The lender earned an interest income of Rs 1,657 crore, marking a 5% increase from Rs 1,585 crore it posted in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. The company’s NIM or net interest margin was 4.63%, lower by 33 basis points from 4.90% it reported in the third quarter of the previous financial year, the company said in a regulatory filing.
Asset quality improved during the quarter, with the gross NPA ratio declining to 1.88% as of December 31, 2025, from 2.32% at the end of September 2025. The net NPA ratio also edged lower to 0.55% from 0.57% over the same period. The provision coverage ratio, including technical write-offs, stood at a healthy 93.2%.
Advances grew 14% year-on-year and 3% quarter-on-quarter to Rs. 103,086 crore, with the retail-to-wholesale mix at 59:41. Retail advances rose 10% YoY and 1% QoQ to Rs. 60,611 crore, as the bank shed surplus liquidity in IBPC.
Within retail, secured advances increased 24% YoY and 1% QoQ, supported by a reduction in IBPC outstanding from Rs. 4,500 crore to Rs. 1,500 crore, while unsecured retail advances declined 5% YoY but grew 1% sequentially. Wholesale advances expanded 21% YoY and 5% QoQ to Rs. 42,475 crore, led by commercial banking, which grew 30% YoY and 7% QoQ.
Overall deposits increased 12% YoY and 3% QoQ to Rs. 119,721 crore. CASA deposits grew 6% year-on-year to Rs. 36,972 crore, with the CASA ratio standing at 30.9%.
RBL Bank’s key ratios showed a mixed trend in the December quarter. Net interest margin declined to 4.63% in Q3FY26 from 4.90% in Q3FY25, while the cost-to-income ratio increased to 66.30% from 62.51%. Return on assets improved to 0.55% from 0.09%, and return on equity rose to 5.25% from 0.84%.On the asset quality front, gross NPA fell to 1.88% in Q3FY26 from 2.92% a year earlier, while net NPA edged up to 0.55% from 0.53%. Provision coverage ratio, including technical write-offs, stood at 93.21% compared with 93.46% in Q3FY25, while PCR declined to 71.09% from 82.17%.
(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)