Refused to commit on gap 150 sgf threshold.

We have seen the market share increase in the option derivative segment. What also we have seen is that the competition reducing lot sizes and they've also introduced same-day expiries in the GIFT city. So, are we going to follow the suit?

BSE has always been following the principle of looking at the voice of customers and then going ahead and implementing changes. The questions which you have raised about whether we will be making any changes to the product suit as far as Indian weekly derivatives are concerned, we will be consulting the market and based on whatever the market feedback is, then subject to the large size rules stipulated by SEBI, we will be doing from time to time whatever changes are required. As far as 0-DTE in GIFT City is concerned, for us, we are working towards creating deeper liquidity in the existing weekly Sensex futures contract at GIFT City. So, at the right point of time, with the right support from market participants, we will consider bringing in more features and more products.

On the market share gain that we have seen and oppose the change in expiry. So, what is driving this? Because we have seen market share gains in almost all days from expiry (E) to expiry minus 4 (E-4). Any number that you can give us in terms of what is driving this. And also, we have seen the rise in the premium to notional was there till September, post that the rise in the notional has been higher. So, that has impacted our margins as well. Your views on that and where we are in the journey of increasing the institutional participation.

As far as the market share part of it, as you would recall, BSE stand has always been in a lighter vein, we always say that our market share is 100% because our product is unique. Notwithstanding that, we have never been tracking the market share part of it with regard to the derivative. Our intention and our work continues to be in deepening and broadening of markets. We have been taking multiple steps in including more number of participants, more number of members, and more FPIs. With regard to the margins of premium versus notional, as you would appreciate, the receipt of premium by us, the revenue for us comes from the premium, whereas the regulatory charges are based on Notional turnover. The premium that is received is a function of multiple things, including volatility. As you would appreciate, the internal events in the first quarter made the volatility to show higher tones, while the events of the second quarter made the volatility subdued, making the premium realization per contract different from what it was for the first quarter and thus compressing the margins. These events, being uncontrollable and unpredictable, no future trend in this regard could be predicted by us.

Just one follow-up on this since you have disclosed some data on clearing corporation of BSE. So, just wanted to update where we have reached on the decoupling of the charges, Clearing charges?

I am not sure whether I am understanding the question of decoupling of charges what you mean. If you mean that we should unbundle the charges, unbundling of charges at this point of time is under the regulatory ambit because the original charges that are being paid come under the regulatory ambit of the agreement between clearing corporation under the oversight of the regulators. So, unless and until that regulatory clarity emerges by way of the normally used co-creative consultative process, unilaterally, we will not be able to unbundle. So, once that happens, unbundling will happen.

What is the gap that we need to bridge as of now to reach 150%?

Madhukar, we don't disclose these numbers publicly. Like I said, it is an internal calculation, which we do on a monthly basis. So, if X is, say, the minimum corpus, we see up to 150% of that X, and accordingly we decide to contribute or not. These numbers are not publicly discussed on our website or on the website of our clearing corporation. So, this is purely from an internal perspective, which we will not be able to disclose it publicly.

I would like to get an understanding on the BSE EbiX model, the kind of star platform that we have capitalized upon. The same we have not been able to capitalize upon the BSE EbiX Insurance Platform. I would like to have understanding on that. How we can capitalize or probably how we can take our stakes up, which can ensure that we have substantial skin in the game?

Yes, indeed you are right. The StAR MF platform has seen a better success compared to the EbiX. EbiX has not taken off and I think if we look at the entire country, the mutual fund performance levels are very different as compared to the insurance scheme's performance levels. There are a host of factors. Some of them are controllable, some of them are not controllable, some of them are macro in nature. The point that you made that there has to be an effort or there has to be a rethinking in respect of what would be the role for us as effectively as it could be, should be made. And we will be making such thought process because it is the right time given the success of mutual fund, that's not what we see as replicated in respect of EbiX. Of course, the rules are different, the regulators are different, the needs are different. Nevertheless, we will be getting into a deep thought process to see what is that that can come out of EbiX and what should be the future course of action for us.

Could you again highlight how much is the co-location revenues that you have booked in Q2? And in which line item have you booked this?

See, all the racks that we have already generated, we have allocated. How much the members are using, what percentage utilization, we wouldn't know. It will be the question of what we create and what is taken. We are expecting another 70 to 90 racks to come within the close of this financial year and which also will be allocated by us. Once it is done, we will have around 500 racks, which is a mix of both 6 KVA and 15 KVA racks. Since 15 KVA racks are 2.5 times the capacity of the 6 KVA racks, from a 6 KVA equivalent, roughly you can say it will be equivalent to some 650 to 700 racks. But the actual number of racks will be around 500.

My question is related to the capital expenditure that you have actually incurred in the last six months of about slightly over Rs. 300 crores. Would you be able to kind of give a breakdown of that?

What we mean by this capital work in progress is as you would recall, the growth in BSE in the last three years has been significantly larger. To cope up with it, there was a significant requirement of investment in multiple areas, in physical infrastructure, in trading infrastructure and technology infrastructure. All this infrastructure put together is what we are showing here. It has multiple facets of investments, including what we are spending on building, co-location, technology, servers, DR, etc. Rs. 313 crores is not a small number. It is a big number. It is a mix of multiple things, including the physical and technology infrastructure. What we can do is right now in front of me, I don't have the breakup. Offline, certainly we can take your call. We will give you all details because your point that Rs. 313 crores is not a small number is fully taken and we will be able to provide you a breakup of whatever we are doing.