are slab -based but the slab is not determined by the assets under management, but determined by the number of customers onboarded. Like, for example, 0 to 100 could have INR80,000, INR90,000 or INR1 lakh per fund. So it i s always per fund customer-based generally, our customer base kind of pricing that we are seeing in the market. And that's been the trend in the last few quarters, in fact, large -- more than a year, for sure. And we don't see the fund managers being open to some other pricing module for such kind of funds. That's the experience that we have had in this sector.

The next question is from the line of Devesh Agarwal from IIFL Securities.

Congratulations on a great set of numbers. I just wanted to dwell a little bit more on the non-MF business and continuing with the alternate question. So as you also acknowledged that this quarter, the growth was slightly subdued. So just wanted to underst and, are there any onetime implementation fee that we generally have and that can lead to quarter -on-quarter volatility? That is one. Second is basis your revenue model where you said it will be on the number of investors. Do you get any benefit if additional capital is drawn from the existing set of clients? And lastly, what is the expected growth for this particular segment that you think you can achieve?

So Devesh, I'll try and answer your question . If I do miss out, please do alert me. See, on the growth yes, obviously we -- from a growth perspective, it's a decent growth year -on-year. We did get to 12% to 13% growth, but probably we would have liked it to be a few percentage points more than that. The nature of the industry, and we have been saying this. This is a sell kind of an industry, right, which is that the funds unlike in mutual funds, will have a life and the life will end and the fund will shut right and then we'll have to be replenished. We'll have to replenish and we'll have to grow 20% more than that. So the dynamics are a little different when compared to MF in this particular industry. And so there will be some period in between where you will see funds shutting down in terms of their life being over, not shutting down -- I think their life being over and liquidated and the new funds coming in, and there is the lag between the two. So this will play out fo r some time. And we do not see this drastically reversing in the next few quarters, too. So that's the outlook. Outlook is that we will try and kind of optimize the growth, but I don't think we will see a 25% growth in AUM over the next couple of quarters for sure, we will kind of maximize it and get it as close to 15% to 20% as we can. So that's the endeavor internally at least. From a billing perspective, we do not -- barring the few funds and less than 20% of our funds are priced based on AUM, barring the few funds that creates additional capital, I think the initial cost is built on. The way you look at it is while we don't see the yields as the basis of billing. The effective yields actually remain stable, which is that whether you bill it based on the number of investors, in a particular fund or based on the AUM, the effective bps or yield always stays between this 1.25% to 1.5% kind of a thing of the RTA business, right? I think that remains stable throughout and the way we price and the way we imple ment may be different, but the yields remains kind of stable on this business with respect to how we bill it. That's been our experience.

The only one thing I will add, Devesh, to this is that as a group, we don't like to over -engineer pricing. And that means that we are used to long -term annuity. We are happy with long -term annuity. If there is an opportunity to break INR100 of long -term annuity and get INR80 of upfront price now, we don't do that because that just creates all kinds of lumpines s and trouble for you to understand and for me to explain. So we never do that. I mean, you've been watching our results for the last 4 years. For the next 10 years, you will see that we do not, as a principle, create any lumpiness ever, even if it is in our control.

Sorry, I missed that question, sorry, which is that no, it is not skewed because of onetime implementation fee. Our model does not ask for a disproportionately higher implementation, just to add to what Anuj said.

Perfect, sir. That's very clear. Secondly, sir, on account aggregator. All those very heartening to see on a sequential basis, we are gaining market share. But in terms of volumes and revenues, your expectation, say, for the year FY'26, some sense if you can give us on that?

So Devesh, what has happened there is, frankly, things are ahead of where I expected them to be. That's the first statement I would make. It's a great market where users are using this for several purposes. That's -- so it's a market where the user uses things and he is willing to pay. Where is he using? He would ask for a bank statement, which I would give from my e -mail, etcetera and send in the password. He is using account aggregator for that. Like we said, the asset managers will not start showing you your portfolio live on their website. They're going to pay for that. And there are multiple use cases including what Think is building, which is producing a credit promo, which I sell for INR20, which a bank will take a week to make. So that's a fantastic thing, which has happened. Quarterly revenue, like I said, is still in the INR1 crores to INR1.5 crores range. So we will be lucky to close the year at about INR7 crores to INR8 crores. That's the first time. We are telling you the numbers because they were less than meaningful earlier. In FY'26, we will certainly target to be double digit. I mean I'll be happy if I can get to INR15 crores, it will be tough. But the INR11 crores, INR12 crores number looks entirely possible from account aggregator as a family. At that level, we will be at a breakeven. We may make some margin on the overall product. We've kept up the market share, which is a great thing. So the only thing we don't like about the market is that pricing is significantly lower just competitive price. It is not that the buyer is asking for it, the buyer is getting a lot of value. But the sellers are scraping the price at some time that has to end. What started as INR10 per piece product sell to INR1, and at times we sell for less than INR1. If it stabilizes INR1 too, I think it's a great business to make if it stabilizes to INR0.20, then it's not a great business. So pricing will perhaps recover where this goes. But broadly, apart from pricing on every other aspect, I'm very, very pleased with what the people do.

Very helpful, sir. Sir, one last question. On the non-MF side, you said this will be like a 20% of your top line by FY'27. So just wanted to know, given the strong growth that we are s eeing on the domestic MF side, one, is there any rethink on this number? And secondly, how important would be the inorganic opportunity to achieve this number? That will be the last one from my side.

So Devesh, you've seen the company closely. It's our endeavour that every year, we should have a 2% [inaudible 0:52:45]. Non-MF, if it is 13.5%, should go to 15.5% this time next year, which means I should be able to take 0.5% of growth and move it to non -MF as it is contribution to revenue. Now that model, when we thought of we were confident of growing non-MF let's say, 21%- 22%. We expected MF to grow 13%, 14%, 15%. It looks possible in paper to do that. When MF grows 26%, then non -MF has to grow 35% to 40%. Never easy. This quarter, we were at 31%. Like Ram said, second successive quarter, we may repeat this in the current quarter too. So we will hold on to our prediction. We will hold on to 20% 3 years from now. While this is not the objective why we would do an acquisition, the acquisition will lead this to as an end result, we will not do it just to claim diversification. I think like we've said, there are interesting opportunities like we've always said that while insurance as a part of our portfolio, isn't yet doing what it should do, but it does not mean it cannot do. So that's one area where you could see us mak e a move. Payments is another area. And of course, alternatives remains the third. So you will see us do something. Will that scale up our ambition? I think it will help your ambition to get to 20% in about 3 years' timeframe. That is the way I would look at it.

The next question is from the line of Supratim Datta from Ambit.

My first question was on this transition to cloud. Just wanted to understand what could happen to the data centers that you currently owned and operate? So is there a thought process that these data centers will be done away with and hence, there will be some capital that will be speeded up. And what would happen with that capital in that case? So that's the first question. And the second question would be on the AIF side. Now I understand the growth -- when we then look at the AUM growth quarter -over-quarter that has also been weaker, just wanted to understand from a competition perspective, given this is a multi -tiers market, are you seeing anything differen t from competitors when it comes to pricing or when it comes to aggressiveness. Just wanted to understand that. Those are the 2 questions.

Sure. Thanks, Supratim. So on the first one, think of it this way that gradually, like in any other cloud implementation, we will slow down our investments in data centers. And over a period of time, we will migrate the payloads to cloud. Can I migrate a payload today? The answer is no. What can I migrate a year from now? I think a lot of our, for example, an alytics, reporting, all of that can move in a year. Even after we migrate to the cloud, statute will require me to have a copy of the data on-prem. So I cannot get rid of all the data centers. We have 3 instances. We are setting up an ad -hoc firm which is a fourth. So of the 4, you will still see 1 continuing. For our core MF business, we will need to have a copy of the applications. I mean fit to perform and our database on -prem itself. But broadly, think of it this way to like any other implementation over a period of time, success -- successively every year. You will see our investments come down. You will see us migrate payload to the cloud still we are fully done, let's say, in a five-year timeframe. So that's the first thing to expect. From an effici ency perspective, like I said, it creates scalability much better. You know that there are months beginning and month-end payloads in our MF business for which we create 2x capacity. Where do we create it? I created in three data centers. So my baseline wo uld be 80 units. My spike maybe 100. I create 200 units of capacity in three different instances across the board. That scaling and the optimization of that scaling will become a lot -- I mean it will become easier in the cloud format because once I can p redict that I will have greater payload between the 1st to 5th of every month and between the 20th and 30th; theoretically, I'll be able to manage capacity let cost better, then I would do at 2x level in 3 data centers because once I buy a server or storage or a switch, I just have it and I pay for it fully. I can't do part use of it. So that's how the entire thing will play out. On AIF, like Ram said, our expectation in line with the non-MF portfolio is to scale that business over 20%. This quarter was more like the mid-teens. Not that we could not scale revenue. I think the gross scaling was all in place because we have the oldest portfolio in the country, and this is a closed-ended business, which means no fund will remain for less than or more than 10 years. So any fund which started, let's say, in 2014, '15, '16, '17, one of those will come to an end in 2024. When it come s to an end, of course, the provider would have launched another fund at some time, but we'll take this monies and then pay them back. That impact of falloff was a little more in this quarter, in the first quarter; may also be a little more in the next quarter. Otherwise, I mean, so that perhaps explains best 20% minus, 15% growth, 5% is on account of that. Are we seeing any other dynamics from a competitiveness perspective? Nothing specifically. It's a market, which has already seen some price down. So we're expecting prices will stay here, but will further price down happen, not expecting that to happen.

And our reading is that we have not -- from a domestic RTA perspective, we've not lost market share. Obviously it's very difficult to make out from published numbers of competition on what exactly is the win ratio of the share in the domestic RTA as such. But based on our market intelligence and our computation, I don't think from a domestic RTA perspective we have lost share as such.

Got it. And sir, one follow-up to your commentary on the data center that was very helpful. Just wanted to understand, currently, you own three of the data centers, right? And so when you slow down the investments and at 1.5 years down the line, you will be migrating all the data to cloud, then these three data centers will become redundant. So would ther e be a scope that we will be selling off these data centers anywhere maybe say four or five years out?

So I don't think I got your question completely. If you think there will be some salvage value of the stuff in the data center, some small st uff will be there. But I mean don't count it on any projections that's not the myriad amount of money. Was that the question? Or the question what makes sense?

Yes. I'm just trying to understand that what happens with those data centers whe n you might -- once you migrate to cloud completely.

So two of them are sitting inside our premises in our buildings. Obviously, that space will be used for something else. One is in colo center which obviously is bound by a contract. We will decide which one to retain. One, like I said, we will have to retain. Give the significant salvage value of the hardware, the answers don't even count it. I mean there may be something, but we don't want to bring any focus to that number saying that's the P&L and answer for us.

Just to add to what Anuj already mentioned is relevant for this question, which is the investments going forward in hardware will be moderated depending on our progress in their ER, right? So that could be an impact that will play out as we go forward.

The next question is from the line of Sanketh Godha of Spark Institutional Equities Private Limited.

I have a few questions. So first question is that if I look at our KRA business, the number of KYC records seems to have not grown in last week quarter, it's been stagnating at 1.8 crore s accounts. So I just wanted to understand, do you see this number going up or you continue to mine these number of records to deliver the revenue growth going ahead? And the second question was with respect to non-MF asset-based revenue which seems to have grown a little lower compared to the overall asset -based MF growth, which is around INR45- odd crores if I do the math. Just wanted to understand that how do you see the trajectory of this number to play out going ahead. And the next one is on Think360. This piece has declined both on quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year. Anything to read there? How do you see these numbers to play out?

Yes. So Sanketh, so I will take the second question, which is the non -asset-based revenue, and Anuj will probably give you details on the remaining. See, non -asset based revenue, as you know, consists of transaction fee. It consists of the call center revenue, consists of our application fee that we charge for our software tools like MFDEx and [inaudible 1:02:48], etcetera, and the OP, right? So it generally does not move in tandem with , and that's why we have a separate tandem with asset -based fee. What we have seen in this bucket is, and obviously this is not a single kind of driver for all these things. But what we have seen in this bucket is transaction fee, which is almost like 40% of the non -asset based revenue has grown more than 30%, which is again a reflection of what's happening in the market in terms of transaction growth as well as NFOs that are coming. And our application fee, which is the software license fee that we charge for the various [inaudible 1 03:22] that the customers use has also grown by more than 21%. And the call center has grown by more than 33%. What will kind of bring it down will be the OP. And obviously, OP cannot be linked as such to the asset right? That will be fourth quarter in which generally the OP expenses are much more -- if there's the regulatory guidance that the SMSs and emails are much more if there is a risk score meter that need to be sent in bulk, if there is some nomination -- communication. So a lot of drivers are there for OP, it's very difficult to kind of tie it up t o 1 metric. But the overall from a transaction growth perspective, we are seeing it's in tandem with the assets growth, which is more than 30%. And the call center is also growing well, given that people are adding agents from an inbound and outbound perspective. So I do not think that you can map it to the asset-based revenue but given the transaction is 40% of the overall bucket, healthy growth in transactions, as you see, would translate into a higher non -asset based revenue, but it cannot be mapped on to the asset-based revenue.

Sir, if you can break down that INR45-odd crores into OP and the core revenue kind of thing, that would be useful.

Yes, yes. So from the INR45 crores, recoverable is more than INR11.2 crores because the OP is more than INR11.2 crores, and your transaction based revenue was almost INR18 crores and application revenue is almost INR8.5 crores. Call center is around INR7.5 crores.

Perfect. Okay. Got it. And on Think360, if you can add, yes.

So your first question was on the KRA. On KRA what had happened was -- you are right, there was a onetime cleanup that happened across the industry. As you know, among the participating KRA, one single individual can occur only in one place over the years, over the last 13 years of the occurrence of the KRA, they discovered that there were some individual records, which were in more than monthly. Once that cleanup happen ed, you see the current number, but you've noticed it right? That is the way it had happened. Now we have a constant base, and you should be able to see a growth on top of it.

You expect this 1.8 crores accounts to grow only because of MF or sir, basically, I just wanted to understand, you've got onetime j ump from 1 crores to 1.8 crores. So this 1.8 crores to go further up, what would lead to it in that sense? Basically, it will be MF story only or you will go beyond MF to drive the KYC business?

Like we've said that we are now actively engaged with the rest of the market, brokerages and depository participants to sell KYC services and the KRA services to them. That is perhaps 10% revenue contributor right now. It isn't that large, but it has helped. We still haven't got one of the top 4 or 5 bro kerages. We actually have one but not the other. We are actively pursuing the larger accounts should be able to report something in the rest of the year, and you will find that even if we get a fraction of those volumes, that could be a large contributory number. However, what has contributed right now is also a 2x lift in new clients coming into MF. CAMS service funds used to see 3 to 4 lakh new and the PAN is an individual, not known to CAMS service funds 3 lakh to 4 lakh a month. That number is almost d oubled, right? So when you see that number from 4 lakh is almost between 7 and 8 lakhs, a large part of the fillip has come from CAMS service funds, we started actively selling to non -CAMS service funds, the KRA services about 2 years back. Part of the growth is from them, but that's small, that will not be more than 5%, 6% and 10% revenue contribution would have come from us selling to brokerages and depository participants. So that's how you can add up the 100% growth and most of these clients are sustainable.

And on Think360?

On Think360, you're right. The scale up hasn't been -- not much scale up has happened in the first year. One of the large reasons is that Algo360, which was kind of a precursor to account aggregator. We were expecting that for some time, there will be a market for both the products, both for Algo and the account aggregator. Now we have seen that the account aggregator market is definitely showing the preference for AA kind of offering, not so much for the al go offering. So we are continuing to engage with the market itself. At some time, that question had to come on whether we keep selling the core or we start selling the value-added services under the brand Aamaze. I think we've seen some of that impact. Also, one of the large -- although it's not a major contributor, but one of the large U.S. -based analytics contract had -- hasn't seen the scale up it needed. We are now not actively selling in the U.S. We are largely focusing on the Indian market that has come from the U.S., we will service them, but we're not actively selling yet. So that explains what's happened at Think.

Got it. And maybe just one thing. You said the non -MF business, which is around 13.3%, will go to 15% by same quarter n ext year. So is it fair to assume that the heavy lifting has to be largely done by two businesses, which is CAMSPay and CAMS KRA. That's a fair assumption to make because AI probably will grow mostly in line with the MF business, given it is limited to a number of investors rather than AUM based.

So again, no, you're getting it right. I would say from a percentage contribution basis, although I don't state the AA percentage revenue contribution, because I have the highest. It is even more than KRA. So from a percentage revenue contribution driving the 13.3% to 15.3% or whatever number we get to, I think it's clear to me that in the next year -- next four quarters, between KRA payments and account aggregator, all three of them should contribute an d should contribute ahead of the market. In the case of alternatives, we have said that we are aiming for a 20% plus growth, at some time, maybe a quarter from now, we should come back to that. So that's really the sum total of what will contribute to non-MF. If there is any acquisition opportunity of this is adding on top of this. But right now, this is within the art of the possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, due to time constraint, that was the last question. I now hand the conference over to Mr. Ram Charan sir, for closing comments.

Thank you, Deepika, and thank you for all the participants for your continued interest and participation in this call. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Anish Sawlani or Orient Capital IR, and we'll be happy to get in touch with you and clarify your doubts. Thank you once again.

On behalf of Computer Age Management Services Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.