ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited analyst Q&A

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press "*" and 1 on their touchtone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press "*" and 2. Participants are requested to use handsets while asking a question. Ladies and Gentlemen, we will wait for a moment while the question queue assembles. The first question comes from the line of Prayesh Jain from Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited. Please go ahead.

A good set of numbers especially on the Combined ratio front. Just your thoughts on how do we see the growth from here, firstly, from an overall GWP perspective, given the 1/n impact would continue to be there in H1 FY2026, and second half could see unwinding of the GWP and contributing to some part of growth? So that would be the first question. Second question would be on your Combined ratio, whether you would look at Combined ratio further improving from the one that reported in for FY2025. And third bit on the Fire segment, if you could highlight what are the kind of renewals we've seen in January and also in the April renewals? Those would be my 3 questions.

Yes. Thanks, Prayesh. With respect to the growth, even when I was reading in terms of what it is line by line, I had covered. But again, I'll talk about it. Motor per se, we are expecting on the new sale mid-single digit. We're also going by the numbers as has been put across by other OEMs as to what they are seeing, albeit the base on the Private Car in particular, is high. I also spoke about the fact that the Q4 FY2025, Two-wheeler numbers were negative, which was a bit of a surprise vis-a-vis what we saw in Q3 FY2025 and Commercial Vehicle, I would be more positive overall because government CAPEX and a lot of other activities, which in the last financial year had remained subdued, should get picked up. So net- net, Motor, we will see single digit, maybe just about double digit growth is what our prediction is. And look, all of these things can change real time. We'll keep you updated, but that's what our belief is. On the Health side, Prayesh, our own belief is we should see double digit growth. Now Health is two components, Retail Health and as well as the Group Health part of it. I'm more clearly talking about the Retail Health part, which will continue to see far more incremental business in terms of new to insurance, and also there would be whatever inflationary growth that comes out in terms of overall. So we would remain positive on Health. Also, Health with a 38.1% contribution, we will not be surprised if we see that contribution probably going to a 40.0% thereabouts and will continue to be the largest player. Last but not the least, in terms of the Commercial lines of business, we've had one of the most difficult years on Commercial lines, if you see. We've never seen a growth of this nature going to low single digit in the last 7 to 8 years. Clearly, it had multiple factors, Fire pricing, which we spoke about it. However, going forward, and you spoke about, and I'll probably talk about the other question that you put across, we saw a lot of semblance in the industry overall on the Fire side and on that basis, we do believe and we do see relatively much better numbers on Fire, and with the activity on CAPEX, which is coming through, Engineering line of business should also do well. So overall, Commercial, we would like to believe that we should be back to a double digit growth at the industry level.

Your last question was on the Combined. So, Prayesh, again, if you look at what we have been saying is, our performance will be in the context of how the market performs. So which is why we also put out as a part of the opening transcript as in to say that at the beginning of the financial year concluded, we had possibly expected a lot more semblance to play out. But in reality, the market seems to have gone slightly more in that sense, north. Combined ratios have increased by almost about 100 basis points at an aggregate level. So obviously, we'll wait for the full year numbers to play out in terms of what the players report. But obviously, we will be at it, when it comes to driving profitable opportunities. So hence, the endeavor will be to try and see how we can create a lot more efficiencies, whether it is on loss ratios, costs, et cetera, and obviously select right portfolio mix. We will also see how the market direction plays out and in that context is how we would also want to see our Combined play through. Having said that, definitely, the gap between us and the industry Combined, whichever way you look at it, we will be able to do a lot more positives to play out. And in the aggregate, what we have spoken about is time and again, we will look for trying to see if we can do that improvement in the return on equity that we can give to stakeholders, the range that we have generally spoken about in that range of 16% to 18%. The endeavor will be to obviously try and see over the long term to move towards 18% to 20%, depending on how the market plays out.

Yes. So Prayesh, the simple answer is would we like to improve our Combined? Certainly, yes. And as Gopal mentioned, we saw a trajectory when we came in last year, the industry Combined had shown improvement, on the basis of that we felt we will go. We also would like to see a similar thing, but the deterioration happened, and the deterioration more so has happened in terms of Motor moving from 118.2% (in 9M FY2024) to 123.8% (in 9M FY2025) for a 9 month Combined. So that being said, we will let these things play out. And in our mind, the single factor that drives is are we able to generate ROAE? And that's what largely Gopal is speaking about it, as far as we as an entity is concerned.

Just your thoughts on Motor TP price hike. That will be my last for you.

Sure. We always remain hopeful, but no news as yet. So is the industry seeking it? The answer is yes. Is it come through? The answer is no. We are planning ourselves for the hike, in that sense.

Thank you so much and wish you all the best. Yes. Thank you so much.

Thanks Prayesh.

Thank you. A reminder to all the participants, in the interest of time, please restrict the questions to two per participant. Next question comes from the line of Sanketh Godha with Avendus Spark. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. Gopal, in the current quarter, we seem to have done a little more reinsurance accepted business, because there is a meaningful difference between GDPI and GWP in the quarter, almost 10%. So sir, just wanted to understand the color of this business. And do you see opportunity in reinsurance accepted with price hikes going up, probably you will do the same kind of a business in subsequent year also. Any thoughts on those lines? Just want to understand. The second question, Gopal, was that see, if you could not book capital gains in the current quarter, your yield remained at 6.3%. Suppose hypothetically, market remains weak largely for FY2026. So is it fair to say that your 6.3%, 6.4% is the yield probably for the entire FY2026, and therefore, we need to look ROE from that perspective. Just wanted to understand that bit from you. Lastly, a data keeping question. If you can give Retail Health loss ratio breakup and Motor GWP breakup into new and old, which you usually do? Thank you.

Yes. Maybe I'll do the data keeping question first, which is something that keeps coming to us every quarter. So I'm just giving you the numbers, both for Q4 FY2024 and Q4 FY2025 and then I will give the numbers for the full year in terms of the breakup between Corporate Health and the Retail Indemnity numbers. So quarter 4 of last year, Corporate Health loss ratios were 88.1%, and the Retail Indemnity numbers again for quarter 4 of last year was 64.6% vis-a-vis quarter 4 of this year, Corporate Health is at 97.2%, and Retail Health, broadly the range that we have spoken about, is at about 64.8%. On a full year basis, this number for Corporate Health stands at about 93.7% last year and the current year, again, last year, Retail Indemnity numbers is 65.4%. Full year, this number for Corporate Health is at 97.6% and Retail Indemnity is 67.9%. So that's the numbers in terms of the breakup between Corporate Health and Retail Health. Now coming to your point, first question on reinsurance accepted, one, at an aggregate level, obviously, if you ask us, underwriting philosophy is to drive profitable growth, whether it is with respect to the Gross Direct Premium Income that we write or even with respect to, let's say, the reinsurances acceptances to the extent whatever we do. So therefore, from a philosophy standpoint, we will stand committed to driving profitable growth across the revenue streams that we source. Having said that, if you look at, at an aggregate level, in terms of roughly the premium that we would have written of close to about ₹ 28,000 crore or thereabout, the extent of reinsurance inward will be a single digit number. So hence, to that extent, a large part of the opportunities is what we see clearly even in the domestic market. Plus, at the same time, given the fact that we also have an office in our IIO business, we would want to continue to see how we can leverage our profitable opportunities even through the IIO business. So hence, that is how we would play through. Whether a particular business comes through in a quarter or otherwise, again, as I keep saying, our business is significantly cyclical. And wherever we see opportunities play out is how you will continue to see the mix of business between direct, RI, et cetera, play out. The larger number to look at will be more on an annual basis. That will be more reflective of where we are in terms of our approach to writing domestic and reinsurance inward.

I was asking this question predominantly because you will see a better pricing environment in next fiscal year. So if other segments slow down, say, Motor slows down a bit because of the weak auto cycle, is it fair to say that this product might be an opportunistic approach to drive the overall growth maybe from that perspective because of the pricing environment?

Yes, exactly. Sanketh, your point is absolutely right. That's exactly what I said. If you ask us, for us, both of them are preferred areas of opportunity. So therefore, where we see preferable segments for us to be able to underwrite, we will look at both. Will it suddenly become a very large proportion of our overall revenue streams? At this point of time, clearly not. But obviously, we will look at, as I said, profitable opportunities between domestic and reinsurance inward and the revenues that will eventually source will be mix of both. On your point on capital gains, the approach that we have taken where building the investment portfolio is concerned, the treasury team has done a brilliant job in terms of how to balance the mix of asset classes between equity and the fixed income portfolio. That's the reason during the last periods of high-interest rate regime, we have been able to significantly go long, and which is the reason even in our earlier earnings call, we have spoken on our duration of the book. That still continues to be slightly in excess of 5.3 years. And if you look at the yield to maturity, the yield to maturity of the book also currently stands at about 7.55%. And this is what is translating into, if you look at our mark-to-market positions on the overall investment book, roughly an aggregate mark- to-market gain as on the balance sheet date of roughly about ₹ 18 billion in terms of the mark-to-market unrealized gains is what we have. So the portfolio is well positioned. The question to ask for is what happens in case if you see possibly sustained periods of price competition or sustained periods of low- interest rate regime? Now all of that, so far as the second part of, let's say, periods of low interest rates sustaining in the next year, to that extent, our duration call will largely reflect that. Reinvestment of the incremental cash flows will get subjected to getting placed at a lower interest rate and that will be true for the entire market. So therefore, the entire market will have to work much harder in terms of improving the pricing. And therefore, on balance, which is what we keep saying, the ROE range that we will work, which will be through a combination of driving underwriting outcomes and return on investment, that will be in the range of 18% to 20%, assuming the market obviously shows signs of change.

And also, Sanketh, now I'll just give you the lay of the land. If you go back in time in April, as we were finishing our FY2024, if you would have told us to guess the growth rate for Commercial lines of business, we would have said definitely, it will be in double digits. If you would have told us on the Banca line of business, which is a big practice we have, again, we would have said a decent mid-double digit. But as transpired in the course of the year, both of these lines that are relatively difficult here. But again, the emphasis that we have as a multi-line, multi- product companies, are we agile enough to toggle. Even if you look at the number that you see quarter on quarter in Motor, we had a significant gain in quarter 1 and quarter 2. And again, in quarter 3 and quarter 4, we have the PSUs, which have built up severe intensity, which is not making much of economic sense. And you have seen us growing relatively low while we finished the year overall with a gain on market share. So what I'm trying to emphasize to all of you is what we see and what comes through, there can be a gap and as an organization, we are expected to maintain that level of agility to make those shifts happen and what we predict not necessarily is the way the market will end up behaving. So we will have to factor that. And again, I come back. In light of that, the focus entirely for us as an organization boils down to are we able to generate the ROEs that is expected by all our stakeholders.

Thank you. Next one comes from the line of Nidhesh Jain with Investec. Please go ahead.

Thanks for the opportunity. Sir, two questions. First is on Fire pricing, are we already seeing signs of improvement in Fire pricing for the industry?

Yes. The answer is yes. There is some semblance, but I would like to put a word of caution, because we still have to see a lot more flowing through. But as things stand in first couple of weeks of April, there was definitely much better discipline in the market.

Sure. Secondly, can you speak about IFRS impact on our profitability or ROE, any rough indication? Because some of the other companies are disclosing their IFRS numbers, which is also quite useful. So if we can also give some indication around that.

So Gopal will give the indication. My only point is, just to put things in perspective, there is an economic value and there is an accounting value. All these nuanced changes are eventually on the accounting part of it. There is obviously an implication in terms of how positively IFRS can help us. But we, as an organization, would 100% commit ourselves on the economic value. Now probably Gopal, if you can just talk about it.

Yes, Nidhesh, we have actually spoken this even in past calls. So therefore, our stance would still be the same, that we will continue to evaluate businesses more on an economic basis, because at the end of the day, that's what will eventually translate in terms of what is the outcome that we are writing from a risk perspective. Transitions to IFRS, obviously, are accounting changes, which we will be, in that sense, well prepared. Also, at this point of time, obviously, we are getting most of our work done internally, whether it is in terms of understanding the impact of change, getting systems geared up so that as and when there are clear regulatory stipulations is what they have currently indicated. So we will be pretty much ready with whatever it takes to do the transition. But at the same time, we have been speaking about, also is the fact that as and when we will eventually transition to IFRS, there will be a lot of, assumptions, which will have to be made by the market at large. It is important for, again, various stakeholders to ensure consistency in comparison, a need for possibly to see if we can get a lot more alignment with some of those assumptions that the market participants use. So our endeavour is in that direction, and which is what we are working with the council to see how we can possibly play that role far better in the current times. But obviously, internally, we are pretty much well prepared. Major areas of impact, I already called out. So, no specific incremental areas to call out as a part of the current impact assessment that we have done. But yes, we are ready, and we will roll out whenever we see the regulatory time lines coming into action.

Okay. And when we speak about economic prospective, we are talking more about ROE and not Combined ratio, right?

Yes, because end of the day, whatever you write has to translate into a return to stakeholders through a combination of what we deliver on underwriting, plus obviously, how effectively are we able to put the cash flows to use. So hence, to that extent is what we will be largely driving as an institution.

Thank you sir. That’s it from my side.

Thanks Nidhesh.

Thanks Nidhesh.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Avinash Singh with Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. Just a couple of questions. The first one is on Motor TP. If I see again around ₹ 915 crores of reserve releases you had this fiscal and you have still you have not touched your FY2023 onwards, if I see. Now the backdrop is that the price hike is not happening. Do you see, the support from reserve releases to continue to provide the support in terms of your Motor TP claims ratio to catch up with the claims in place? Also on that front, also another question related is that, okay, industry has seen despite this EoM coming, the overall non claims expense going up. Now do you see that scope next year if the claims were to be under pressure, OPEX side, because now the March 2026 deadline for reaching EoM limits some sanity prevailing among some extreme or aggressive peers, would that lead to your OPEX further improving from here? Because at the end of the day, that's a market-related phenomenon. You cannot outprice yourself in the market. So if the peers were to improve, will that also be helpful? The second one on the April 1 renewal, if I read correctly, India, even in Asia, the reinsurance capacities and pricing both have been favorable. So in that backdrop, does that help in terms of your profitability in these reinsurance heavy line item like Commercial lines?

Okay. So maybe I will take the second part first. What you observed is absolutely right. So hence, obviously, that dent us, which is what we have been talking through. The more the market gets sensible, so far as the need for compliance to the expense of management guidelines are concerned, that definitely augurs well from an overall market discipline standpoint. And again, as you rightly indicated, FY2026 is the time period that the regulator has stipulated within which companies are expected to toe the line when it comes to meeting the guidelines on expense of management. So obviously, this is something that we would be definitely closely watching for. But at the same time, I'm sure all of you are also clearly hearing that even the regulator is wanting to make sure that as an industry, pretty much everyone in the market follows the discipline on compliance to expense of management. So hence, the short answer is, of course, it augurs well for favourable market development is concerned. Within that, indeed, obviously, that's something that we have always seen, when the market gets far more sensible on underwriting, then ICICI Lombard by virtue of its brand, technology, service, et cetera, is obviously able to command an incremental market growth without compromising on underwriting outcome. So that's the response to the second one. To the response on the third one, with respect to the reinsurance renewal cycle, again, Avinash, you all understand insurance as much as what we do. So therefore, in that sense, the renewals are always through cycles. You will always see periods of softness and at some points of time, the market starts to get hardened. The key is, end of the day, if you look at from our standpoint, what we have, again, particularly in the Commercial lines, where you relatively see higher proportion of reinsurance, we have continued to stay disciplined on picking risks which we think are viable from an underwriting perspective, irrespective of which cycle the market is currently operating at in terms of the reinsurance renewals. Now that's what is finding favour if you were to see, which is what put out also on our investor presentation, the quality of the partners with whom we work clearly is pretty much there. So obviously, we don't, in that sense, want to take any unnecessary credit risk. So we are very, very conscious of making sure that we work with high-quality panel of reinsurers. So that gives us a lot of comfort when it comes to getting capacity and also now to your point on terms, obviously, we get terms which are better than the market. So even this year, at least what we understand, relative to the market, given the underwriting performance that we have exhibited to the reinsurers, we believe we have been able to get terms both on commissions and the costs that we incur for protecting our net, to be possibly better than where the market is placed at. That will again aid us in our ability to further dwell on incremental market share. So that's in response to the third question on reinsurance renewal cycle. To your first point on Motor Third Party, again, I keep saying this, the ranges is what we have spoken about in terms of the Motor loss ratio. Again, I will keep saying we have to look at Motor as in the aggregate, and the range that we have spoken about even in the earlier earnings call, for the segment has been between 65% to 67%. Broadly, if you look at the loss ratio outcome that has played out for even the current year, it's pretty much within the range that we have been talking about. So hence, that's how we look at. Now what can happen in case if no Third Party price increase sustains for one more year in FY2026. Obviously, that means we'll have to do a lot more work to make sure that we are able to identify better risk selection and continue to see how we can drive profitable growth. That's what we will focus on. More importantly, for the market, they will have to work much harder, particularly for those companies which have Combined with no Third Party price increase and the compliance to expense of management is something that some of those market participants will have to work on. So again, we believe we again are favourably placed in terms of the opportunity that one sees on Motor Third Party. Finally, on the point on reserving, our approach to the actuarial principles pretty much stands intact. There is absolutely no change in the way how we have been reserving for the portfolio in terms of consistency and that's the reason even if you would have seen the reserve redundancy, that you would have seen across key lines, we continue to see one more year of reserve redundancy. So that reflects the quality of reserving that we have been able to play up to. So hence, no change in the actuarial thought process.

Thank you. Very clear. Thanks.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Shreya Shivani with CLSA. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you for this opportunity. I have one question that is on the expense ratio for the quarter. So the way I understood the impact of the 1/n accounting last time, the quarters are similar in terms of what happened in Q3 to Q4 in terms of the volume growth that you got or how much you have retained, then ideally, your expense ratio should have been similar to what it was in Q3. Even the absolute amount has declined in Q4, if I don't talk about the ratio, even the absolute amount has declined. So what has helped us in having much lesser net commissions, at least, if you can help me understand? This is just about the quarter.

Shreya, again, it's like the question that keeps coming to us in terms of the Third party loss experience on how the loss ratio movement are happening between quarters. Again, I will keep reiterating. Our focus is very clear it is to make sure that expense plus commissions put together as a Company, we are very, very conscious of making sure that we run the overall operations at an EoM threshold, which is less than 30.0%, and which is what if you see on a full year basis, for us, the expense of management number stands at about 29.5%. So hence, we are pretty much committed. Within a quarter, various factors in terms of business mix, in terms of efficiencies that we always keep looking for, in terms of our own internal processes, and so there are numerous factors that go into it. So hence, which is why we keep urging to keep looking at numbers more on an annual basis rather than a particular quarter and more so on an absolute basis, again, there can be many factors to it. So for example, whenever if there are periods where I do a lot more of those investments, in that quarter, you will see the cost hitting us and so on. So a better number to look at will be more the expense of management number than anything else.

Also Shreya, since you're comparing quarter 3 and quarter 4, just to highlight, it's the configuration of business that comes in, in quarter 3, we have far more new book that comes in. It's a season where the sale of new growth, our market share in Motor also grows in a very, very significant way. In January, typical January 1 also is a reasonably big line on the Commercial side of the business, which can further impact the expense ratio in a positive manner. So it's more driven by configuration of what nature of business you write, which creates the differentiation. Also, you know that when these things happen and you have a quarter where there's a new coming in, it would impact us.

Yes. The only thing I was getting confused that if the retention ratios are similar between Q3 and Q4, then your commission rates should have been similar, ideally, your net commission ratios. But I get the part that if you've written more Commercial lines in Q4, then obviously.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Prakhar Sharma with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good evening. Just wanted to delve upon the comment on the pricing stance by some of the PSUs or broader market in the Motor Vehicle business. Could you just elaborate on this that from what segments of GI Operators did you see some bit of an aggressive stance? And has there been any change? Because while we talk about the EoM sunset for FY2026, are the private ones also genuinely trying to consolidate on pricing? Second, just connected to this is, is there a possibility or is there a discussion around the EoM getting pushed out by a year or so just so that everybody makes it without too much disruption? Thank you.

So Prakhar, on the PSU aggression, it's primarily driven very extensively on the Motor side. Will it sustain? Too early to comment. There were shades of that visible in quarter 3, but quarter 4, if you see, they have overall buckled the trend and they have gained significant market share also in the Motor segment. It would be anybody's guess in terms of what their plan is. We are pretty ready to face whatever be the trajectory that they have and we'll wait and see how it pans out. As I said in my initial remarks, that we would continue to flow prudently, because these things can happen at multiple level with multiple players, sometimes it's private sector, sometimes it's public sector, but we need to stick to our trajectory of what we want to do. With respect to the expense of management deferment, our understanding is that what has got called out was full and final. We do believe it will be good long term for the industry if there's a semblance on that count. We are no one to comment in terms of whether a dispensation will be given for another year. But if you ask, I personally believe another year of dispensation will make them continue the practice as it exists and will not change anything because then they can ask another year of dispensation. So that's where we would leave this part of the conversation at least.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Aditi Joshi with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Just a very simple one. Sorry, could not go through the presentation. With respect to the investment income, in the Q4 FY2025, it was lower on a year on year basis. So just wanted to understand, is it majorly on account of interest income or on account of lower realized gains?

Yes. We put that in the quarter of the opening script, Aditi. So largely the nature of how we run the overall investment book. The short answer is capital gains. Q4 FY2024, capital gains were roughly about ₹ 150 crore+. This year, pretty much our capital gains is as good as a very, very small number of roughly about ₹ 6 crore. So that's the reason why you see the overall investment income for Q4 FY2025, to be slightly lower than the Q4 FY2024. But having said that, what has worked well, again, as I said, the treasury team has done a great job in trying to make sure that the portfolio has got significantly balanced to make sure that we go long. Hence, which is why, again, time and again, we have been giving the yield to maturity numbers, which used to be less than 7.00%. That number as we speak, currently stands at about 7.55%. So this is for here to stay. Hence, at least for Q4 FY2025, the short answer is capital gains.

Yes. And also something which I must put across what our treasury team has done is even over quarter on quarter, we have increased the yield of the book from 7.00% to 7.55%, so which is a big one with a tenure also, which has gone to 5.34. Overall, it puts us well in terms of the current scenario that exists on the interest rate part. And also in quarter 3, it was more of a tactical call where our investment team felt that it was much better to book capital gains in that quarter vis-a-vis what would happen in Q4. In hindsight, it did work out for us.

Okay. Thanks clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Neeraj Toshniwal with UBS Securities. Please go ahead, sir.

Yes, hi. So one question is on the growth side because during this 1/n will normalize from October, how should one think about overall growth and the preferred areas will remain held? And obviously, Motor, there's a lot of competitive intensity, which has increased, especially from PSUs, what I understand. So any comment on overall growth we are targeting in FY2026? That is one. Second is on book-keeping question on the other income from the non-operating reserves, which seems to be very high. So anything on that?

So maybe I'll take the first one. On the growth side, Neeraj, the good part is, if you look at some of the actions which are being taken, both at various governments and even our own insurance regulator, the efforts have been very, very positive. For example, the recent budget did see a lot of people getting a higher disposable income, which augurs well. Now all of this will start to play through maybe over the subsequent quarters. So that's a very positive action which comes from the government. Equally, regulators are doing their part in terms of trying to keep relatively the interest rate of the environment at far more acceptable levels. The very recent rate cuts, again, augurs well for driving retail consumption and in general, driving consumptions are concerned. So there are clearly a lot of positive factors, which should aid when it comes to growth because ours is a direct reflection of what happens in so far as economic activities are concerned. Some of these positive actions by the government and regulators augurs very well. Coupled with this, if you look at side for the next 2 quarters, in general, we are very positively placed in terms of how we see the opportunity play out. Also, what we responded to the earlier question on how the initial corporate renewal cycle has been, that looks again very promising. That's something that has started off on a positive note right from the beginning of the year. So hence, even for the rest of the year, one should see that cycle play through. So overall, we are positively looking at in terms of how the market should play out. Within that, what we have spoken is to try and see how we can continue to deliver that outperformance vis-a-vis the industry growth numbers are what we will be penciling in. First 2 quarters, you are absolutely right, Neeraj, in terms of the impact of 1/n will obviously play out. So maybe to that extent, industry growth could be a little subdued. But on a full year basis, we are very optimistic.

See on the guidance part, we've given a complete perspective. If the industry continues to deteriorate, our own belief would be that we are part of the same pond, right? So you would see overall challenges. But in our scheme of things, if there is an improvement in status-quo, you would see us probably improving. More importantly, it's the ROE part of it, which we would focus on and see what returns we are able to generate. And in that, we've always maintained that we want to see at least a 16% to 20% range for us as a Company being given to stakeholders.

Lastly on the book-keeping, on the other income on the non-operating results, you seen very high. Is it something regrouping or if you can throw some...

Yes, nothing specific, Neeraj, but it is business as usual for us. They will all be driven by whatever the regulatory stipulations are and no specific changes per se.

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, due to time constraints, we have reached the end of question and answer session. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Sanjeev Mantri for closing comments.

Great to connect with all of you, closure of another financial year, and some exciting times of it. Look forward to interacting with each one of you, as and when your time permits. We do believe that the General Insurance industry is poised for a decent year going forward, and we would keep in touch and keep you updated. Thank you so much for joining in, and all the best to each one of you.

Thank you. On behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.

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.