We take a first question from the line of Vibhor Singhal from Nuvama Equities.

Yes, hi. Thanks for taking my question. So, Ritesh, a couple of questions from my side. One is , if we look at the overall industry at this point of time, I think last three, four months, I think we've seen a lot of narrative being set by the AI model builders around the basically cannibalization of revenue and the business model of system integrato rs coming into question. We of course have continued to maintain that, and you clarified it in a very detailed manner as to who's going to underwrite the outcome and how. Specifically, for the BPO industry, the concerns have been quite paramount that BPO industry is at the forefront of this disruption. Our numbers of course say the completely different story; we've had a very good growth this year, we're guiding for a strong growth next year. Now, could you basically help us understand where does the dichotomy lie? I mean, not just us, most of the I think BPO companies are reporting good growth. So is this growth coming despite the basically cannibalization of revenue due to the GenAI platforms, or the GenAI platforms which are being let's say implemented by the enterprise clients are not yielding the results as we've also heard a lot of stories about very few projects making past the POC stage? Or is it that we are gaining market share from the larger clients? What is the mix that is basically leading us to this kind of a growth despite the negative narrative around it?

Thank you Vibhor for that question. Look, let me start by saying that, we've seen this macro duality for some time . The degree keeps shifting every few months and sometimes every few weeks. One thing to bear in mind is that the traditional business process services are not as linked to discretionary spend as the traditional IT services side; that's one part of it . A substantial part of the business therefore ends up being annuity and recurring, giving a greater visibility if you will. What I will say is that in some sense the recent developments and the pace of advancement on the AI side, if nothing else, has structurally expanded the addressable market for players such as ourselves. And one of the things I talked about is what we have been seeing over the last few months where we are perceived as a consulting partner who doesn't just advise but also implements, doesn't just implement but also runs, and doesn't just run but also transforms. That's the core of what "Intelligence that operates" represents, that we're able to do this in one single continuous motion. And I think when we're doing that, what it does is it expands the surface area of what is available for us in terms of the TAM itself, because we're getting called in for deals that maybe three years back, if we were perceived as a deep domain BPM player in regulated markets, today I think we're seeing a lot of opportunities that cut across different areas itself, and that expansion o f surface area is certainly something that I think clients appreciate because they want one single continuous motion towards underwriting the business outcomes. So I think that's one part of it. I think the second part of it is related to the opportunity to expand share and take share from competitors itself, and I certainly we're seeing opportunities out there where the ability to play on offense -- and that has been a consistent theme that we've been saying now for at least ever since I've been at Firstsource, that look, when you end up having technology and macro shifts, it creates a dichotomy in terms of how different players operate. And certainly challenger brands such as ourselves have the opportunity to play on offense and adapt sooner, and that in turn allows you to take share away from other players in the marketplace on the back of very specific value propositions targeted towards the industries in which we have domain depth etc. And I think that combination is certainly yielding results as well. And I think third is in certain, some of the markets in which we operate, the degree of insourced that might have existed in the past, people are probably willing to look at many more options and as long as you're willing to go to them with a compelling proposition and a creative commercial construct, I think those are certainly again allowing them to evaluate different opportunities and maybe give us a sizable part of the pie as well. So, I think it's a combination of all these three: the value proposition, the share shift that we can impact, and the expansion from potentially what might be an insourced portfolio to a larger share of the pie.

Got it. And on the first point you mentioned about that expansion of TAM, would you believe that given that we are in the initial stages of the GenAI cycle, the TAM expansion also would be in initial stages and the TAM expansion will continue and perhaps maybe accelerate in the coming years?

We certainly think, Vibhor, the opportunity exists and here's why . I mean, if you talk to folks in Silicon Valley, I think they will assume that everything can be automated overnight. And that's what sometimes paints the scenario that hey, what does this mean for the industry and you've seen this with data that's reported that the industry is continuing to hold its own, certainly for some players in the market in terms of growth and so on and so forth. But a lot of it is because when you get under the hood of client operations, particularly go to a large bank, go to a large telco, go to a large health plan and I'm just giving you three distinct sectors which are regulated in nature, data quality is not w here it needs to be. So you can't just go overnight and automate their operations or even have agentic operations run autonomously etc. So, there's a significant amount of scaffolding work that needs to happen to ensure that the operation is ready for prime time. The determination of which processes are legible for even an agentic operation requires work. The determination of what kind of sec urity guardrails need to be in place is an opportunity. The determination of where should the process overrides be with a human in the loop is an intentional exercise. All of these are the scaffolding that needs to be put in place to ensure that you can actually truly get to the end state itself. And our view is that that's creating, expanding surface area in terms of the places where we can play.

Got it. Thanks for that very detailed explanation, Ritesh. Just one bookkeeping question for Dinesh sir. Sir, our debt on the books has more than doubled over the last two years to almost INR 1,600 crores right now. Of course, this is based on the acquisitions primarily due to the acquisitions that we've done. What is the outlook on this number? Do we expect this number to remain stable hereon and then maybe the internal cash flow generation to lower this debt in the coming years? Or do you believe we are not going to shy away from any more acquisition opportunities and we would be okay with this debt going further up as well?

I think debt should not be viewed from that angle. You've seen that our main mode is the cash flow we generate normally, we pay 40% to 50% to the shareholder, 50% mainly utilized for acquisition or a growth purposes. So I think that will continue to remain and so debt level will continue to go down. Last year the debt had increased by around INR700 crores, while the current year the debt increase is INR 200 crores. So it has been come down, we have actually repaid. So, the additional buildup is through the acquisition, but the cash flow is very healthy. I think we want to just ensure that we have a right billing and right receivables and we continue to be utilize the cash flow from an overall basis, not just thinking about repaying debt or not thinking about growth or any other investment.

Got it. So, the debt is not at any alarming level in our opinion and there would still be some buffer if we want to acquire to make any more acquisitions, right?

Yes.

Got it. Great sir. Thanks so much for taking my questions and wish you all the best.

Thank you. Next question is from the line of Girish Pai from BOB Capital Markets.

Yes. Thanks for the opportunity. I just had few questions on the fourth quarter and the guidance you've given for FY27. So, fourth quarter you had a 3% Q-o-Q growth in CC terms. I think of which some 130 basis points came from TeleMedik if I heard you right. So, was this quarter softer than what you thought when the quarter started? And if that were to be the case, what drove this softness?

Thank you, Girish, for that question. Look, Q4 was broadly in line with our expectations at the start of the quarter with two exceptions, and I called that out in our opening comments itself. The first shortfall was on account of the implementation of a k ey UK collections deal that shifted to the current quarter that we are in, Q1 of FY 27, because regulatory approvals took much longer than we anticipated itself. And, what I will say is that we have since received the approval and the deal is now pretty much ramped up as we speak. And the second is in January 2026, Medicare Advantage plans entered a tighter regulatory environment. In response, some of the payers suspended the ramp -up of planned programs that were already underway while they reassess the implications. So it's a short-term timing impact on the healthcare payer revenue in Q4. But neither of this in our minds is structural. The UK deal as I said is now live, the payer programs are expected to resume, if anything else it actually puts even more pressure on them as regulatory clarity emerges. And excluding these timing effects, I t hink the underlying business momentum continues to remain strong.

Okay. My second question is with regard to the yearly growth that you clocked in FY26, which is 13.6 on CC basis. How much of this was contributed by inorganic? And for FY27 this 10% to 13%, is there a ny inorganic component to it? So the inorganic components for both FY26 and FY27.

Yes, so if you take FY26, Pastdue Credit and TeleMedik contributed about 1.5% to the FY26 growth. Excluding this, it's about 12.1% for FY26. And the bulk of our growth still continues to be organic driven by deal wins, account mining, and new logo additions. And as we get into FY27, we anticipate that the contribution of the two acquisitions that we made will probably be in the range of about 2% to 2.5% going into FY27.

Okay. A couple of questions on your full-stack intelligent operator strategy that you have. You come from a place where you have been very strong on the operations side, the pillar on the operations side, whereas implementation strategy are probably stron ger for some of the diversified IT services companies. So what exactly is the right to win for us? While I get the strategy and looks very interesting, but when you're competing against some of the diversified IT services companies, how would you stack up there because they probably come from owning or being part of the two, three other pillars in a much more material fashion than you are?

Actually, I'm glad you asked the question, Girish, because the answer is actually in exactly the way you've framed the question . The framing that you had was a lot of the diversified players have pillars. The pillars is the problem . Because the way a lot of organizations have built up, right, over the years, somebody is an IT services player, somebody is a systems integrator, somebody is a BPO, somebody is a consulting firm. And the problem is in that definition because it's inside out. It's the way firms have architected themselves; it's not necessarily the way clients buy. And that opportunity is playing out even more so right now from a visibility standpoint. So today what clients are looking for is that one single continuous motion. And when we launched Intelligence that operates as the next phase of UnBPO, our intent was to say that clients today want one single continuous motion. They want a partner who can not just advise, but actually implement. That implementation could be on the technology side, it could be around modernizing what they might have, it might be around cleaning up their data, so on and so forth. But don't just implement it for us, also run the operations. And don't just run the operations, help continue to transform it. And by the way, do that in one single continuous motion without the pillars, without the silos that have historically plagued full-service firms. The reason why we feel very good about it is because I think our size, our agility and nimbleness allows us to put the right team to solve the customer problem, and we start with the customer problem first to ensure that we're assembling the right set of f olks rather than thinking about internal boundaries, which is typically the way, full -service firms might have been. So we think we, you know, this is creating an opportunity for us to expand our surface area. It's solving a problem for the customers. And more importantly, right, it builds on our domain depth. So what's the backbone of this? Our backbone of this is our d eep domain understanding of regulated workflows, and that knowledge coupled with what I just articulated allows us to go out there and underwrite an outcome. And by the way, when we do it the first time, we gather information of how we did it, which then becomes a compounding advantage when we do the same process for a second client and a third client and a fourth client because you're building on that knowledge along the way itself. That's what the process harness that we have created as part of the Intelligence that operates is an integral building block itself. So we think it's -- it sets us up well, it expands our surface area and allows us to compete very effectively.

Thank you. Next question is from the line of Dipesh Mehta from Emkay Global.

Yes, thank you for the opportunity. A couple of questions. First, about just want to understand investment required to deliver on the strategy about intelligence that operate. How we intend to balance investment versus let's say our margin aspiration? And if you can give some sense about area of investment because you might require different kind of talent compared to let's say traditional hiring. So broad thought process around it? Second question is about the considering our portfolio and composition of revenue. What kind of additional deflation or headwind you expect because of AI-led productivity expectation in existing business? Third question is about the FY27 growth guidance. How you expect growth to play out because I think a couple of point you highlighted in your prepared remark about some of the deal which will take time to ramp up and all those things. Between H1, H2, how the growth trajectory play out? And last question is about FY26 versus FY27 organic growth if I look at it. You indicated about 1.5% M&A contribution in FY26, which in a way implies your 12% kind of organic growth in FY26, which is likely to moderate to around 9% kind of organic growth on midpoint considering 2.5% if I take as a number. So, seems to be slightly moderating where you have some advantage now in terms of some of the deal which were delayed likely to now start ramping up plus momentum is with you 1 billion plus pipeline. So if you can give thought process around it? Thank you.

Thank you, Dipesh, for that comprehensive list of questions. I'm just going to make sure that I -- you had two questions on the growth guidance and one on the margin versus the investments required. There was one question that I missed. Could you just -- which I think was the second question that you had.

H1 versus H2 in terms of the some of the deal will take time to ramp up kind of narrative.

So let me start with the margin versus investment. I'm going to go back in time. And one of the things that if you recall when I joined in, you know, in the middle of FY24 and we had provided at that point in time how this is going to play out from a guidance standpoint and what was our thesis. We said, we'd hit a billion-dollar run rate by Q4 of FY26, we actually crossed that in Q4 of FY25. We said margins would be flat in FY25 and then we'd see 50 to 75 basis points of margin improvement every year for the next few years for the next 3 years, so that we think a 14% to 15% EBIT band is the range at which we would like to operate. We were flat on margins while continuing to make investments in go-to-market and technology in FY25. In FY26, if you look at the margin EBIT expansion, it's been roughly about 74 basis points, so we're pretty much in the higher end of the range that was th ere. And if you look at our guidance for this fiscal, we continue with our guidance for FY27 is higher than the Q4 exit EBIT, which was at 12.2, the lower end is at 12.25. We feel comfortable with what we have seen in terms of the opportunities. And those opportunities are coming either on account of automation and AI, they're coming because of greater offshoring and nearshoring, they're coming because of reimagining of work flows on account of how we are trying to alter our ways of working itself to become truly an AI-native organization itself, and that gives us comfort on the margins. But at the same time, as you rightly called out, as we are doing some of these efficiency saves, we're also attracting different sets of folks into the organization. So, for instance, we have people who are at the intersection of domain plus AI. We have people who are forward-deployed engineers. We have folks who are builders. And what they allow us to do is to unlock value, solve for the last -mile problem that typically exists with customers or even for our own internal operations to ensure that we can operationalize the AI itself. So we have a new cohort of people which are different than what the erstwhile Firstsource organization might have had, and we continue to build on that. That being said, we do believe that our ability to deliver the margin guidance that we have continues to remain unchanged while we make these investments. So, in some sense, there are efficiency saves which also are allowing us to fund these investments that are coming into play. So that's as far as the first question is concerned. Let me talk a little bit about the growth guidance because the last three questions that you had were all related to growth itself. I mean, when we provided growth, and again we've been consistent on this all altogether, what we have at a point in time is always line of sight or visibility to the lower end of the guidance. And then we end up having obviously pipeline and where we expect different ramps and so on and so forth to allow us to bridge the gap and get to the higher end of the guidance. And that's our vi sibility at this point in time. Obviously, that continues to evolve as deal wins happen, as pipeline goes up and other variables come into play and so on and so forth. But at this point in time, as we start the year, we feel comfortable with that lower end 10% guidance that we have provi ded for the full year, and which as you know is at the top decile of growth guidance that is there globally today across sector, whether it's IT, BPO, so on and so forth. The third point that is there related to the split between H1 and H2, what we don't expect this to be back -ended, but rather almost spread out across the four quarters itself, so you should see this evenly playing out.

Understand. And can you provide some sense about the organic growth deceleration which in a way implies in the guidance?

Yes, so as I -- I think, I responded to this question a little while back, but we are accounting for roughly about a 2% inorganic growth to the 10% to 13% range.

No, I understand. Why I ask is if I look, let's say, we guided 14.5 to 15.5 at the end of Q3, we are roughly a percentage lower. Now when we are guiding 10 to 13%, in a way it require roughly 2% to 3 % CQGR for next four quarter. Just trying to understand acquisition contribution wise now largely we have captured most of the thing. So, considering this two, three thing, 2% to 3% is a very healthy growth CQGR what we are building in next year. So just try to understand what are the additional comforting factor which you have built and which if you can give some sense about those?

So, if you look at the variables that are coming into play, and let me just reiterate the comment on Q4. As I mentioned, Q4 was broadly in line with our expectations barring those two exceptions. One was the implementation of the key UK collections client which needed regulatory approvals and those regulatory approvals got shifted by a quarter. That deal is already live as we speak. And then what we saw was a timing challenge with some of the Medicare Advantage plans itself, but those things also we expect are sorted through, both of which actually are creating tailwinds as we get into the business itself. So that’s comment one. So it's not that the revenue is gone, but rather it's deferred or delayed by a quarter itself, if you will. Now going into FY27, what are the things that make us confident of the visibility that we end up seeing today? One is our deal pipeline is at its highest ever level today as we speak in the history of the company. Number two, if you look at the strategic logos that we have added through the course of the quarter itself, we've added about 24 strategic logos out of the 47 new clients that we added in the year. Those 24 strategic logos have opportunity to scale up. And as we've said, a strategic logo for us is one which has the potential to give us at least $5 million of annual business. So given that opportunity set that exists and given our track record, if you look at the last year, 50% of the strategic logos that we added in the previous 24 months we've already been able to convert that into $5 million plus accounts. We think we have a good track record of being able to deepen our footprint in these strategic logos itself. So that gives us the second data point that gives us comfort in terms of what we see as the opportunity itself. And third is within our existing accounts already across the portfolio, whether it's our top five, top 10 or the next rung below, you're seeing that in terms of the deepening of the client footprint that's happened. I mean, just take one data point, right? Our $5 million plus accounts in the last two years is up by 68%. Our $1 million plus clients is up by 46%. Those are pretty remarkable statistics just given the fact that, I mean, if some of you may recall when I ju st joined, we talked about one of the central themes of One Firstsource is how can we deepen our footprints and cross -sell, upsell was going to be a big part of that from a strategy standpoint. Two years out, that's what we've been executing on.

Thank you. And by the way, we're still scratching the surface on that. So, I think the market opportunity is still immense. Thank you, Dipesh, for the questions.

The next question is from the line of Shradha Agrawal from Asian Market Securities.

Yes, hi. Congratulations, Ritesh, on a strong guidance. Two questions. First of all, this BPAS healthcare deal, has it ramped up to its peak potential or do we still have some revenue to be expected in the first half of 27?

So, we don't comment on specific deals itself, you know, in terms of where they are at or so on and so forth. But what's fair to assume is that all our large deal wins including the transformative ones are progressing as per expected timelines and, you kn ow, we continue to remain confident in the long-term trajectory of all of these deals itself.

The reason I asked this is, Ritesh, because this quarter our growth was predominantly led by healthcare vertical which grew 10% to 11%. So was just checking whether this BPAAS deal ramp-up was a good contributor to growth?

I think it was broad -based across several of our clients, Shraddha, in the healthcare space. Yes.

Got it. And secondly, in your presentation in your medium -term strategy, you've highlighted vertical expansion into retail and utilities in the US and geographical expansion in Middle East as key focus areas. So, are these something that you're looking at organically or you want to build up through acquisitions again?

Shradha, I think what we have is a ready base of deep domain knowledge in these two verticals from the work that we have done in the UK markets already. So, our view is that we can extend some of that into the US markets. In fact, as we speak in the last three months or so, we onboarded somebody to spearhead our business from a utility standpoint in the North American region. That's already starting to bear fruit in terms of the pipeline that we've been able to build up. So, we continue to think that, you know, we can look at doing this organically. That being said, look, we're also opportunistic on some of these areas if it's going to give us a capability gap that we don't have or it's going to allow us to get distributio n access. Those have been the two vectors that we've talked about as potentially opportunities to do tuck-ins that might be the case. So, it's not that we are averse to that, but at the same time, I think we have a strong solid foundation to build and exte nd to the North American region, particularly for the retail and the utilities side.

Got it. And just last question. I think you indicated that we had inorganic contribution of close to 150 bps in FY26, but I guess Ascensos also got incrementally consolidated for five months more in FY26. So, won't inorganic component be close to 450 bps for FY26?

You know, so you're right, Shradha. I think our organic growth was close to about 10% in constant currency terms if you exclude Ascensos, PDC, and TeleMedik. Yes.

Okay. Would it be slightly lower than that, Ritesh? I think sub-10%?

I think it's about 9.8% to 9.9%, somewhere in that zone.

Thank you. We will take that as a last question. Thank you. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Ritesh Idnani for closing comments.

Thank you all for joining the call and for your questions. I want to close with a few final points. Our sales engine continues to work well. We had four large deal wins in Q4, which is the fifth straight quarter of four or more large deal wins. Our deal p ipeline at over a billion dollars continues to be and in fact is at its highest ever level in the history of the company. Our execution is on track. As you can see, we're executing well on improving our margins and last year for us was the first full year of delivering to the promise of the 50 to 75 basis point margin expansion. EBIT margins, as you know, have increased by 100 basis points over the last four quarters. Our cash conversion has been strong. Our OCF to EBITDA this year is 78% and our free cash flow to the PAT is 160%. Our long-term aspirations continue to remain intact. As I mentioned earlier, we see our constant currency revenue growth for FY '27 in the 10% to 13% range, which places us in the top decile in the industry, and we remain laser-focused on taking our EBIT margin to 14% to 15% band in the next couple of years. That's all from our side and we look forward to interacting with you again in the next quarter call. Thank you all.

Thank you very much. On behalf of Firstsource Solutions Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you all for joining us today and you may now disconnect your lines.