HDFC Q3 Results 2022: The Board of Directors of HDFC Bank Limited approved the Bank’s (Indian GAAP) results for the quarter and nine months ended December 31, 2021, at its meeting held in Mumbai on Saturday, January 15, 2022. The accounts have been subjected to a ‘Limited Review’ by the statutory auditors of the Bank.
HDFC Q3 RESULT RESULTS 2022: STANDALONE FINANCIAL RESULTS
Profit & Loss Account: Quarter ended December 31, 2021
The Bank’s net revenues (net interest income plus other income) increased by 12.1% to ₹ 26,627.0 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, (Q3FY2022) from ₹ 23,760.8 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020.
Net interest income (interest earned less interest expended) for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, grew by 13.0% to ₹ 18,443.5 crores from ₹ 16,317.6 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020. Advances grew at 16.5% reaching new heights driven through relationship management, digital offering and breadth of products. The core net interest margin was at 4.1%. New liability relationships added during the quarter remained at an all-time high. This continued focus on deposits helped in the maintenance of a healthy liquidity coverage ratio at 123%, well above the regulatory requirement, which positions the Bank favourably to capitalise on growth opportunities.
Advertisement
Other income (non-interest revenue) at ₹ 8,183.6 crores was 30.7% of net revenues for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, and grew by 9.9% over ₹ 7,443.2 crores in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. The four components of other income for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, were fees & commissions of ₹ 5,075.1 crores (₹ 4,974.9 crores in the corresponding quarter of the previous year), foreign exchange & derivatives revenue of ₹ 949.5 crores (₹ 562.2 crores in the corresponding quarter of the previous year), gain on sale/revaluation of investments of ₹ 1,046.5 crores (₹ 1,109.0 crores in the corresponding quarter of the previous year) and miscellaneous income, including recoveries and dividend, of ₹ 1,112.5 crores (₹ 797.1 crores in the corresponding quarter of the previous year).
We added 294 branches and 16,852 people over the last twelve months and made other investments to position ourselves and capitalise on the growth opportunity. Operating expenses for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, were ₹ 9,851.1 crores, an increase of 14.9% over ₹ 8,574.8 crores during the corresponding quarter of the previous year. The cost-to-income ratio for the quarter was at 37.0%.
Pre-provision Operating Profit (PPOP) at ₹ 16,776.0 crores grew by 10.5% over the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
Provisions and contingencies for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, were ₹ 2,994.0 crores (consisting of specific loan loss provisions of ₹ 1,820.6 crore and general and other provisions of ₹ 1,173.4 crores) as against total provisions of ₹ 3,414.1 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020. Total provisions for the current quarter included contingent provisions of approximately ₹ 900 crores.
The total credit cost ratio was at 0.94%, as compared to 1.30% for the quarter ending September 30, 2021, and 1.25% for the quarter ending December 31, 2020.
Advertisement
Profit before tax (PBT) for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, at ₹ 13,782.0 crores grew by 17.1% over the corresponding quarter of the previous year. After providing ₹ 3,439.8 crores for taxation, the Bank earned a net profit of ₹ 10,342.2 crores, an increase of 18.1% over the quarter ended December 31, 2020.
HDFC Q3 Result 2022: Balance Sheet (As of December 31, 2021)
The total balance sheet size as of December 31, 2021, was ₹ 1,938,286 crores as against ₹1,654,228 crores as of December 31, 2020, a growth of 17.2%.
Total deposits as of December 31, 2021, were ₹ 1,445,918 crores, an increase of 13.8% over December 31, 2020. CASA deposits grew by 24.6% with savings account deposits at ₹ 471,029 crore and current account deposits at ₹ 210,195 crores. Time deposits were at ₹ 764,693 crores, an increase of 5.6% over the corresponding quarter of the previous year, resulting in CASA deposits comprising 47.1% of total deposits as of December 31, 2021.
Advertisement
Total advances as of December 31, 2021, were ₹ 1,260,863 crores, an increase of 16.5% over December 31, 2020. Retail loans grew by 13.3%, commercial and rural banking loans grew by 29.4% and corporate and other wholesale loans grew by 7.5%. Overseas advances constituted 3.4% of total advances.
Nine months ended December 31, 2021
For the nine months ended December 31, 2021, the Bank earned a total income of ₹ 116,177.2 crores as against ₹ 108,045.6 crores in the corresponding period of the previous year. Net revenues (net interest income plus other income) for the nine months ended December 31, 2021, were ₹ 75,009.7 crores, as against ₹ 65,370.4 crores for the nine months ended December 31, 2020. Net profit for the nine months ended December 31, 2021, was ₹ 26,906.2 crores, up by 17.3% over the corresponding nine months ended December 31, 2020.
Capital Adequacy:
The Bank’s total Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) as per Basel III guidelines was at 19.5% as of December 31, 2021 (18.9% as of December 31, 2020) as against a regulatory requirement of 11.7% which includes a Capital Conservation Buffer of 2.5%, and an additional requirement of 0.2% on account of the Bank being identified as a Domestic Systemically Important Bank (D-SIB). Tier 1 CAR was at 18.4% as of December 31, 2021, compared to 17.6% as of December 31, 2020. Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio was at 17.1% as of December 31, 2021. Risk-weighted Assets were at ₹ 1,267,426 crore (as against ₹ 1,091,721 crore as at December 31, 2020).
Advertisement
NETWORK
As of December 31, 2021, the Bank’s distribution network was at 5,779 branches and 17,238 ATMs / Cash Deposit & Withdrawal Machines (CDMs) across 2,956 cities / towns as against 5,485 branches and 15,541 ATMs / CDMs across 2,866 cities / towns as of December 31, 2020. 50% of our branches are in semi-urban and rural areas. In addition, we have 15,700 business correspondents, which are primarily manned by Common Service Centres (CSC) as against 13,675 business correspondents as of December 31, 2020. The number of employees was 134,412 as of December 31, 2021 (as against 117,560 as of December 31, 2020).
ASSET QUALITY
Gross non-performing assets were at 1.26% of gross advances as of December 31, 2021, against 1.35% as of September 30, 2021, and 1.38% (Proforma approach) as of December 31, 2020. Net non-performing assets were at 0.37% of net advances as of December 31, 2021.
The Bank held floating provisions of ₹ 1,451 crore and contingent provisions of ₹ 8,636 crores as of December 31, 2021. Total provisions (comprising specific, floating, contingent and general provisions) were 172% of the gross non-performing loans as of December 31, 2021.
The Bank’s subsidiary companies prepare their financial results in accordance with the notified Indian Accounting Standards (‘Ind-AS’). The Bank for the purposes of its statutory compliance prepares and presents its financial results under Indian GAAP. Hence the Bank’s subsidiary companies, for the purposes of the consolidated financial results of the Bank, prepare ‘fit-for-consolidation information’ based on the recognition and measurement principles as per Indian GAAP. The financial numbers of the Bank’s subsidiary companies mentioned herein below are in accordance with Ind-AS.
HDFC Securities Limited (HSL) is amongst the leading retail broking firms in India. As of December 31, 2021, the Bank held a 96.0% stake in HSL. For the quarter ended December 31, 2021, HSL’s total income grew by 58% to ₹ 535.6 crores, as against ₹ 339.1 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020. Profit after tax for the quarter grew by 58% to ₹ 258.0 crores, as against ₹ 163.2 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020.
Advertisement
As on December 31, 2021, HSL had 213 branches across 147 cities/towns in the country.
HDB Financial Services Limited (HDBFSL) is a non-deposit taking non-banking finance company (‘NBFC’) offering a wide range of loans and asset finance products to individuals, emerging businesses and micro-enterprises. As of December 31, 2021, the Bank held 95.0% stake in HDBFSL.
The total loan book was ₹ 60,478 crore as of December 31, 2021, as against ₹ 60,068 crores as of December 31, 2020. The liquidity coverage ratio was healthy at 222%.
Advertisement
For the quarter ended December 31, 2021, HDBFSL’s net revenue was at ₹ 1,981.6 crores as against ₹ 1,723.7 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020, a growth of 15.0%. Profit after tax for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, was ₹ 304.1 crore compared to a loss of ₹ 146.2 crores for the quarter ended December 31, 2020, and a profit after tax of ₹ 191.7 crores for the quarter ended September 30, 2021.
Stage 3 loans were at 6.05% of gross loans. Total CAR was at 20.3% with Tier-I CAR at 14.9% as of December 31, 2021.
As on December 31, 2021, HDBFSL had 1,328 branches across 965 cities / towns.
Advertisement
HDFC Q3 Result 2022: CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL RESULTS
The consolidated net profit for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, was ₹ 10,591 crore, up 20.8%, over the quarter ended December 31, 2020. Consolidated advances grew by 15.8% from ₹ 1,133,410 crore as on December 31, 2020 to ₹ 1,312,142 crore as on December 31, 2021.
The consolidated net profit for the nine months ended December 31, 2021, was ₹ 27,610 crore, up 18.0%, over the nine months ended December 31, 2020.
Note:
Advertisement
₹ = Indian Rupees
1 crore = 10 million
All figures and ratios are in accordance with Indian GAAP unless otherwise specified.
Advertisement
BSE: 500180
NSE: HDFCBANK
NYSE: HDB
Advertisement
(This is an official press release put from hdfcbank.com)
Passionate news enthusiast with a flair for words. Our Editorial Team author brings you the latest updates, in-depth analysis, and engaging stories. Stay informed with their well-researched articles.
Gerber and Perrigo Face New Lawsuit Over ‘Store-Brand’ Infant Formula Pricing; All Pending Toxic Baby Food Cases Consolidated into New Class Action MDL
Infant formula makers Gerber and Perrigo have been hit with a class-action lawsuit, which accuses the companies of artificially creating a shortage and jacking up prices for “store-brand” formula sold at Walmart, Walgreens, and other retailers.
The lawsuit was filed on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. It accuses Perrigo of violating antitrust laws by collaborating with Gerber to prevent competitors from entering the market for store-brand formula.
Perrigo, one of the nation’s largest suppliers of store-brand formula, sells its products under retail labels at prices lower than similar branded products. However, the lawsuit alleges that Gerber, by granting Perrigo the first right of refusal to Gerber’s excess formula supply, which could have been sold to other competitors, is engaging in practices that stifle competition.
Advertisement
The lawsuit claims that through this arrangement, Gerber agreed to keep its excess formula out of the store-brand market, thereby gaining a share of Perrigo’s profits. The lawsuit was filed by four residents of California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, who will represent millions of customers who have purchased store-brand baby formula. The lawsuit does not name formula retailers as defendants. It asks the court to intervene and end the anticompetitive deals between Perrigo and Gerber and seeks more than $5 million in monetary damages.
This lawsuit is similar to another case filed in Brooklyn federal court by a potential store-brand competitor, P&L Development. Gerber and Perrigo requested the dismissal of that case, which was denied by the judge in February. The companies involved in the lawsuit claimed they compete fairly with other infant formula manufacturers, including those of store-brand formulas. The lawsuit also cited the squeezing out of P&L Development from the store-brand market, which has led to higher prices.
Gerber is also facing numerous lawsuits accusing its brands of baby food of containing dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. These heavy metals are extremely toxic, even for adults, and can have catastrophic consequences on developing children, leading to health complications and neurological damage. Conditions such as ADHD and autism may be linked to consuming these toxic baby foods.
Advertisement
On April 11, 2024, all the lawsuits pertaining to toxic baby foods, which had been filed at different times in various courts, were consolidated into a new class action MDL in the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Besides Gerber, other baby food manufacturers like Beech-Nut and Campbell Soup Co. have also been named as defendants.
The legal wrangling between the crypto sector and the SEC, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, is getting uglier, with ConsenSys, a major protagonist of the Ethereum Blockchain, filing a lawsuit against the regulatory body in a Texas federal court. This legal action seeks an intervention to ward off a looming SEC lawsuit against the company regarding features of its popular MetaMask wallet. The lawsuit also seeks the court’s help in deciding once and for all the vexed question of whether Ethereum’s digital token, Ether, is not a security. The legal uncertainty hangs heavily on the crypto sector and puts a question mark on its very existence.
In an exhaustive 34-page legal filing, ConsenSys states that the SEC’s endeavor to exert control over Ethereum is both illegal and a threat to blockchain technology.
The complaint states,
Advertisement
“The SEC’s unlawful seizure of authority over ETH would spell disaster for the Ethereum network, and for ConsenSys. Every holder of ETH, including ConsenSys, would fear violating the securities laws if he or she were to transfer ETH on the network. This would bring the use of the Ethereum blockchain in the United States to a halt, crippling one of the internet’s greatest innovations.”
The lawsuit also alleges that SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has embarked on an aggressive enforcement policy directed at the big players in the crypto sector like Coinbase and Uniswap. The lawsuit particularly points out a campaign that involved a deluge of subpoenas asking firms and developers for documents related to their dealings with the nonprofit Ethereum Foundation, which supports the blockchain’s development.
The crypto sector is up in arms against Gensler’s tactics and has contended that the SEC has never provided clear rules meant for the distinct features of blockchain technology. However, Gensler negates this argument, saying that the existing securities laws are clear and sufficient, and that the crypto industry refuses to comply with them.
Gensler’s actions are full of contradictions since, in the past, the SEC had maintained that blockchain’s tokens, like Bitcoin, are not securities and hence beyond its purview. A senior official in 2018 had stated that Ethereum has reached a state where it is adequately decentralized, and further, the agency also gave the green signal for the launch of Ethereum futures trading—an implicit acknowledgement that Ether is a commodity. However, at present, Gensler is using a recent feature of Ethereum, known as staking, as grounds for the recent legal campaign.
Advertisement
The lawsuit was filed after the SEC issued a Wells Notice, which is akin to a formal letter warning that the agency intends to sue a firm and could lead to a settlement later. The SEC charged ConsenSys that MetaMask was operating as an unlicensed broker-dealer. MetaMask offered users a means to stake Ethereum on their behalf. Staking was a feature introduced in September 2022 on the Blockchain as a replacement for the energy-intensive mining process. The process involves a system of validators who pledge collateral to become trusted validators.
The SEC objects to the process of staking, which has changed Ethereum from a commodity into a security. ConsenSys founder Joe Lubin has called this account of the SEC “preposterous”.
Lubin said,
Advertisement
“The act of staking is really just posting a security bond so you can get paid to contribute labor and resources to help operate the Ethereum protocol. Now they’re trying to turn that into some sort of investment contract.”
Lubin also stated that the SEC’s actions will lead to a halt in the growth of the crypto sector and blockchain technology as a whole. Lubin feels that the SEC seeks to block pending applications by companies to launch spot ETFs for Ethereum, following the huge popularity of Bitcoin ETFs. The SEC is in fact trying to regulate a technology on its merits and it will only stifle innovation.
Caterina Fake is a renowned American entrepreneur and co-founder of several groundbreaking ventures, including Flickr and Hunch. Born on June 13, 1969, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Fake has been a driving force in reshaping the digital landscape through her innovative ideas and entrepreneurial acumen.
From her early days in Pittsburgh to her rise in Silicon Valley, Caterina Fake’s career has been marked by a relentless pursuit of excellence. Co-founding platforms like Flickr and Hunch, she has revolutionized how we connect and share information online. Her visionary leadership and creative brilliance have cemented her status as a trailblazer in the tech industry.
Caterina Fake Net Worth
As of 2024, according to TheRichest, Caterina Fake’s net worth stands at an impressive $25 million. Her entrepreneurial ventures, including Flickr and Hunch, have contributed significantly to her financial success. With a keen eye for emerging trends and a knack for innovation, Fake continues to inspire aspiring entrepreneurs around the world.
Advertisement
Caterina Fake Age
Currently 54 years old, Caterina Fake was born on June 13, 1969. Despite her age, she remains a dynamic force in the business world, constantly pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in technology and entrepreneurship.
Caterina Fake Family: Husband and Children
Caterina Fake was previously married to Stewart Butterfield, with whom she co-founded Flickr. They tied the knot in 2001 but announced their split in 2007. They share one child, Mint Butterfield, who has recently been reported missing. Caterina Fake is currently in a relationship with Jaiku co-founder Jyri Engeström.
Caterina Fake Height and Weight
While specific details about Caterina Fake’s height and weight are not readily available, her stature in the tech industry is undeniable. Standing tall as a visionary leader and innovator, Fake’s impact transcends physical measurements, leaving an enduring legacy in the digital sphere.
