Liabilities arising from insurance contracts change depending on changes in interest rates, income from investments and expenses for pension agreements for which future mortality rates cannot be reliably predicted. IFRS 4 must be applied to the reporting of liabilities resulting from the existence of mortality rate risks and discretionary participation features. All assets associated with pension products are reported in accordance with IAS 39. Liabilities are recorded under other liabilities. Please refer to the notes under (31) Other liabilities for more information on insurance contracts.
Information about risks arising from financial instruments is disclosed in the explanatory notes. The risk report in particular contains detailed information on credit risk, country risk, concentration risk, market risk and liquidity risk.
The liabilities are designated at fair value to avoid an accounting mismatch due to holding assets designated at fair value with a similar interest rate risk profile. The credit risk of RBI is however not reflected on the asset side and hence posting the changes in the fair value of the liabilities due to a change in the default risk of RBI in other comprehensive income reduces the accounting
mismatch in the income statement. In order to fulfil the disclosure requirements the difference between the actual fair value of the liability – a hypothetical swap (which reflects the original credit curve) – and the cash payment amount was calculated.
The amount booked directly in other comprehensive income in 2017 was minus € 139,643 thousand. The cumulative change in fair value attributable to the change in own default risk was minus € 64,052 thousand and is included in retained earnings. The difference between the current fair value of these designated liabilities and the amounts contractually required to be paid at maturity was € 597,508 thousand. There have been no significant transfers within equity or derecognition of liabilities designated at fair value in the reporting period.
Amendments to IAS 7 Disclosure initiative (entry into force January 1, 2017)
RBI will apply IFRS 9 as issued in July 2014 initially on 1 January and will early adopt the amendments to IFRS 9 on the same date. Based on the assessment undertaken to date, the total estimated adjustment (before tax) of the adoption of IFRS 9 on the opening balance of the Groups equity as at 1 January 2018 is around €160 million, representing:  A reduction of around € 230 million to impairment requirements  An increase of around € 70 million related to classification and measurement requirements other than impairment.
The assessment made by the entity is preliminary as not all transition work requirements have been finalized and therefore may be subject to adjustment.
 The systems and the associated controls that are in place to comply with the new requirements have not been operational for a full reporting period.
In RBI the existing IAS 39 categories of held to maturity, loans and receivables and available for sale will be eliminated.
 The sales are due to an increase in the credit risk of a financial asset;  The sales are infrequent (even if significant), or are insignificant individually and in aggregate (even if frequent);  The sales take place close to the maturity of the financial asset and the proceeds from the sales approximate the collection of the remaining contractual cash flows; For RBI, the sale of more than 10 per cent of the portfolio (carrying value) during a rolling three year period will potentially be considered more than infrequent unless these sales are immaterial as a whole.
nates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency – i.e. an accounting mismatch – that would otherwise arise from measuring assets or liabilities, or recognizing the gains and losses on them, on different bases.
RBI will make an assessment of the objective of the business model in which a financial asset is held at a portfolio level because this best reflects the way the business is managed and information is provided to management.
The following will be considered as evidence when assessing which business model is relevant:  How the performance of the business model (and the financial assets held within that business model) are evaluated and reported to the entity’s key management personnel;  How the risks that affect the performance of the business model (and the financial assets held within that business model) and the way those risks are managed;  How managers of the business are compensated – e.g. whether the compensation is based on the fair value of the assets managed or the contractual cash flows collected;  the frequency, value and timing of sales in prior periods, the reasons for such sales, and its expectations about future sales activity; and
Once RBI determines that the business model of a specific portfolio is to hold the financial assets to collect the contractual cash flows (or by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets), it must assess whether the contractual terms of the financial asset give rise on specific dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. For this purpose, interest is defined as consideration for the time value of money and for the credit risk associated with the principal amount outstanding during a particular period of time and for other basic lending risks and costs, as well as a profit margin. This assessment will be carried out on an instrument by instrument basis on the date of initial recognition of the financial asset.
In assessing whether the contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest RBI Group will consider the contractual terms of the instrument. This will include assessing whether the financial asset contains a contractual term that could change the timing or amount of contractual cash flows such that it would not meet this condition. RBI will consider:  Prepayment, extension terms  Leverage features  Claim is limited to specified assets or cash flows  Contractually linked instruments
In 2018 IASB issued an IFRS 9 amendment regarding prepayment features with negative compensation. Negative compensation arises where the contractual terms permit the borrower to prepay the instrument before its contractual maturity, but the prepayment amount could be less than unpaid amounts of principal and interest. However, to qualify for amortised cost measurement, the negative compensation must be reasonable compensation for early termination of the contract. RBI does not expect a significant volume of negative prepayment features with negative compensation which have to be measured mandatorily at FVTPL.
Time value of money is the element of interest that provides consideration for only the passage of time (IFRS 9.B4.1.9A). It does not take into account other risks (credit, liquidity etc.) or costs (administrative etc.) associated with holding a financial asset.
Held to maturity financial assets measured at amortized cost under IAS 39 will in general also be measured at amortized cost under IFRS 9. Only an insignificant portfolio will be reclassified to the business model hold and sell and measured at FVOCI.
Available for Sale debt instruments measured at fair value through equity under IAS 39 will in general also be measured at FVOCI under IFRS 9.
IFRS 9 grants accounting options for hedge accounting. RBI plans to continue to apply the provisions on hedge accounting pursuant to IAS 39 while, however, taking into account the changes in the disclosures in the notes pursuant to IFRS 7.
In RBI a financial asset will be derecognized if underlying contract is modified substantially. Terms are substantially different if the discounted present value of the cash flows under the new terms using the original effective interest rate is at least 10 per cent different from the discounted present value of the remaining cash flows of the original financial asset. In addition to present value test there are considered further quantitative and qualitative criteria in order to assess whether it is a substantial modification.These criteria consider the extension of the average remaining term and in case of Stage 3 loans keep in mind that those are often being restructured to match the maximum expected payouts that a defaulted client can afford. If this is the case then additional judgement is required to determine whether the extension is economically a new instrument. Qualitative criteria were defined by RBI as a significant change in the terms of the contract if there are changes in the currency and/or change in the type of instrument (i.e. bond to loan) or introduction of clauses that would normally cause the contractual cash flow criteria according IFRS 9 to fail.
RBI assesses on a forward-looking basis the expected credit losses associated with its debt instrument assets carried at amortized cost and FVOCI and with the exposure arising from loan commitments, leasing receivables and financial guarantee contracts. RBI Group recognizes a loss allowance for such losses at each reporting date.
This section provides an overview of the aspects of IFRS 9 that involve a higher degree of judgement or complexity and major sources of estimation uncertainty that have a significant risk of resulting in a material adjustment within the next financial year. Quantitative information about each of these estimates and judgements is included in the related notes together with information about the basis of calculation for each affected line item in the consolidated financial statements.
The measurement of the expected credit loss allowance for financial assets measured at amortised cost and fair value through other comprehensive income is an area that requires the use of complex models and significant assumptions about future economic conditions and credit behaviour. Significant judgements are required in applying the accounting requirements for measuring expected credit losses these are:  Determining criteria for significant increase in credit risk  Choosing appropriate models and assumptions for the measurement of expected credit losses  Establishing the number and relative weightings of forward-looking scenarios for each type of product/market and the associated expected credit losses  Establishing groups of similar financial assets for the purposes of measuring expected credit losses
For RBI credit risk comes from the risk of suffering financial loss, should any of our customers, clients or market counterparties fail to fulfil their contractual obligations to us. Credit risk arises mainly from interbank, commercial and consumer loans and advances, and loan commitments arising from such lending activities, but can also arise from credit enhancement provided, such as, financial guarantees, letters of credit, and acceptances.
RBI is also exposed to other credit risks arising from investments in debt securities and other exposures arising from its trading activities (trading exposures) including non-equity trading portfolio assets and derivatives as well as settlement balances with market counterparties and reverse repurchase agreements.
RBI Group considers a financial instrument to have experienced a significant increase in credit risk when one or more of the following quantitative, qualitative or backstop criteria have been met:
RBI is not aware of any generally accepted market practice for the level at which a financial instrument has to be transferred to Stage 2. From this perspective it is expected that the increase in PD at reporting date which is considered significant will develop over a period of time as a result of an iterative process between market participants and supervisors.
The assessment of significant increase in credit risk incorporates forward-looking information and is performed on a quarterly basis at a deal level for all non-retail portfolios held by RBI.
The assessment of significant increase in credit risk incorporates forward-looking information and is performed on a monthly basis at a deal level for all retail portfolios held by RBI.
RBI defines a financial instrument as in default, which is fully aligned with the definition of credit-impaired, when it meets one or more of the following criteria: Quantitative criteria
RBI uses qualitative criteria as a secondary indicator of significant increase in credit risk for all material portfolios. A movement to Stage 2 takes place when the criteria below are met.
For sovereign, bank, corporate and project finance portfolios, if the borrower meets one or more of the following criteria:  External market indicators  Changes in contract terms  Changes to management approach  Expert judgement
For retail portfolios, if the borrower meets one or more of the following criteria:  Forbearance  Expert judgement
The borrower is more than 90 days past due on its contractual payments No attempt is made to rebut the presumption that financial assets which are more than 90 days past due are to be shown in Stage 3.
The probability of default represents the likelihood of a borrower defaulting on its financial obligation either over the next twelve months or over the remaining lifetime of the obligation. In general the lifetime probability of default is calculated using the regulatory twelve month probability of default, stripped of any margin of conservatism, as a starting point. Thereafter various statistical methods are used to generate an estimate of how the default profile will develop from the point of initial recognition throughout the lifetime of the loan or portfolio of loans. The profile is based on historical observed data and parametric functions.
Different models have been used to estimate the default profile of outstanding lending amounts and these can be grouped into the following categories:  Sovereign, local and regional governments, insurance companies and collective investment undertakings the default profile is generated using a transition matrix approach. Forward looking information is incorporated into the probability of default using the Vasicek one factor model.
 Corporate customers, project finance and financial institutions the default profile is generated using a parametric survival regression (Weibull) approach. Forward looking information is incorporated into the probability of default using the Vasicek one factor model.
In the limited circumstances where some inputs are not fully available alternative recovery models, benchmarking of inputs and expert judgement is used for the calculation.
 Retail mortgages the Stage 3 provision is generated by calculating the discounted collateral realization value.  Other retail lending the Stage 3 provision is generated by calculating the statistically derived best estimate of expected loss which has been adjusted for indirect costs.
No attempt is made to rebut the presumption that financial assets which are more than 90 days past due are to be shown in Stage 3.
The assessment of significant increase in credit risk and the calculation of expected credit losses both incorporate forward-looking information. RBI Group has performed historical analysis and identified the key economic variables impacting credit risk and expected credit losses for each portfolio.
As with any economic forecasts, the projections and likelihoods of occurrence are subject to a high degree of inherent uncertainty and therefore the actual outcomes may be significantly different to those projected. RBI Group considers these forecasts to represent its best estimate of the possible outcomes and cover any potential non-linearities and asymmetries within RBI Group’s different portfolios.
The most significant assumptions affecting the expected credit loss allowance are as follows: Corporate portfolios
Changing in accounting policies resulting from the adoption of IFRS 9 will generally be applied retrospectively, except as described below:  RBI will take advantage of the exemption allowing it not to restate comparative information for prior periods with respect to classification and measurement (including impairment) changes. Differences in the carrying amounts of financial assets and financial liabilities resulting from the application of IFRS 9 are recognized in retained earnings as of January 1, 2018.
 The designation of certain strategic investments not held for trading as at FVOCI.
For lessees, the new standard establishes an accounting model which does not distinguish between financial leasing and operating leasing. In future, most lease agreements will have to be recognized in the statement of financial position. The standard requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities in the statement of financial position for all leases of more than 12 months, unless the underlying asset has a low value. The lessee recognizes an asset which represents its right to use the underlying asset. It also recognizes a lease liability which represents its liability to effect the lease payments. For lessors, the rules under IAS 17 (Leases) remain largely valid, meaning that in future it will still also be necessary to distinguish between financial and operating leasing with corresponding different accounting consequences. In addition, the standard also requires entities to provide users of financial statements with more informative, relevant disclosures in the notes.
IFRS 15 Revenue from contracts with customers (entry into force January 1, 2018)
For all contracts with customers, the accounting standard specifies how and when income is recognized, based on a five-step model, but does not have any consequences for the recognition of income arising in connection with financial instruments within the scope of IFRS 9. IFRS 15 replaces several other IFRS standards such as IAS 18 (Revenue), IAS 11 (Construction Contracts) and interpretations, which determine the timing of recognition under IFRS. The standard also requires entities to provide users of financial statements with more informative, relevant disclosures in the notes. In 2016 the IASB published clarifications on IFRS 15. These changes address three of the five identified topics (performance obligation identification, principal/agent considerations and licenses) and aim to facilitate transition for modified and completed contracts. As the focus of IFRS 15 is not on accounting for revenue from financial instruments and leases, its application is not expected to have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements of RBI.
The amendments aim to mitigate the consequences resulting from different first-time effective dates for the application of IFRS 9 and the successor standard to IFRS 4, especially for companies whose activities are predominantly connected with insurance. Two optional approaches are being introduced which can be used by insurers if certain requirements are met: the overlay approach and the deferral approach. The application of these amendments is not expected to have any impact on the consolidated financial statements of RBI.
The amendments concern individual matters relating to the accounting of cash-settled share-based payments. The principal amendment/addition relates to the fact that IFRS 2 now contains provisions which relate to the calculation of the fair value of liabilities resulting from share-based payments. The application of these amendments is not expected to have any impact on the consolidated financial statements of RBI.
Annual improvements to IFRS – 2014–2016 cycle (entry into force January 1, 2017/2018)
IFRIC 22 Foreign currency transactions and advance consideration (entry into force January 1, 2018)
The amendments serve to clarify the provisions in relation to transfers to or from investment properties. In particular, the amendments clarify whether property which is under construction or development which was previously classified under inventories can be transferred to investment properties when there is an evident change of use. The application of these amendments is not expected to have any impact on the consolidated financial statements of RBI.
 IAS 23 Borrowing Costs: The amendments clarify that if any specific borrowing remains outstanding after the related asset is ready for its intended use or sale, that borrowing becomes part of the funds that an entity borrows generally when calculating the capitalisation rate on general borrowings.
IFRS 17 — Insurance contracts (entry into force January 1, 2021)
IFRS 17 establishes the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of insurance contracts within the scope of the standard. The objective of IFRS 17 is to ensure that an entity provides relevant information that faithfully represents those contracts. This information gives a basis for users of financial statements to assess the effect that insurance contracts have on the entity's financial position, financial performance and cash flows. IFRS 17 was issued in May 2017 and applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021.The application of these amendments is not expected to have any impact
Amendments to IFRS 10/IAS 28 Sale or contribution of assets between an investor and its associate or joint venture (entry into force January 1, 2016)
Only entities applying IFRS for the first time and who recognize regulatory deferrals according to their previous accounting standards are allowed to continue with regulatory deferrals after transition to IFRS. The standard is intended to be a short-term interim solution till the IASB concludes the long-term project relating to price-regulated business transactions. The European Commission has decided not to commence the adoption process for this temporary standard yet and to await the final IFRS 14.
Change to composition of the Management Board At the end of October 2017, Klemens Breuer resigned from his position on the Management Board, where he was responsible for the areas of Capital Markets and Retail Banking, on personal grounds.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the EU Regulation 537/2014 (EU Regulation) and Austrian Standards on Auditing. These standards require the audit to be conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the “Auditor´s Responsibilities” section of our report. We are independent of the audited Group in accordance with Austrian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and professional regulations, and we have fulfilled our other responsibilities under those relevant ethical requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Raiffeisen Bank International AG, Vienna, Austria, and its subsidiaries (the Group), which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at 31 December 2017, and the consolidated statement of comprehensive income, the consolidated statement of changes in equity and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and the notes to the consolidated financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Group as at 31 December 2017, and its consolidated financial performance and consolidated cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) as adopted by the EU, and the additional requirements pursuant to Sections 245a UGB (Austrian Commercial Code) and 59a BWG (Austrian Banking Act).
In the following we present the key audit matters from our point of view:  Recoverability of loans and advances to customers  Valuation of derivative financial instruments  Valuation of liabilities at fair value through profit and loss
For retail clients, individual loan loss provisions are calculated using the Internal Rating Based Approach using the default definitions of the internal rating systems. One entity uses the Delinquency Bucket based Approach whereby all amounts overdue by more than 180 days are fully provisioned.
Portfolio loan loss provisions are calculated for all corporate customers that are not impaired based on their individual risk profile (individul rating classes). Portfolio loan loss provisions are determined using centrally calculated historical default rates for each rating class, collateral values and other statistical and historical data.
For retail clients, the portfolio loan loss provision is calculated automatically using general probability of default rates and loss given default rates. These parameters are based on historical and statistical data.
We have obtained the documentation that describes the process of loan issuance, loan monitoring and determination of loan loss provisions and assessed these documents to determine whether the processes adequately identify impairment indicators and ensure amounts are recorded at their appropriate carrying value in the Financial Statements. In addition, we tested the essential key controls within these processes. As part of this work we checked the design, implementation and effectiveness of these key controls.For individual loan loss provision, we used a sampling based approach to determine whether impairment indicators were identified and whether appropriate loan loss provisions were calculated. We critically assessed the bank’s estimates regarding the amount and timing of future cash flows, including those resulting from realization of collateral, and whether the bank’s assessment was in line with the internal and external information available. The sample selection was made using both a risk based approach dependent on the client’s rating class, and random selection approach for clients with a lower probability of default. With regard to the internal collateral valuation, we analyzed, together with our internal valuation specialists, whether the assumptions used in the models were adequate and in line with available market data.
The Group has entered into derivatives for trading and hedging purposes as part of its business activities. The allocation of a derivative to the trading/banking book or hedge accounting is significant for its presentation and subsequent valuation.
We involved valuation specialists to assess the fair value model used by the Group. Further, we compared the data inputs to this model to the available market data to determine whether the data input lies within a reasonable range in comparison to the available market data. Based on the documentation obtained, we assessed whether the derived credit spread curve was adequate for determining the fair value of the liabilities. We tested whether the fair values calculation was appropriate on a sample basis.
Management is also responsible for assessing the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting, unless management either intents to liquidate the Group or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
Management is responsible for the preparation of the group management report in accordance with Austrian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Based on our knowledge gained in the course of the audit of the consolidated financial statements and our understanding of the Group and its environment, we did not note any material misstatements in the group management report.
 From the matters communicated with the audit committee, we determine those matters that were of most significance in the audit i.e. key audit matters. We describe these key audit matters in our auditor’s report unless laws or other legal regulations preclude public disclosure about the matter or when in very rare cases, we determine that a matter should not be included in our audit report because the negative consequences of doing so would reasonably be expected to outweigh the public benefits of such communication
In conjunction with our audit, it is our responsibility to read this other information and to assess whether, based on knowledge gained during our audit, it contains any material inconsistencies with the consolidated financial statements orany apparent material misstatement of fact. If we conclude that there is a material misstatement of fact in other information, we must report that fact. We have nothing to report in this regard.
At the Annual General Meeting dated 16 June 2016, we were elected as group auditors. We were appointed by the Supervisory Board on 16 June 2016. We have been the Group’s auditors since the company´s first listing on the stock exchange in 2005.
We declare that our opinion expressed in the “Report on the Consolidated Financial Statements” section of our report is consistent with our additional report to the Audit Committee, in accordance with Article 11 EU Regulation.
We declare that we have not provided any prohibited non-audit services (Article 5 Paragraph 1 EU Regulation) and that we have ensured our independence throughout the course of the audit, from the audited Group.
Member of the Management Board responsible for Corporate Customers, Corporate Finance, Group
Corporate Business Strategy & Steering, International Business Support, International Leasing Steering & Product
International Premium & Private Banking3 and International Retail Strategy & Products3 1 Reports to the whole Management and Supervisory Board 2 Reports temporarily to the CEO 3 Reports temporarily to the Management Board member for Corporate
Member of the Management Board responsible for Financial Institutions, Country & Portfolio Risk
Loan to local stable funding ratio (LLSFR) – this ratio includes a wider range of refinancing considering further stable funding. LLSFR is used as a measure for the prudence of a bank indicating the local refinancing structure of subsidiary banks. It is calculated with the sum of total loans and advances to customers less impairment losses on loans and advances to customers, divided by the sum of deposits from non-banks, funding from supranational institutions, capital from third parties and the total outstanding bonds (with an original maturity of at least one year issued by a subsidiary bank to investors outside the bank s̀ consolidated group).
Net interest margin – is used for external comparison with other banks as well as an internal profitability measurement of products and segments. It is caulcauted with net interest income set in relation to average interest-bearing assets (total assets less trading assets and derivatives, intangible fixed assets, tangible fixed assets, and other assets).
NPE – Non-performing exposure. It contains all non-performing loans according to the applicable definition of the EBA document “Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on Supervisory Reporting (Forbearance and non-performing exposures)” and comprises all defaulted non-performing loans and non-defaulted non-performing loans (loans without grounds for default pursuant to Article 178 CRR).
NPL – Defaulted, non-performing loans. A default and thus a non-performing loan applies if it can be assumed that a customer is unlikely to fulfill all of its credit obligations to the bank, or if the debtor is overdue at least 90 days on any material credit obligation to the bank (RBI has defined twelve default indicators).
NPE ratio –is an economic ratio to demonstrate the proportion of non-defaulted and defaulted non-performing loans according to the applicable EBA definition in relation to the entire loan portfolio of customers and banks. The ratio reflects the quality of the loan portfolio of the bank and provides an indicator for the performance of the bank’s credit risk management.
NPL coverage ratio – describes to which extent defaulted non-performing loans have been covered by impairments (individual and portfolio-based loan loss provisions) thus expressing also the ability of a bank to absorb losses from its NPL. It is calculated with impairment losses on loans and advances to customers set in relation to defaulted non-performing loans to customers.
Operating income – comprises net interest income, net fee and commission income, net trading income and other net operating income (less bank levies, impairments of goodwill, releases of negative goodwill and profit/loss from banking business due to governmental measures).
Return on assets (ROA before/after tax) – is a profitability ratio and measures how efficiently a company can manage its assets to produce profits during a period. It is computed by dividing profit before tax/after tax by average assets (based on total assets, average means the average of year-end figure and the relevant month ś figures).
Belarus Priorbank JSC V. Khoruzhey str. 31-A 220002 Minsk Phone: +375-17-28 9-9090 Fax: +375-17-28 9-9191 SWIFT/BIC: PJCBBY2X www.priorbank.by
Bulgaria Raiffeisenbank (Bulgaria) EAD 55 Nikola I. Vaptzarov Blvd. Business Center EXPO 200 PHAZE III, Floor 5 1407 Sofia Phone: +359-2-91 985 101 Fax: +359-2-94 345 28 SWIFT/BIC: RZBBBGSF www.rbb.bg
Belarus “Raiffeisen-Leasing” JLLC V. Khoruzhey 31 A 220002 Minsk Phone: +375-17-28 9-9394 Fax: +375-17-28 9-9974 www.rl.by
Kazakhstan Raiffeisen Leasing Kazakhstan LLP Shevchenko Str. 146, flat 1 050008 Almaty Phone: +7-727-378 54 30 Fax: +7-727-378 54 31 www.rlkz.at
Romania Raiffeisen Leasing IFN S.A. Calea Floreasca 246 D 014476 Bucharest www.raiffeisen-leasing.ro
Build. 6 Office 6-201 04073 Kiev Phone: +38-0-44-590 24 90 Fax: +38-0-44-200 04 08 www.rla.com.ua
UK RBI London Branch Tower 42, Leaf C, 9th Floor 25 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1HQ Phone: +44-20-79 33-8000 Fax: +44-20-79 33-8009
India RBI Representative Office Mumbai 501, Kamla Hub, Gulmohar Road, Juhu Mumbai 400049
Concept/design: gantnerundenzi.at Edited: Capital Language Communications Production: In-house using Firesys financial reporting system Printed by: Bösmüller