THBL: Karnataka Bank Q4 net profit falls by 56% as provisions and contingencies prepare for bad loans

6 June 2020: Karnataka Bank Ltd registered a net profit of ₹27.31 crore in the fourth quarter of 2019-20 as against a net profit of ₹61.73 crore in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal, recording a decline of 55.76 per cent.

The board of directors of the bank met on Saturday to consider the audited financial result for 2019-20.

The gross NPA of the bank stood at 4.82 per cent during the Q4 of 2019-20 as against 4.41 per cent in the corresponding period of 2018-19. The net NPA was at 3.08 per cent (2.95 per cent) during the period.

Provisions (other than tax) and contingencies increased to ₹356.50 crore during the Q4 of 2019-20 as against ₹217.73 crore in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal.

Quoting Mahabaleshwara MS, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the bank, a press release said that the financial year just concluded was no doubt challenging but the bank has been able to sail smooth.

He said the operational efficiency has further got momentum. As a result, stressed assets were further moderated during the financial year. The bank also focussed on resilience by improving the PCR (provision coverage ratio). The PCR improved to 64.70 per cent as on March 31 2020 2019-20 from 58.45 per cent as on March 31 2019, he said.

NII

The net interest income (NII) of the bank stood at ₹529.3 crore (₹480.88 crore), and the other income at ₹440.37 crore (₹290.59 crore) during Q4 of 2019-20. The net interest margin (NIM) was at 2.86 per cent (2.87 per cent) during the quarter.

The bank recorded a net profit of ₹431.78 crore for 2019-20 as against 477.24 crore for 2018-19.

“Going forward even though COVID-19 pandemic era is a phase of uncertainties’, the bank is committed to ‘conserve, consolidate and emerge stronger’ by having a conservative approach,” Mahabaleshwara said.

Source: The Hindu Business Line

TI: Kumar Mangalam Birla status quo at Kesoram

12 August 2019: Kumar Mangalam Birla continues to remain a “promoter” of Kesoram Industries Ltd, despite writing to market regulator Sebi to change his status to a public shareholder five months ago.

The chairman of $48.3-billion Aditya Birla Group holds only 300 shares in his personal capacity in Kesoram, the flagship company of the group headed by his grandfather Basant Kumar Birla, who died last month.

Manjushree Khaitan, BK’s daughter and Kumar’s aunt, is now at the helm of Kesoram, which is in the process of being split into two entities to focus on cement and tyre, separately.

An official from Kesoram Industries said the company had not heard either from Birla or the market regulator on the request. “It is a status quo,” the official told The Telegraph.

The process

Section 31A of Listing Obligation and Disclosure Regulations lays down how a promoter of a listed entity can become a public shareholder. The promoter has to make a formal request of re-classification to the listed entity, including a rationale for the same.

The board of the company will have to meet and place before shareholders in a general body meeting for approval along with the views of the director. The promoter shareholder seeking such reclassification would not be able to vote on it. Once the ordinary resolution is passed, the company will apply to the stock exchange, which will take the final decision. If a company is listed on multiple exchanges, all the exchanges will take a decision jointly.

Curiously, the letter by Birla on March 13, 2019 was written to Sebi, with a copy marked to Kesoram “for their necessary action”.

Sources said the matter might have been discussed informally in a board meet subsequent to the letter but no action was initiated. “The letter was addressed to Sebi, not to the company. Hence, there is nothing to be done by us,” the official quoted above said.

Birla’s letter had sought to explain why the letter was sent to Sebi and not to Kesoram. “The listing regulations do not provide for reclassification of promoters at the instance of the promoter. It provides for re-classification by stock exchanges, on the application of the listed company. The listed company is required to comply with the prescribed conditions and follow the procedure as laid down under the regulations. There is no provision for an existing promoter to make an application to the stock exchange for re-classification as a public shareholder in any situation. I am, therefore, filing this application, seeking my reclassification from a promoter to a public shareholder in Kesoram Industries Ltd with immediate effect, subject to your approval.”

Despite several requests and reminders by mail, phone and text messages, no one from the Aditya Birla group commented on the questions sent by this newspaper, asking whether its chairman was pursuing the request to be reclassified as a public shareholder in Kesoram.

The rationale

The letter written by Birla on March 13, 2019, to the executive director of the listing department of Sebi mentioned that he has no role to play in the affairs of the company or special rights.

“Historically, I have been disclosed as a promoter of Kesoram Industries Ltd, even though along with my family and entities controlled by us, hold less than 0.0035 per cent in Kesoram… I do not exercise any management or other control, directly or indirectly, in Kesoram or enjoy special rights of any kind therein.”

Birla cited increasing regulatory challenges in India on account of competition law, insolvency and bankruptcy code and Sebi regulations.

“With the increasing operational and regulatory complexities, I find my classification as a promoter of companies other than those of the Aditya Birla group, would have compliance challenges. Many a times, there is an impression created in the minds of regulators and other stakeholders that companies other than the Aditya Birla group, are also controlled by promoters of the Aditya Birla group. A recent example is that of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) approval to the acquisition of JP Cement Plants by Ultratech, a company of the Aditya Birla group because of common directorship/promoters, wherein we were served with a show-cause notice by the CCI for not declaring Century/Kesoram as jointly managed by the Aditya Birla group for the same reason,” he wrote.

He further cited compliance complications on account of Sebi (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirement) and IBC, 2016.

Crossholdings

Birla’s letter noted that many companies were promoted by Ghanashyam Das Birla and his brothers. Over a period of time, several groups headed by the children of G.D. Birla and his brothers were formed, to independently manage various companies.

“Some of my family members, including myself, were also declared and continued to be a promoter in few companies which are not part of the Aditya Birla group and have been managed independently,” Kumar wrote.

Two of the largest shareholders of Kesoram are Pilani Investment and Industries Corporation Ltd and Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, which hold 19.17 per cent and 3.59 per cent, respectively. After BK’s death, Rajashree Birla, mother of Kumar, became the chairperson of Pilani, while Kumar became the chairman of Century. Rajashree Birla is also the promoter of Kesoram, holding 3,250 shares in her personal capacity.

A section of corporate observers believe the market regulator would have to take a view on Pilani and Century’s shareholding before taking a call on Kumar Birla’s reclassification request. Sebi did not respond to the story.

Though rare, there has been instances when a re-classification request was accepted by the bourses. ArcelorMittal sold its share in Uttam Galva Steel and struck itself off as the promoter of the defaulting steel maker. Recently, McNally Bharat is going through a process to reclassify EMC Limited and MKN Investment Pvt Ltd from promoter and promoter group to public category. The company is seeking the shareholders’ nod by postal ballot.

The Telegraph India reported

LM: Slowdown shows in LIC Housing Finance Q1, asset quality weakens

5 August 2019: For LIC Housing Finance, first quarter was all about keeping its balance sheet from getting hurt. In that, it succeeded on some parameters, but failed in others.

The housing finance company managed to grow its core income by 18% and maintain its margins in an environment vitiated by liquidity crunch and a deepening real estate slowdown.

But it couldn’t escape the impact of the slowdown on asset quality and growth metrics.

Disbursements showed how bad developer finance has turned while individual mortgages continued to buttress growth. Overall disbursements grew by just 7%, a reflection of the current slowdown in real estate. Individual mortgages grew at a slow pace of 8%.

LIC Housing Finance’s project loan disbursements shrank from a year ago period. This is a good thing as developer finance is where the pain is and every housing finance company is becoming choosy here. This ensures some safety in future asset quality. That said, the developer book still stands at nearly 7% of the total loan assets.

To be sure, LIC Housing Finance has built itself enough provisions to keep it safe against risks. But for the June quarter, its stage three bad loans, as per new accounting standards, stood at 1.98%, an increase from 1.34% in the March quarter.

“Asset quality miss continues and it looks more linked to the weak real estate market than technical slippage concerns, as indicated by management in 4QFY19,” said analysts at global brokerage firm Nomura Securities.

The firm forecasts a sharp rise in average credit costs for the lender compared with the 15 basis points average credit costs over last 5-7 years. One basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point.

The stock fell over 1% in the first hour of trade, partly because of the weakness in the broad market. It traded at a modest multiple of about 1.3 times its estimate book value for FY21 which analysts believe captures asset quality expectations.

The LiveMint reported

ET: Subramanian Swamy’s letter sends Indiabulls Housing stock tumbling

29 July 2019: Share of Indiabulls Housing Finance slumped over 7 per cent in Monday’s trade after BJP Leader Subramanian Swamy sent a letter to PM Modi, accusing the group of Rs 1 lakh crore fraud. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

Indiabulls Housing acknowledged Swamy’s letter being circulating in the social media that alleged embezzlement from NHB. The company told stock exchanges that loans outstanding as on date from NHB to Indiabulls Housing was nil.

“Indiabulls Housing, in its history, has never taken any loan or refinancing facility from NHB,” the company insisted. The total loan book of Indiabulls Housing is nearly Rs 87,000 crore.

That said, the clarification could not stop the scrip from falling 7.47 per cent in early trade. The stock was trading at Rs 577.50 at 9.25 am.

In a tweet earlier on Monday, Swami said: “It is necessary now to pierce the corporate veil, behind which the India Bull is situated. All leads on the “Bull” point to Ali Bibi alias TDK, and her 40 chors. But govt should see that unsuspecting investors are not unduly harmed.”

As per the alledged letter, Swami accused Indiabulls Housng Finance and its associates, is heading for a financial collapse and bankruptcy, resulting in large curroption issues in the real estate, banking , stock markets and loss of more than Rs 1 lakh crore f publicing and of National Housing Finance.

Swami said Indiabulls Housing Finance is headed for a financial collapse and bankruptcy, resulting in large corruption issues in the real estate, banking , stock markets and loss of more than Rs 1 lakh crore of public and of National Housing Finance.

The letter alleged that Indiabulls created more than 100 shell firms and took loans from NHB. It then re-alloted or siphoned it off to many real estate firms in Maharashtra, Delhi, Gurgram, Banglore and Chennai in the range of Rs 30 crore to Rs 1,000 crore. The letter suggested that the company accepted these amounts back as investments from the friendly real estate firms.

The Economic Times reported

LM: Icra cuts rating on Yes Bank’s bonds worth ₹32,911.7 crore

24 July 2019: Credit rating agency Icra Ltd on Wednesday downgraded ratings on Yes Bank’s ₹32,911.7 crore bond programme, citing an increase in stressed assets and lack of debt resolutions. The rating on bonds aggregating ₹22,111.7 crore were downgraded by one notch, while that on ₹10,800 crore of additional tier I (AT-I) bonds were downgraded by two notches.

The outlook on the ratings remained negative as Yes Bank saw a sizeable increase in gross bad loans and BB and below rated exposures along with weakened capital cushions, Icra said.

The rating for these AT-I bonds (BBB+) is three notches lower than the rating for the Basel III compliant tier II bonds (A+) of Yes Bank as these instruments have loss-absorption features that make them riskier, said the credit rating agency. The coupon payments are non-cumulative and discretionary and the bank has full discretion at all times to the cancel the coupon payments.

“The cancellation of discretionary payments shall not be an event of default. Coupons can be paid out of the current year’s profits. However, if the current year’s profit is not sufficient or if the payment of the coupon is likely to result in a loss, the coupon payment can be made through reserves and surpluses created through the appropriation of profits, (including statutory reserves),” it said.

The coupon payment is subject to the bank meeting the minimum regulatory requirements for common equity tier I (CET-I), tier I and total capital ratios (including capital conservation buffer, at all times as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Icra said.

“These AT-I bonds are expected to absorb losses through a write-down mechanism at the objective pre-specified trigger point fixed at the bank’s CET-I ratio as prescribed by the RBI, 5.5% till March 2020, and thereafter 6.125% of the total risk-weighted assets of the bank or when the point of non-viability trigger is breached in the RBI’s opinion,” it said.

The rating downgrades, Icra said, also factor in the further weakening in Yes Bank’s core equity (CET-I) capital cushions with the growth in RWAs and elevated provisioning leading to subdued profitability. The CET-I declined to 8% as on 30 June 2019 against the minimum regulatory requirement of 7.375% for 31 March 2019 and 8% for 31 March 2020.

“Hence, the bank would need to raise capital on an immediate basis. While the board has approved a capital raise of $1 billion, Yes Bank’s ability to raise capital considering its recent performance and earnings guidance remains to be seen. The bank will also need to accelerate the resolution and recovery from stressed exposures and will also need to calibrate growth to restore the capital cushion,” it said.

Icra said it has taken note of the stability in the bank’s overall deposits base, though the current account and savings account deposits declined in Q1FY20, while term deposits witnessed a growth, perhaps a negative for the cost of funds and earnings.

“The management guided towards an increase in the share of granular retail and small and medium enterprise assets to around 50% over the medium to long term from the existing level of 36.1%, though the same will remain dependent on the bank’s ability to raise growth capital,” Icra said.

The ratings continue to factor in the private lender’s position as the fourth largest private sector bank, in terms of total assets, its satisfactory operating profitability and wide branch network, Icra said.

The LiveMint reported

ET: Ind-Ra downgrades IDBI Bank’s rating outlook to negative

24 July 2019: India Ratings and Research (Ind-Ra) has revised IDBI’s long-term issuer rating at IND A and short-term issuer rating at IND A1 besides changing the rating outlook from ‘rating watch negative’ to ‘negative.’

The action comes a few days after the Enforcement Directorate conducted searches in connection with a Rs 743 crore IDBI Bank fraud where an accused created ghost projects in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to siphon off the loan amount.

Ind-Ra said the negative outlook reflects its expectation that the bank is likely to require sizeable equity infusion over 2020-21. While LIC has articulated its commitment to the same, the quantum and timing are not known at present.

“The outlook also reflects the continued pressure on the bank’s franchise and its inability to materially grow its asset book, which could result in its operating buffers facing recovery challenges,” said the rating agency.

In addition, the negative outlook factors in Ind-Ra’s expectation that IDBI will continue to grapple under the Reserve Bank of India’s prompt corrective action framework (which will continue to weigh on its share of systemic assets and liabilities) and credit costs over corporate accounts in spite of a high coverage ratio.

“Its gross non-performing assets are among the highest in its peer group (27.47 per cent at end-FY19). There has been a weakening in IDBI’s standalone franchise, a continued fall in its share of systemic assets and liabilities, and a sharp deterioration in its asset quality. These three factors are likely to persist at least until the resolution of asset quality issues and the stabilisation of capital buffers,” said Ind-Ra.

“These concerns could ease out over medium-term if the expected strategy with LIC plays out and the franchise starts gaining market share,” it added.

The Economic Times reported

LM: Yes Bank reports bad loans worth ₹6,230 crore in Q1, net profit slumps 91%

18 July 2019: Yes Bank Ltd on Wednesday reported a 91% drop in fiscal-first quarter profit on account of higher provisioning and lower other income. The management said the bank is looking to raise capital in the ongoing quarter.

The private sector lender posted a net profit of ₹113.76 crore for the quarter ended 30 June from ₹1,260.36 crore a year ago. Profit was lower than the ₹148 crore estimated by a Bloomberg survey of 13 analysts. The bank reported a loss of ₹1,507 crore in the preceding March quarter.

“I would say the first quarter was one of consolidation for the bank. The first and foremost part was the ongoing management transition, which I think is now complete. The second part was, given a common equity tier 1 (CET 1) ratio of 8.4%, it was a quarter for capital optimization. We will be looking to raise capital in the coming quarter,” said Ravneet Gill who took charge as managing director and chief executive officer on 1 March.

Asset quality deteriorated, with gross non-performing assets (NPAs) as a percentage of total loans rising to 5% as against 3.22% in the previous quarter. The bank saw an addition of fresh bad loans worth ₹6,230 crore in the quarter, even as it upgraded or recovered ₹1,680 crore and wrote off bad loans worth ₹340 crore. Of the net slippage of ₹4,500 crore, around ₹2,500 crore is from the book identified earlier.

On Wednesday, shares of Yes Bank lost 5.25% to close at ₹98.45 on BSE, while the benchmark Sensex gained 0.22% to close at 39,215.64 points.

The management clarified that the bank’s total real estate loans stood at ₹24,000 crore, of which 25% has been isolated as sub-investment grade (NPAs). The remaining 75% has minimal slippages, it said.

The higher slippages saw the bank’s provisions increase nearly three-fold to ₹1,784.11 crore during the quarter as against ₹625.65 crore the previous year. This includes a one-off mark-to-market provisioning of ₹1,110 crore due to rating downgrades of investments in companies of two financial services companies it did not name.

The management clarified that it does not expect any more major downgrades in the coming quarter, reiterating the credit cost guidance of 1.25% for fiscal year 2019-20.

On the operations side, the bank’s other income, which includes core fee income, dropped 25% to ₹1,272.66 crore in the quarter from ₹1,694.14 crore a year ago.

Net interest income, or the difference between interest earned on loans and that paid on deposits, increased 2.78% year-on-year (y-o-y) to ₹2,280.84 crore from ₹2,219.14 crore in the corresponding period last year. Net interest margin narrowed to 2.8% from 3.1% in the previous quarter on account of interest reversal. The bank’s loan book grew 18% y-o-y to ₹2.36 trillion, led by retail loans. Current and savings account ratio dropped to 30.2% of total deposits compared to 33.1% in the previous quarter while retail term deposits grew 37.7% y-o-y.

“The key issue with Yes Bank is capital constraints. The bank’s CET1 (Common Equity Tier 1 ratio) has reached 8%. Any further decline will attract problems for the bank. Hence, capital raising is the most important event for the bank,” said Ashutosh Mishra, head of research, Ashika Stock Broking.

The management said it has not identified any material implications on its financial statement from a whistle-blower complaint into alleged irregularities by its former managing director Rana Kapoor.

“The bank, at the direction of the audit committee and with the assistance of this external firm, is continuing to analyse the allegations in the whistle-blower complaint and work is currently ongoing,” it said.

Based on work done and findings till date, it said: “The bank has not identified any material financial statement implications and will consider the implications of ongoing work once the examination of this matter is completed.”

Amid concerns over Yes Bank’s weakening financial and operating performance, both foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) cut their stakes in the lender during the quarter, BSE data showed.

FII holding fell to 33.69%, down from 40.33% a quarter ago.

DIIs—mainly mutual funds and insurance companies—now hold a 6.59% stake, against 9.54% in the March quarter. DIIs have reduced their stake for the fourth consecutive quarter.

According to its shareholding pattern on BSE, “UTI along with its various schemes” has reduced exposure by nearly 30 basis points to 1.32% from 1.61% in March quarter.

The names of three investors—HDFC Trustee along with its various schemes, Jasmine Capital Investments Pte Ltd and Vontobel Fund MTX Sustainable Asian Leaders—are not reflected on the list of Yes Bank’s public shareholders as of June 2019. It could not be immediately ascertained if these entities have partly or entirely sold their stakes. Shareholding patterns on stock exchanges show entries only for holdings above 1%. HDFC Trustee along with its various schemes, Jasmine Capital Investments Pte Ltd and Vontobel Fund MTX Sustainable Asian Leaders held 1.05%, 2.12% and 1.05%, respectively in the March quarter.

The LiveMint reported

ET: Edelweiss shares crack 12% on stake sale buzz

17 July 2019: Shares of Edelweiss Financial Services cracked as much as 12 per cent in Wednesday’s session after reports that the company is looking to sell 20 per cent of its wealth business.

ET reported that US-based Kora Management is in advanced talks to buy 20 per cent in Edelweiss Wealth Management for Rs 2,000 crore, valuing the company at Rs 10,000 crore.

Edelweiss Wealth Management provides advisory distribution, broking and asset services, ESOP & margin funding.

It plans to focus on scaling its wealth management services in 2020, especially for the affluent business, as in the credit business it is looking to conserve liquidity and maintain asset quality over book growth.

It advises assets of over Rs 1 lakh crore and has a client base of over 4.8 lakh.

Edelweiss group, with businesses from wholesale financing to debt restructuring to asset management, has debt obligations, including principal and interest of Rs 6,500 crore from May 29, 2019, till September 30, 2019, against which the total expected inflows, including asset EMIs and repayments, are Rs 3,600 crore.

Also, it has a liquidity cushion of Rs 5,300 crore, including undrawn bank lines of Rs 1,300 crore.

The scrip closed 7.21 per cent down at Rs 161.55 on BSE.

The Economic Times reported

TI: DHFL slips into the red

14 July 2019: Cash-strapped DHFL has suffered a fourth-quarter net loss of Rs 2,223.41 crore as provisions jumped. The housing finance company had clocked a net profit of Rs 134.35 crore a year ago.

The loss came as provisions surged to around Rs 3,280 crore, which included Rs 729.47 crore set aside for expected credit loss and a “net loss on fair value change” of Rs 2,550.17 crore.

In its notes to accounts, DHFL said it is under substantial financial stress since the second half of 2018-19. Moreover, its credit ratings have been consistently downgraded since February this year. In June, the credit rating was reduced to default grade.

The company added that its ability to raise funds has been impaired and the business has been brought to a standstill amid minimal or virtually no disbursements.

DHFL said that these developments may raise questions about its ability to continue as a going concern, but despite these adverse conditions, it had repaid Rs 41,800 crore since September 1, 2018, part of which was prepayment of its liabilities.

The company added that it was in an advanced stage of submitting its resolution process under the inter-creditor agreement (ICA) with banks. The ICA will examine and firm up the terms of the resolution process by July 25 and it would be made operational before September 25.

DHFL said it was taking steps to monetise assets and was in discussions with domestic banks and international financial institutions to sell its retail and wholesale portfolio. It is also in discussions with the consortium of banks to restructure its borrowings.

There has been discussions of a stake sale by the promoters to a strategic partner with further equity infusion.

“The process of identifying a strategic investor is also nearing completion, which will bring in an equity investor into DHFL to bolster its capital base. The board will be re-convening in the next two weeks to look through the proposals and will decide on the way forward… Banks would enable the infusion of liquidity into the system. It is expected that DHFL will be able to restart its business in August 2019 and scale it up in the months ahead,’’ the firm said.

In 2018-19, its total assets under management stood at Rs 1,19,992 crore against Rs 1,11,318 crore as on March 31, 2018. During the March quarter, total income declined to Rs 3,057 crore from Rs 3,255.89 crore in the preceding three months, though it was higher than Rs 2,846 crore a year ago.

Gross NPA rose to 2.74 per cent from 0.96 per cent a year ago.

“In the last nine months, we have met all our financial obligations and are looking to return to normal business soon,” chairman & managing director Kapil Wadhawan said. 

The TelegraphIndia reported

BS: YES Bank makes two senior management appointments; stock rises 5.5%

8 July 2019: Private lender YES Bank has appointed Rajeev Uberoi senior group president (governance and control) and Anurag Adlakha senior group president and head of financial management and strategy.

These are the first major appointments after Ravneet Gill became managing director and chief executive officer in the fourth quarter of FY19. Uberoi and Adlakha will report to Gill. The bank has reiterated its financial position is sound and its liquidity and operating performance continue to be robust.The bank is being criticised for its stressed asset portfolio and exposure to struggling non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and real estate.

YES Bank has a considerable exposure to the struggling Anil Ambani Group (ADAG). The bank posted a loss of Rs 1,507 crore in the March quarter on account of a fall in non-interest income and a sharp increase in provisioning for bad loans.  It has sub-standard assets of around Rs 20,000 crore. Of those, some worth Rs 10,000 crore can turn non-performing. Gill has said so far there have been no slippages. However, the bank has made a 20 per cent contingency provision, amounting to Rs 2,100 crore, for the Rs 10,000 crore assets, which are on the watch list. The bank is looking to raise $1 billion.

Scotching speculation about high-level exits from its board, the bank in its statement said, “Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of unfounded speculation about YES Bank’s board and management stability, asset portfolio, growth prospects, among other things. We strongly refute such speculation, which we suspect is a deliberate and malicious attempt to create instability in the institution by undermining investor and client confidence. We have apprised the authorities of these developments.” There have been a number of exits from its board in the past few months. Mukesh Sabharwal, who was non-executive independent director of the bank, and Ajai Kumar, non-executive director of the bank, were the latest exits from the board just before the annual general meeting. Both of them cited personal reasons for their leaving. Earlier, there were high-level exits including those of Pralay Mondal, R Chandrashekhar, and Vasant Gujarathi.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in May appointed former deputy governor R Gandhi to the board as additional director with a two-year term. It was speculated that the RBI’s move to appoint Gandhi was primarily because the regulator had apprehensions about the functioning of the bank. The board is supposed to meet on July 17 to consider and approve the audited financial results for Q1 FY20. The private lender’s share closed higher with its clarification. The shares closed at Rs 93.10, up 5.56 per cent, on the BSE.

The Business Standard reported