q1 impairments were 158, q2 235. I think impairments are only...

q1 impairments were 158, q2 235. I think impairments are only part of the story, and it surely isn't a surprise in bank with a higher business banking %. Their NIM seems to have maxxed in q1, and the narrative leading into results was that all the banks NIM's will fall, but should be up in the Mar q. But it is still a good NIM at 1.75 for q2 (excl MT) v 1.79 for q1. And we don't know what levers management decided were best to pull for customer retention (and comfort) and attraction versus immediate profits.

Where they have done very well is in CTI. They said expenses were up 4% in q1, but then their CTI comes in at 42% for the half, vs 45.5% in the prev half. This is a metric they have more management control over, maybe messed u by the Citi acq - not sure.

Quite mixed good and bad IMO - enough for me to attempt a long trade on it after the dip.