Selecting the winners for the FE Best Banks Awards is never a simple exercise. The task involves far more than comparing balance sheets or ranking lenders by size and profitability. The jury pores over financial performance, evaluates corporate governance standards, assesses innovation and strategic direction, and weighs the quality of risk management before arriving at its final choices.
This year, the exercise was particularly demanding because India’s financial sector entered 2024-25 in notably strong shape, with most lenders reporting healthy capital buffers, robust profitability and low delinquency levels. Strong performances across the board meant the shortlist of deserving candidates was often longer than one would ideally expect.
As always, the distinguished jury — led by S Ramadorai, former vice-chairman of TCS, and comprising Dinesh Khara, former chairman of State Bank of India; Amit Chandra, chairman of Bain Capital India; Pradip Shah, chairman of IndAsia Advisors; and Seshagiri Rao, group CFO of JSW Steel — brought both rigour and perspective to the process. Through hours of deliberation, analysis and debate, the panel navigated spreadsheets and qualitative assessments alike to identify the eventual winners.
One of the defining themes of 2024-25 was the changing risk environment for lenders. Following the regulator’s decision in late 2023 to increase risk weights on retail loans and exposures to non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), banks were forced to recalibrate growth strategies, strengthen provisioning and moderate what had previously been an aggressive pace of lending.
The regulatory tightening came after retail borrowers and shadow lenders together accounted for nearly half of incremental credit growth in 2023, pushing loan-deposit ratios across the system to elevated levels. Public sector banks, aided partly by relatively lower loan-deposit ratios, gradually began regaining market share from several private-sector peers.
Against this backdrop, the jury attached considerable importance to the ability of institutions — whether banks, NBFCs or small finance banks — to strike the right balance between growth and prudence. Metrics such as loan-loss ratios, provision coverage and asset quality assumed greater significance, particularly given the rapid expansion in unsecured lending in recent years. Operational efficiency indicators, including business per employee and profit per employee, also carried weight. In the case of foreign banks, the breadth and sophistication of product offerings formed an important part of the evaluation framework.
Consistently strong return ratios, especially return on assets and return on equity sustained over multiple years, continued to distinguish the strongest contenders. The jury also viewed strategic initiatives such as acquisitions, portfolio purchases and business expansion favourably, provided these moves reflected sound judgement rather than excessive risk-taking. Corporate social responsibility initiatives added to the overall assessment, but ultimately, corporate governance standards remained the single most critical factor in the final evaluation.
As in previous years, there were several standout performances across categories. The deliberations involved extensive exchanges of views, comparisons of notes and spirited debate before the winners were finalised over the course of an afternoon. Some decisions, however, proved easier than others. This year, for instance, the jury was unanimous in selecting the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award.