their niche customer segments, furthering the cause of financial inclusion. the growth of aggregate deposits and credit of sfbs have been significant since march 2018. in the quarter ended mar 2022, the deposits grew by 37. 3 per cent on y - o - y basis while growth in credit portfolio was 25. 6 per cent, as 4 / 8 bis - central bankers'speeches against growth rate of deposits and credit of scbs at 10. 2 per cent and 10. 8 per cent respectively7. although, it may seem unfair to compare the concerned numbers of public and private sector banks to sfbs because of scale - effects, even in terms of outreach through bank branches, sfbs represent about 4 per cent of bank branch network in india currently, expanding from less than 1 % in 20178. payments banks are truly first - generation new age differentiated banks designed on activity based functional differentiation. the impact of these banks on digital payment economy and doorstep banking cannot be assessed just by their points of presence but also from the data of facilitated digital transactions. just to give you all a perspective on this, the payments banks facilitated a total of about 11. 4 crore mobile banking transactions amounting rs. 17, 465 crore in value in the month of june 2020, which has increased to 47. 3 crore transactions with aggregate value of about rs. 46, 338 crore in just two years ( august 2022 ), growing by 4. 1 times in terms of volume and 2. 7 times in terms of value. it is also important to highlight that as of august 2022, there were 2. 5 crore active users of payments banks using their mobile banking facilities, representing about 2. 7 per cent of all active internet users in india9. the primary objective of a differentiated banking structure, as alluded earlier, was to expand the reach of financial services and institutions with financial inclusion being the overarching objective. therefore, the underlying premise of differentiated banking institutions is based on differentiated reach. as we all are experiencing now, almost all banks have or are adopting technology to improve and expand delivery of financial services and products. the reserve bank has been taking progressive measures to improve availability of digital infrastructure for banking services and this process recently got a significant boost by the launch of 75 digital banking units ( dbus ) by hon'ble prime minister. these dbus will be set up in 75 districts to commemorate 75 years of independence under the azadi ka amrit mahotsav for a targeted digital

some truly innovative thinking about ways to integrate operational - risk measurement into the broader framework of operational - risk management. i would like to offer some specific observations on a couple of key challenges relating to operationalrisk quantification. first, with respect to operational - loss data, basel ii banks face the challenge of establishing credible operational - loss databases that they can use in determining their regulatory capital requirement for operational risk. the advanced approaches under basel ii create a link between regulatory capital and risk management. banks using an ama for operational risk will be required to adopt more - formal, quantitative risk - measurement and risk - management procedures and processes. for example, basel ii establishes standards for data collection and the systematic use of the information collected. these standards are consistent with broader supervisory expectations that high - quality risk management at large complex organizations depends on credible data - - and not just for basel ii. data are needed for all models and risk measures used in financial services, including credit - scoring models, market - based measures such as kmv, and value - at - risk and other economic capital models. the emphasis in basel ii on improved data standards, therefore, should not be interpreted solely as a requirement to determine regulatory capital standards but rather as a foundation for risk - management practices that will strengthen the value of the banking franchise. as i mentioned earlier, regulators view capital from the perspective of ensuring safety and soundness in the financial system. but individual financial institutions generally focus on capital, in particular economic capital, as a means for evaluating the profitability of their activities, defining their risk appetite, and setting risk limits. although the goals differ, there are important linkages between firms'efforts to quantify operational - risk capital for regulatory capital purposes and for strategic decisionmaking. to the extent the operational - loss data considered in banks'internal economic capital models appropriately reflect the banks'risk exposures, banks should be able to leverage their economic capital data collection efforts to measure their operational - risk exposure under an ama. this leverage is also consistent with the basel ii objective of better aligning regulatory capital with banks'internal economic capital. the second challenge i wanted to touch on is banks'integration of insurance in their processes for quantifying operational risk. as many of you are aware, basel ii contains a provision whereby banks using an advanced measurement approach for operational risk could adjust their calculated operational - risk exposure to reflect reductions due to operational - risk mitigants, such as insurance, subject to certain limitations. according to the