Ten minutes, twenty-two slides: presenting Q3 results to a mixed committee
Sana is a management trainee at a mid-sized Islamic bank. She has ten minutes on the agenda of the nine-member Management Committee to present Q3 20X5 performance. Her draft has 22 slides: nine tables copied from the MIS, a four-page appendix of branch-wise deposits, nine-point font, and the title “Q3 Performance Review”. The key facts are: deposits up 8% to Rs 210 billion; non-performing loans up from 3.1% to 4.4% of advances; net profit down 12% to Rs 1.6 billion; and one large corporate account of Rs 4.5 billion restructured twice during the year. The CFO told her to “give them the one number that matters”. The HR head, who is not a finance specialist, will be in the room. Two days before the meeting, the draft was circulated and the Head of Risk emailed that the 4.4% NPL figure “does not match branch data”.
1. Restructure the material into a ten-minute presentation. State the headline, the slide sequence and what you would cut.
Read the worked answer
The headline must be a sentence, not a title. “Deposits grew 8%, but asset quality deteriorated faster: NPLs rose 130 basis points to 4.4% and profit fell 12%” tells the committee what to think about. A title such as “Q3 Performance Review” wastes the only line that every member will read.
Ten minutes means roughly five content slides at about 90 seconds each, plus a minute for the close and two for questions. A workable sequence is:
- One-page summary - three numbers (deposit growth, NPL ratio, profit) and the one action being requested.
- Asset quality - a bridge from 3.1% to 4.4%, showing how much comes from new slippage and how much from the Rs 4.5 billion restructured account. This is the slide that matters to the CFO.
- Profit walk - 12% decline split into margin, provisioning and cost, so the committee sees whether the fall is structural or one-off.
- Deposit growth - one chart plus a sentence on cost and concentration; the 8% is good news but not the headline.
- Actions and asks - three decisions needed from the committee, with owners and dates.
Cut the nine MIS tables to one appendix; no one reads a table on a screen. Move the four-page branch appendix to a handout and state that it is available. Replace nine-point font with at least 18-point. For the HR head, every number gets a one-line plain-language explanation, for example “NPL means loans where the customer has stopped paying”. Rehearse to eight minutes so there is room for interruption.
2. Which visual would you use for the NPL trend and the profit decline, and why?
Read the worked answer
The choice should follow the question the audience is asking, not decoration.
For NPL, the question is “how bad is the trend and where is it coming from”. Use a column chart of the NPL ratio by quarter with the 4.4% point annotated, combined with a small stacked bar or waterfall showing the movement from 3.1% to 4.4%: opening balance, new slippage, recoveries, write-offs and the restructured account. A ratio alone hides whether the deterioration is broad or concentrated in one name; the bridge answers the follow-up question before it is asked.
For profit, the question is “why did it fall”. A waterfall from last year's Rs 1.8 billion to Rs 1.6 billion, with bars for net margin, provisioning, fee income and operating cost, is the right format. It shows that a Re curring cost problem is different from a one-off provisioning hit, which changes the recommendation.
For deposits, a simple line chart with the last five quarters is enough; the 8% can be stated in the headline of the slide. Avoid pie charts, 3D effects, and dual axes. Label directly on the chart rather than in a legend, and keep the same scale across comparable slides so the committee is not misled. Every chart should have a one-sentence “so what” beneath it, because the non-finance member will read the sentence even if the chart is unclear.
3. How should Sana handle the Head of Risk's claim that the 4.4% figure does not match branch data - both in the room and afterwards?
Read the worked answer
In the room, the priority is to protect the credibility of the number without starting a data argument in front of the committee. Sana should acknowledge the point, state the source and definition plainly - “this is the gross NPL ratio from the central MIS at 30 September, on the same basis as prior quarters” - and commit to reconciling it with branch data and reporting back within 24 hours. She should not dismiss the challenge, and she should not guess at an explanation. If the difference is likely to be definitional, she can flag that possibility as something being checked, not as an answer.
Afterwards, the reconciliation must be real and documented. The usual causes are definitional: gross versus net of provisioning, principal only versus principal plus interest, the treatment of the restructured Rs 4.5 billion account, write-offs in branch data, or a different cut-off date. Sana should obtain the branch extract, compare account by account, and identify the exact population causing the gap. If the 4.4% is wrong, she must correct it in writing to all committee members before the minutes are finalised, not quietly in the next pack. If the branch data is wrong, the same evidence should be given to the Head of Risk.
This is also a governance moment: a restructured account of Rs 4.5 billion that has been restructured twice may need separate disclosure and tighter classification. Sana should involve Finance and Risk in a joint note. Documenting the query, the reconciliation and the correction protects both her and the committee.