The first question comes from the line of Swarnabha Mukherjee from B&K Securities.

First question on the mutual fund business. So as you highlighted on the yields, just wanted to understand how much -- so broadly from the end of last quarter, the yields are down around 5 - odd percent, which is more or less -- I mean, I think you normally guide around 3% to 4% for a year. And in a quarter, we are seeing that. So just wanted to understand that how much of this is because of telescopic pri cing, how much is it because of the volume discounts that you gave to fast -growing clients and this volume discounts that you have given, say, assuming that the mutual fund industry continues to see steady flows and growth remains, then would this likely b e recurring at periodic intervals and would imply that we should expect maybe slightly more than 4% kind of a drop in yields compared to what you have guided earlier. So that would be my first question. Also, if I look at sequentially, the value -added ser vices revenue growth also looks weaker quarter-on-quarter. I wanted to understand that because I thought that, that would be relatively more stickier kind of a business. So while on year -on-year, I think it looks fairly strong, but quarter-on-quarter, it is a bit weak. So wanted to know your thought -- I wanted to know your thoughts on that. Thirdly, on the other, if you could throw some light on there, there has been good control this time. So is this because we have cut down on discretionary expenses and where should we see the numbers going forward? That will be my questions.

Thanks for the questions. So on the first question, I'll take it in terms of the basis points and the yield compression. We were at about 3.6, now down to about 3.43. You're right. I think it marks about close to 5% as against a typical year of 3% to 4%. I just want to call out that number is more an average. The contract renewal is entirely and solely dependent on the time of the signing of the contract itself. It is a coincidence that this year, we've had more number of clients whose contracts came up for renewal. For example, if you look into the next year and the year after, we just have 1 each, right? And if you were to normalize it over a 3 -year period, I'd like to believe that it will still come back to the 3% to 4% kind of a number. You may have a particular year where number may look a little longer and bigger. And that particular, whatever the discounts, et cetera, whether it is because of the overall AUM growth or otherwise, they have all been baked into the Q1. We have no further renewals for the rest of the year, so to speak. In terms of the share of what was because of the expansion, so when we say volume, what we're really talking about is the AUM growth, not the volume of transactions. For example, in the previous year, many of us know that the mutual fund industry has grown up north of 30% and our revenue also has grown up north of 30%. So it is a reasonable expectation and ask of our clients to p artake in some of the gains that we have in terms of the growth that they are seeing. And that's what happens when you see 30%, 35%, 40% plus kind of a growth, and there would be a slight moderation of the basis points. And that gets, I guess, more than adequately compensated by the continual AUM growth into the subsequent quarters. So that's as far as the basis points is concerned. In terms of the value -added solutions, see, this is a pure tech revenue and the tech revenue across business lines, not just mutual funds, but into the issuer solutions, into the alternatives, into the wealth, so on and so forth. Typically, a large number of tech contracts get delivered in the last quarter, one also because many clients have their budgets locked down to the end of 31st March, and they expect the contracts to be delivered as well. And that's a very typical phenomenon in the industry. And typically -- and hence, we end up seeing a largish growth on the value -added solutions in the Q4, Q3 and Q4 and probably a flattish or a slight dip into the Q1 of this year. But as you rightly point out, if you see the year-on-year growth, the value-added solutions stacks up at an impressive 50% plus. And I've called out back in the day, just around the time we went public that in addition to be dependent on the vagaries of the market and in our clients' growth, we want to orchestrate several lines of business, which is controllable at our end. And value - added solutions is one such thing. So for me, a 50% growth year-on-year is a very good indication in terms of where we head into the coming year. In conjunction with the fact that we have several new products and solutions that are going live and have gone live in the recent past, I'd expect many of them to convert into a hard pipeline and then into deals and delivering into the coming quarters, so to speak. On the cost, yes, we continue to have a very close grip on to the cost expansion. The revenue expansion in the core businesses, to an extent, come with a higher cost expansion unless there is a continual transformation that is happening. To give you an example, a simple INR100 SIP probably will earn us 3 paise, but we would have spent easily more than the 3 paise in just creating the data record for the SIP for the next 70 years, which is the norm in the industry. So until and unless we continue to invest significant sums and efforts in terms of ingeniously reducing the tech cost, which is largely the big tech players into AWS and Microsoft and so on and so forth, the scale business will have an issue. And hence, we have a very large scale of data scientists who continue to look at it, and hence, the nondiscretionary spend has come down. But the nondiscretionary spend vis -a-vis new products, new platforms, new solutions continue to expand. We believe that the future lies in innovation. Whoever could innovate faster, take go- to-market solutions for our clients and for our partners and for investors and the regulators will have a far superior edge in terms of new client wins and the growth that we would need.

Right, sir. Helpful. Just one follow -up on the yield part. So we are right now in this quarter at 3.43. Assuming that there is no other renewals and normal telescopic pricing will continue to play out. Should we expect maybe another, say, 2% to 3% drop through the rest of the year? So if I were to think about 4Q, where should we end up with is what I wanted to understand.

I don't expect any further drop on the basis points into the rest of the year. I think on the telescopic pricing, we all know how it works, right? So this -- once the AUM crosses a particular threshold, let's say, we have an agreement that says that INR50,000 crores to INR75,000 crores, right? Only the incremental AUM that comes after the INR75,000 crores may come with a smaller basis points. And much of that, as I said, has already been baked into Q1. So I do not anticipate any further yield compression. I also want to call out another thing that has contributed to a dip, probably about 20% of the dip was because of a larger expansion of passives. If you saw, our overall AUM has grown, but the equity AUM in terms of market share was slightly below that of the market. That's largely because of a slower performance of the top 3 mutual fund houses in our country. And however, for us, there has been a substantive expansion of non-equity asset classes, whether it is debt, whether it is passives. And this particular trend is more the strategy of the fund house in terms of what they see as trying to stay invested in the market versus not to stay invested in the market. If you saw the math, I guess it clearly points to the fact that our clients have chosen to be more cautious and stick to passives. But that can easily change, right, and depending upon the market sentiment and their own fund strategy, investment strategy. And as that happens, that will positively contribute to the yield. And so I guess what I'm saying is I do not anticipate a reduction. But if there is a reversal i n the investment strategy of our clients, there can actually be a slight positive surprise.

The next question comes from the line of Karthik Chellappa from Indus Capital Advisors Limited.

So my first question is, assuming the normal yield declines at about 3% to 4%, and we are assuming an overall AUM growth in the region of, let's say, 12% to 15%, would it be fair to assume that we should be able to hold our domestic mutual fund margins at these levels? Or what else do we need to happen for margins to kind of sustain in this current range?

Thank you, Karthik. Great question. One that I can assure you is always on the top of our minds. I think the good and bad part of, I guess, the way the industry is structur ed is a basis point or a mark-to-market gains, it cuts both ways. You will have months, quarters, years when mark -to- market gains will add to both to your top line and to the bottom line, right? And likewise, it cuts both ways. When there is a mark-to-market dip and/or if there is a basis point reduction, it goes both from the top line and the bottom line. So that obviously is not the same if you were to extrapolate that into any other industry. For example, if you were to win a contract in manufacturing or if you lose, there is a corresponding increase or decrease in the cost. And hence, it does not -- the 100% loss of revenue does not permeate into 100% loss of margin. But in our industry, it does. So the control in our hands are 2. One, obviously, is to have a much more meaningful discussions and deliberations with our clients. And that is something that always happens when you're able to add significant value and not just do basic work. And that is something that I'm proud that as an organization, we have been doing it. And that is clearly visible in terms of, I guess, where our basis -- where our yield lies vis-a-vis others. The second is in terms of the cost. We continue to, as I said, work on the -- basically have a target of near 0 on nondiscretionary spend. We'll never get that far, I fully recognize it. But we have to look at mutual funds given it is the largest book of business, probably the most complex and also the most voluminous and most tech-intensive of all the other businesses. We continue to work with our partners to continue to normalize and optimize the cost. And that, I like to believe is probably the surest way to hang on to the margins even if there were to be a marginal erosion of yield. And if you're seeing from an organization stan dpoint, I think every single quarter, we have been able to maintain that margin in this particular line of business. And I will also call out our transformative initiative of FinEx which is a complete replatforming of our core solution, which was in existence for the last 35 to 40 years. Whilst we have made incremental standout changes into the overall platform to support the needs of the industry, the platform for the future is getting built. And I'm hopeful that into the next 3 to 4 quarters, on an incremental basis, it's not a zero -sum game that everything will happen on one day. We have already deployed several in a modular fashion. We'll continue to deploy several more into the coming quarters. As that happens, we should see a faster clip of cost optimization to happen, which will help us to hold on to the margin and probably even drive margin expansion at that point in time.

Got it. Okay. My second and last question is on the Issuer Solutions. So we are seeing very strong momentum on the corporate clients, which is welcoming. If I were to look at our investor portfolios, that growth has moderated this quarter, whereas in the last few quarters, we have been seeing that investor folios and corporate clients were growing more or les s at the same rate. So anything to be read into this moderating growth rate? And what needs to happen for the folios to start accelerating?

Thank you, Karthik. See, I think, yes, there is a sequential marginal decline. I think KFin Tech today manages near about 15 crores to 16 crore plus folios on the Issuer Solutions. What you saw is roughly about 12 lakh to 13 lakh odd degrowth in the full year count into the Q1 of this year sequentially compared to Q4. This, again, is a natural phenomenon, nearly every year, it repeats itself. What truly happens in the markets is in Q3 and Q4, especially, there is a far more influx of retail investors. Part of it is corporate action driven in terms of securing the dividends and bonuses and what have you. And part of it is to capitalize on the very large number of IPOs that have happened. People have made quick money and have also exited the market in real quick time. We have also seen, if you recollect, the month of April wasn't particularly a good month in terms of the capital markets. I think the sentiment started to turn mid -May onwards. And at this point in time, it looks reasonable, though the mark -to-market gain, I mean, in terms of Y -o-Y on the index level is pretty much flat. And so that's what truly happens. There's basically a marginal flight of investors who have capitalized on the IPO and the dividends, and that's something that happens every single year into the Q1. As we move into Q2, Q3, Q4, I would call out to take a look at the trend o f Issuer Solutions revenue in terms of how it expands into 2, 3 and 4 as compared to 1. This is normal. I wouldn't read too much into that. And the dip on a base of 16 crores, about 12 lakhs to 13 lakh folios, I'm sure, is a very small marginal number, whi ch basically has not impacted much on the revenue. As you see, the revenue on Issuer Solutions has grown nearly about INR24 laks year-on-year.

My first question is on the Issuer Solutions business. So if I look at the market share in MainBoard IPOs, that was around 18% versus it being around 50%, 70% in the previous years. So just wanted to understand, has the competitive dynamics in this segment changed? Or what are you seeing different, which has resulted in KFin not being able to win the larger bank deals? That was my first question. I have 2 more.

Yes, please.

Second question. Do you want me to go through all the 3 questions or...

No, let me answer that. Let me answer that and we can go to the second question then, Supratim. So here's the deal. So I think by count of IPOs, we've done over 40% in the industry, yes. And by value, it was 18%. It is a simple math in terms of, I guess, HDB Financial having gone public, which was the largest IPO in the previous quarter, which was listed by our competitor. And that skewed the overall share by value. And this is not a reflection of the win, but this is a reflection of when the particular company has gone public, right? I mean we have, for example, close to 175-odd IPO mandates, which are won over the last bunch of years, and that's yet to go live. So it is possible that in the next quarter, more mandates that KFin has won hav e gone public rather than our competitors at which time you may see a market share jumping up to 60%, 70%, 80% also. If I were to call out your attention in the previous year when we've done Bajaj Housing Finance or the year before, LIC, our share of IPO by value actually stood at almost 85% in that particular quarter. So this is a timing discussion as against the wins of that particular quarter. For example, if you have signed up a new IPO mandate in the previous quarter, it is easily 3 to 4 quarters away for that company to go public, right? So what you're now seeing in the previous quarter is actually the wins that either of us have had over a long period of time, but which company decided to go public. So again, I wouldn't read too much into the value. Now dynamic has changed. As you could see, our market share has swelled by market cap from 47% or 48% to close to 51%. We have now made up significant dent into even the SME IPOs, we have, I think in the previous quarter, been the largest in the SME IPOs, a business sector that we have largely not been into. Now we have moved into the social stock exchange as well. So into the coming quarters, for example, many of our new clients such as IPru AMC and Meesho and Pine Labs. And should any of them go public, you would see that 18% easily move up north of 50%, 60%.

Got it. That's very helpful, Sreekanth. Now on the KRA business, you outlined that you have won 5 key clients. Could you highlight which are these clients? And how are you looking at embedding your KRA services with your MFRTA service. Could it be -- are you making it available to all your MFRTA clients and slowly this benched 5 can become familiar to the number of MFRTA clients? So I wanted to understand what is the development pipeline he re? And currently, is the KRA revenue being built into the MFRTA revenue itself? Or is it being shown separately in international and others?

Great question. No, there is no revenue at this point in time. So none of it's being clogged in to any business, right? We just went public. We just signed a contract. This is a separate entity altogether. It's KFin services and the revenue will be clogged into that different entity because the KRA business is not expected to remain in the same mutua l fund business. In fact, KFin as an RTA is one of the 5 clients of KFin KRA, right? The other 4 are our clients as AMCs. And the short answer to your question in terms of our go-to-market strategy is obviously to have every one of KFin clients to be the KRA clients, which I'm confident will happen into the coming few months. Second, of course, is to -- for everyone because this is -- this can easily be a multi- tenant model. This is not a zero -sum game unlike in the case of mutual fund RTA. AMCs can have multiple KRAs onboarded. And in fact, that is at least a highly recommended strategy, at least from my standpoint because it is always a business risk to have a single point failure, right? I mean if you were -- if you recollect about 2 years back, one of the KRA had a problem which basically had impacted the mutual fund industry. So it's always a good solution to have multiple service providers, whether it is KRAs, whether it is payment gateways, payment aggregators, any of these entities at all so that if there is a failure, it's just like, I guess, a part generator has a fallback mechanism that you have. So we expect to have nearly every mutual fund client to be our client in the KRA in time to come, even as within literally 15 days of launching, we mana ged to secure 5 mandates. And it is not just the mutual funds. We have to aggressively work with the brokers and the RIAs. Much of the new investor onboarding actually happens from the broker platforms, right, the distributor platforms, such as the Grofers and Paytm Money and many of the large entities. So working with them is going to be very, very important, one, because technologically, I'd like to believe our solution is far ahead and something that I'm confident will find favor with many of the large tech players who bring in far more -- far greater number of new investors into the industry as against traditional RTA and AMC, I guess, equation, so to speak. So it is a solution that is not just for AMCs, but also for the entire partner ecosystem who bring in the investors. And the revenue will be clocked in a separate entity. And as of now, there is no revenue, which you will start seeing into the next quarter onwards.

Got it. That's helpful. Now moving to Ascent, thanks for the update that has been provided on the quarterly performance there. It seems like the revenue has grown by around 36%. But when I look at the EBITDA in January versus the April quarter, there hasn't been any movement. Is it a rounding error because against the 36% revenue growth, I don't see any movement in the EBITDA. So just wanted to understand what has happened there?

Yes, sure. See, they have still been investing. So while revenue will grow, the y have been investing in terms of hiring senior people in the markets in which they are expanding like recent hire was in U.S. And therefore, you won't see the immediate impact of increase in revenue and EBITDA margins. And as they start winning large cont racts across these markets, you will see the EBITDA improvement over a period of time. And the good thing for you to know is that the future payouts to the founders is linked to the achievement of EBITDA. And there are both positives and negatives. So if t hey don't achieve the target EBITDA, they won't get the multiples. So rest assured, the focus is in terms of growing EBITDA and growing a profitable business with Ascent.

I will also just add one thing. So this is the testimonial of any fast-growing entity. I think as the entity is present in 18 countries, new geographies getting opened, I think a lot of the revenue expansion is getting funneled back for faster growth. We have a path to profitability in terms of the overall numbers as we move into the year 3, year 4, year 5 as the deal is structured, which is basically more on a run -out model, you would see the EBITDA expansion happening. At this moment in time, it is to drive growth technologically, new country expansion, creation of the new sales channels, pipelines and the technology. So to that extent, this is by design and as per plan.

Got it. And Sreekanth, then what kind of EBITDA -- exit EBITDA margin can this business achieve? Because some of the listed peers do have EBIT DA margins closer to 40%, whereas your MFRTA business and the issuer RTA businesses, they operate at more than 40%, 55% margins. So where can this business sit once it achieves that scale?

So this business is -- what does Ascent do, right? I mean, you see, the large -- the global peers that you're referring to, if you kind of split between bank -based, fund admin and the non-bank- based fund admin, we will fall into the category of the nonbank -based fund admin, which has several large global fund admins like Citcos and SS&Cs and Apex Group and IQ -EQ, several others. Now they are into both public mandates and into private mandates. And I'm differentiating public mandates more as mutual funds and pensions and what have you. Private mandates more as alternate investment funds, hedge funds, digital funds, digital currency funds, so on and so forth. The private side of it is a far more profitable book of business for many of these fund administrators beyond India, first and foremost. Because the public mandate funds work in a very different model, they do not have the RTO construct there. They work in the case of an omnibus model, which is very, very different. Second, the reason why we have partnered with Ascent and they have also partnered with us is that we are highly differentiated in our cost structures. We do not have the legacy challenges, which many of these entities possibly have, which is basically a technological proliferation that happens through large-scale acquisitions into multiple geographies and legacy systems, whereas we work on the cutting edge on the technological innovation and through engineering. Our cost base is substantively low. Those organizations are now trying to set up captives in India to optimize their cost. We, on the other hand, are India domiciled right from day 1 broadly. So we believe that our margin profile for the entity in conversation will be similar to that of KFin and maybe even higher as we partner with them to take, for example, mPower to the rest of the world as against using third-party software. We drive far more productivity through many of our home-grown solutions. We are able to take, for example, the LP portals, the GB portals, drive data and analytics solutions to the rest of the world, which are far more margin accretive, right? So simply put, I wouldn't compare Ascent with the global fund admins because those are -- a lot more go into those particular entities. And not just the RTA, in fact, those entities also have custody as a business within that, possibly even basic depository solutions within that. So we didn't have a like -to-like comparison of a pure -play fund admin only solutions for private mandates, which I'd like to believe will be far more accretive than many of the global fund admins as of today.

We take the next question from the line of Vaibhav Sharma from Nuvama Wealth Management Limited.

So I just wanted to know, on the international business side, so there is a Q -o-Q drop of 11%. So is there some like one-off or something? And like ex global business, what is the growth that looks like? Also on the asset side, have we added any new clients? And when are we expecting the consolidation to take place? And if there are any developments happening in the BlackRock Aladdin space?

I'll take the last 2 questions, and I'll request Vivek to answer the first one. In terms of Ascent's new client acquisition, there have been plentiful of new client acquisitions. They have started Saudi Arabia with one of the largest clients, and they raised an expansion of nearly 60-plus funds in the previous quarter across multiple geographies. They have also signed a marquee contract with one of the largest banks in Singapore to be able to provide onboarding solutions, which is a large contract in the context of the overall revenue profile of the organization. The current run rate of revenue tracks to a INR20 million plus revenue on an annualized basis. And should the current growth rate persist, we should expect the number to be much higher than that. So yes, so it is a combination of new client wins and certain AUM expansion of Ascent that has helped us. In terms of the integration, as I said, it is hard to give out a data at a time. Given this is an acquisition which involves multiple jurisdictions. So KFin ought to have gotten its approvals from our regulators, which is SEBI, PFRDA and RBI. And I'm very glad to inform you that we have secured all those approvals. Ascent has more than 3 approvals to secure given they are present in multiple jurisdictions, which they have also really secured for nearly 3/4 of those. So we have another 3 countries, I think, that are yet to acquire the approval. They're in the process of diligencing it and certain questions being asked. And I'd like to believe it's just a matter of time that approvals will come through and integration will happen. That said, that has not impeded our intent to work together. We've been working on a series of initiatives together on go-to-market, on technological integrations, so on and so forth so that the receipt of the approval marks more a milestone as against a critical success factor to start that particular activity, if I may. In terms of the BlackRock Aladdin, as I said, in the previous quarter as well, it is a 2 to 3 quarters engagement in terms of integration of the solutions. We've had several promising meetings. We're working at tech-to-tech layer. We are in the process of integrating Aladdin with our back- end system, which is mPower. Again, I will call out that Aladdin is a front office order management system and a risk management system at its heart. It needs to be integrated with our core middle office and back office, middle office being a settlement solutions and the P&L, and then to the back office we'll get into the stage of NAV computation, what have you. The integration of these 2 platforms is the basic first step for us to take it to the market as a viable alternative to many of the global fund administrators. So I would expect o nly into mid part of Q3 that we would have reached out to the clients and the traction, we would have completed our go -to-market sales strategy, the commercials, the contracting structures and possibly even having identified certain sales personnel in vari ous important geographies. And it is strongly the potential that as Ascent's integration gets completed, the 18, 19 countries that they are part of where Aladdin has a significant market share, we would have already been blessed with the fact that several sales personnel already exist in the form of Ascent having their personnel there on the ground. So in that context, I think whilst we complete our technology, we have been also working in the form of the commercials, the contracting, go -to-market and the sales and the feet on the street, which may come from Ascent and from executives.

I'll pick up the question on sequential decline of 11% quarter -on-quarter on the international. Can you hear me?

On the 11% d ecline on international Issuer Solutions, the reduction is mainly because of GBS and some part of it is because of NPS. NPS, as you know, is seasonal. And typically, Q4 is a tax season and people contribute because of the tax season in the last quarter. So about INR50 lakhs is because of that, but a little more than INR3 crores impact is because of GBS, where we are consciously declining the number of FTEs and the whole focus is to move away from BPO kind of a business and start focusing on international global fund administration. So that's the reason that you see a decline. But if you consider last year versus this year, except for GBS, all businesses have grown by more than 30%.

We take the next question from the line of Dipanjan Ghosh from Citi.

Just 2 questions from my side. First, from the previous participant's question, if I look at the international and domestic wealth or AIF businesses, excluding GBS and excluding pension, growth rates which was tracking -- so if I just take cues from the previous participant's question. In terms of the international and other investor solutions, excluding GBS and pension also, the growth rates which are tracking like say, 45%, 50% in the first, second, third quarter of last year on a Y-o-Y basis now has come down to like 25%, 30% in the last 2 quarters. So in terms of incremental client onboarding or in terms of the pipeline, given the fact that mark- to-market is also probably a little better than historical averages, how should one think of this business incrementally? And second, on Ascent's part, if I just look at third quarter metrics compared to the first half or the last 2, 3 quarters of the previous year also, it seems that the incremental number of clients added, incremental AUM growth quarter-on-quarter, all these metrics have kind of tapered down quite a lot. So if I just look at the number of schemes, that's up like 5%, AUM is up 5% compared to, let's say, historical average, which is far, far higher. So just wanted to get some s ense of this new salespeople that they've onboarded, should that kind of drive some amount of revival in the business momentum?

Yes. So I'll pick up the question. On your question on -- other than GBS, the businesses are growing, used to grow at 40%, 50%. That was more in AIF. But if you look at core international business, that has grown year -on-year at 36%. AIF, PWM, PMS has grown at 31%. NPS has grown at almost 33% year-on-year. So it's mainly the GBS impact. So overall, we still believe 30%, 35% growth in international and other businesses, except GBS will continue to behave like that. And with Ascent coming in, you will see the growth rate going up because their win rate and the growth in the funds under administration and the revenues for them is upwards of 35% to 40%. So you may see that the trajectory will continue to improve beyond 30% in future quarters.

I'll just add to this, Dipanjan. I mean, historically, if you see the business, I mean, Q1, as we have always been saying that it's a quarter which is the leanest among all the 4 quarters and all. So across all the line of business, the activities start picking up as we move into the subsequent quarters and all. So I mean, given where we are in the market conditions an d all, I mean, we believe that we are in a -- we have a very strong footing across all the 3 lines of the younger businesses which we are talking about from the deal perspective. And I think, I mean, whatever the guidance that we have given in terms of the 30%, 35%, that is something that we are fairly confident that we kind of be ahead of that guidance.

We take the next question from the line of Lalit Deo from Equirus Securities.

Sir, just one question. So when we have highlighted tha t the yields in the domestic business is likely to remain stable for the remaining part of the year. So just wanted to understand the EBIT -- margins also in this business. So in this particular quarter, it has dropped to around 55% unlike the previous qua rters of around 59% to 60%. So would we be back to that similar levels of around 59%, 60% in the coming quarters? Or is this the new normal of around 55%.

I think it's a reasonably linear math, given that the pricing has been closed for the rest of the year. So the AUM expansion that will happen into the next 3 quarters, resulting in the revenue expansion month-on-month, quarter-over-quarter, obviously will expand the margin profile. So I do not anticipate that trajectory to differ. Again, I'll just call out, it is the exact same phenomenon we see every single year. Q1, we see 2 specific items, hit of inflation on April 1 because AUM remains largely similar. 31st March to 1st of April, there is a cost inflation that goes up. And the AUM, any discounts that are given in the beginning of the year, the AUM continues to grow at a clip faster than that of the discounts that have been accorded, thereby the margin expansion into that business will expand as well in the subsequent quarters.

We take the next question from the line of Pranuj from JPMorgan.

I think Sreekanth, in the opening comments, you were mentioning about top 5 AMCs being onboarded on the fund administration platform. So I just want to get a sense of what could b e the ticket sizes of these contracts?

See, on the fund admin, basically, we have multiple clients getting onboarded. So given this is an international platform, it is -- we won contracts in Malaysia, in Thailand and Singapore and several, of course, in India. And within India, again, not just mutual funds, but also in insurance, right? For example, in insurance, we have been onboarded for Aviva Insurance. In the case of mutual funds, it is JM and Cosmia. Internationally, several large trustees, including Amanahraya trustee managers, so on and so forth have been onboarded on that. The revenue would be in 2 factors. I think some of these are platform solutions and some of these are ongoing services. So ergo, the revenue will be split. Some will be more for a particular year followed by a certain amount of AMC. And some of these are pure -play services just like the RTA contract, which means that month-on-month for the service layer that we generate, we get a certain basis point. So the exac t number, I would request Amit to discuss with you offline in terms of having computed what is onetime episodical versus what is the run rate on that.

Ladies and gentlemen, we take that as the last question and conclude the question -and-answer session. On behalf of IIFL Capital Services Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.