An AT1 bond is perpetual in law, callable only by convention, and can be written off while the shareholders survive
The short answer
An Additional Tier 1 bond is bank capital built to be lost while the bank is still open. It has no maturity date: the call the market prices to may be exercised only after five years, only with RBI's approval, and only if the bank can replace the bond on sustainable terms or has capital well above the minimum. Its coupon can be cancelled without a default, and its principal is written down or converted if CET1 falls below 6.125 per cent of risk-weighted assets or RBI declares the point of non-viability. Indian rules state that equity need not be written off first: in March 2020 a private bank's Rs 8,415 crore of AT1 bonds went to zero while its shareholders kept their shares. The High Court quashed that write-off in 2023; the Supreme Court stayed the ruling, reserved judgment on 26 February 2026 and, as at 23 September 2026, had not ruled. Since October 2020 only qualified institutional buyers may subscribe to a new issue, in lots of Rs 1 crore.
The instrument is usually described as a bank bond that pays more because it is riskier. That is right about the payment and wrong about the risk. On top of the bank's credit risk, the holder has written three options in favour of the bank and its regulator: to stop paying, not to repay, and to extinguish the principal while the bank keeps trading. The coupon is the premium on those options, and each is priced below from stated illustrative terms.
Capital that is designed to be lost while the bank stays open
Bank capital is sorted by when it absorbs losses. Common Equity Tier 1, shares and reserves, absorbs them continuously; Tier 2, mostly subordinated debt issued for at least five years, absorbs them in a winding up. AT1 sits between: going-concern capital that, in its bond form, pays a coupon like debt, which lets a bank meet part of its Tier 1 requirement without issuing shares.
The rules moved on 28 November 2025, when RBI repealed its Basel III master circular and replaced it with the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks, Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy) Directions, 2025 (RBI/DOR/2025-26/151), last updated on 16 June 2026 (paragraph 272). A page that cites annexes of the old master circular cites a repealed document. The AT1 rules carried over, and the paragraph numbers below are the new ones.
| Component | Per cent of RWA | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum CET1 | 5.5 | Absorbs losses continuously; the base every trigger is measured on |
| Maximum AT1 within minimum Tier 1 | 1.5 | Going-concern capital that is not equity |
| Minimum Tier 1 | 7.0 | CET1 plus AT1 |
| Maximum Tier 2 within minimum total | 2.0 | Absorbs losses in a winding up |
| Minimum total capital | 9.0 | Tier 1 plus Tier 2 |
| Conservation buffer, in CET1 | 2.5 | Below it, payouts are restricted on a sliding scale |
| CET1 plus the buffer | 8.0 | Also the ceiling on how far an AT1 write-down may restore CET1 |
| Total capital plus the buffer | 11.5 | What a bank must stay well above to call an AT1 without replacing it |
| AT1 numerical trigger | 6.125 of CET1 | Write-down or conversion; the Basel minimum is 5.125 |
The Basel minimum trigger of 5.125 per cent is taken from the Financial Stability Institute of the BIS (FSI Briefs No 21, September 2023). India's is a point higher, where the conservation buffer already requires a bank to retain all of its earnings (paragraph 251, Table 46). By the time the numerical trigger fires, the dividend has stopped.
Two triggers, and only one of them is a number
The first trigger is arithmetic. Below 6.125 per cent CET1, AT1 absorbs losses by conversion into shares or by a temporary or permanent write-down, of at least the amount that lifts CET1 back to the trigger and no more than the amount that takes it to 8 per cent (paragraph 26(2)). The extinguished principal becomes CET1.
The second is judgement. At the point of non-viability every AT1 and Tier 2 instrument is, at RBI's option, written off permanently or converted in full. The trigger is the earlier of RBI deciding that this is needed to keep the bank viable and a decision to inject public capital without which it would have failed (paragraph 26(6)). A reconstitution or amalgamation under section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act is deemed non-viability, activates both triggers, and requires the AT1 to be written down or converted before the reconstitution (paragraph 26(3)(vi)). That word became the centre of the Indian case.
Two sentences settle the hierarchy. "The write-down of any CET1 capital shall not be required before a write-down of any AT1 capital instrument" (paragraph 26(2)(i)), and the same rule for non-viability in paragraph 26(6)(ii). Paragraph 20(14) ranks AT1 above equity, but that ranking governs a liquidation, and a write-down happens before one.
| Feature | Rule | Paragraph |
|---|---|---|
| Maturity | Perpetual; no step-up or other incentive to redeem; no put option | 20(4), 20(6) |
| Call | After at least five years, with RBI's prior approval; no expectation may be created; the bond must be replaced with capital of equal or better quality on sustainable terms, or capital must stay well above the minimum | 20(6) |
| Coupon | Full discretion to cancel; cancellation is not a default; non-cumulative; from profits or specified reserves, within the buffer restrictions | 20(8) |
| Ranking | Above equity; below depositors, general creditors and subordinated debt | 20(14) |
| Numerical trigger | CET1 below 6.125 per cent: conversion, or temporary or permanent write-down; CET1 need not be written down first | 26(2) |
| Non-viability | RBI's decision or a public capital injection: permanent write-off or full conversion; CET1 need not be written off first | 26(6) |
| Section 45 scheme | Deemed non-viable; AT1 fully converted or written down permanently before the reconstitution | 26(3)(vi) |
Perpetual in law, callable by convention
The Directions give the bank the call and RBI the veto. Calling without a replacement requires capital well above the minimum afterwards, meaning CET1 of 8 and total capital of 11.5 per cent plus any Pillar 2 add-on (paragraph 20(6)), so the call is least available exactly when the bank is weakest.
Indian terms make a skipped call costly. Two term sheets examined for this guide, from one large public sector bank in 2021 and 2023, show a face value of Rs 1 crore, an annual coupon fixed for life with reset and step-up both marked not applicable, a first call on the fifth and the tenth anniversary respectively and on each anniversary after, and loss absorption by write-down. A holder whose bond is not called keeps a coupon set in another rate environment for as long as the bank chooses. Two issues from one issuer are not a survey, but they show the structure to check for.
The market prices to the call regardless. SEBI's Master Circular for Mutual Funds of 20 March 2026 records that AT1 bonds usually trade and quote closer to yield to call, and since its circular of 5 August 2024 (SEBI/HO/IMD/PoD1/CIR/P/2024/106) funds value them on that basis with risk spreads, following the National Financial Reporting Authority's reading of Ind AS 113 (para 10.3.1). The 2021 rule deeming a perpetual to mature 100 years after issue, phased in after the finance ministry objected, still stands for other purposes (para 10.4.2). The quote assumes the call; the contract does not.
Which convention is worse depends on the price. Illustrative terms throughout: coupon 8.40 per cent a year, fixed for life, first call in three years, valued on a coupon date.
| Price per 100 | Yield to call, per cent | Yield to perpetuity, per cent | The lower, which the holder should assume | Gap, points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 104.00 | 6.88 | 8.08 | Yield to call | 1.20 |
| 102.00 | 7.63 | 8.24 | Yield to call | 0.61 |
| 100.00 | 8.40 | 8.40 | Equal | 0.00 |
| 98.00 | 9.19 | 8.57 | Yield to perpetuity | 0.62 |
| 95.00 | 10.43 | 8.84 | Yield to perpetuity | 1.58 |
| 90.00 | 12.61 | 9.33 | Yield to perpetuity | 3.27 |
Above par the call is the risk, and the yield to call is the honest figure. Below par the extension is the risk: at 90 the quoted yield to call is 12.61 per cent, but a bank whose bond trades there is the bank least able to refinance, and the yield if it never calls is 9.33. The quote overstates the likely outcome by 3.27 points in the one situation where the difference matters.
| Required yield, per cent | Priced to the call | Priced to a 100-year deemed maturity | Priced as a perpetual | The lower of call and perpetual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.00 | 103.67 | 119.97 | 120.00 | 103.67 |
| 7.50 | 102.34 | 111.99 | 112.00 | 102.34 |
| 8.00 | 101.03 | 105.00 | 105.00 | 101.03 |
| 8.40 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 9.00 | 98.48 | 93.33 | 93.33 | 93.33 |
| 10.00 | 96.02 | 84.00 | 84.00 | 84.00 |
| 11.00 | 93.65 | 76.36 | 76.36 | 76.36 |
| 12.00 | 91.35 | 70.00 | 70.00 | 70.00 |
A holder who bought at par and then watched the required yield reach 10 per cent sees 96.02 while the market expects the call and 84.00 once it concludes the call will be skipped. The 12.02 points between them are the price of the extension option the holder wrote. The 100-year deemed maturity prices within 0.14 paise per Rs 100 of face of the perpetual, so the 2021 rule valued the bond as a perpetual in all but name. Gains capped at the call and losses running the length of a perpetual are negative convexity, the reverse of the curvature computed in the guide to duration and convexity.
The coupon is the premium on an option the holder has written
A spread over a deposit rate or the same bank's senior bond looks like a reward for patience. It is the premium on a written option whose exercise costs the whole principal. The break-even question is the annual probability of a total, permanent write-down at which the AT1 leaves the holder no better off than a riskless comparator. For a bond bought at par with coupon c and comparator yield r, it is (c minus r) divided by (1 plus c), as fractions.
| Spread over comparator, points | Comparator yield, per cent | Break-even annual probability, per cent | Implied over 5 years, per cent | Implied over 10 years, per cent | Years of spread one write-down erases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 7.90 | 0.46 | 2.3 | 4.5 | 200.0 |
| 1.0 | 7.40 | 0.92 | 4.5 | 8.9 | 100.0 |
| 1.5 | 6.90 | 1.38 | 6.7 | 13.0 | 66.7 |
| 2.0 | 6.40 | 1.85 | 8.9 | 17.0 | 50.0 |
| 3.0 | 5.40 | 2.77 | 13.1 | 24.5 | 33.3 |
A spread of 1.5 points pays for an annual write-down probability of 1.38 per cent, which compounds to 6.7 per cent over five years and 13.0 per cent over ten; one write-down erases 66.7 years of the extra coupon. The figure is the same whether the holder assumes the call or holds forever, a property of buying at par that the build script checks rather than assumes.
The spread also pays for cancelled coupons, the extension priced above, thin trading in Rs 1 crore lots and an undecided legal question, so the true risk premium is smaller than the spread by construction, and no short history of Indian bank failures reveals the true write-down probability. For ordinary debt the default component of a spread can be small, as the guide to credit ratings and the migration record computes; for an AT1 bond the priced event is a total loss by design.
Write-down against conversion: who pays in the same event
RBI permits either write-down or conversion (paragraph 26(1)), and the design decides who pays. Take one illustrative bank: risk-weighted assets of Rs 1,00,000 crore; before the crisis, CET1 of Rs 9,000 crore across 900 crore shares, a book value of Rs 10 a share, and AT1 of Rs 1,500 crore. Losses of Rs 6,500 crore leave CET1 at 2.5 per cent and RBI declares non-viability. A rescuer injects Rs 5,000 crore to restore CET1 to 9 per cent, subscribing at the post-rescue value per share so that it neither gains nor loses. Book value stands in for value; tax on the write-back is ignored.
| Design | AT1 holders keep | AT1 change, per cent | Shareholders keep | Shareholders' change from the decision, per cent | Shareholders' change from before the crisis, per cent | Value per share after, Rs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full permanent write-down | 0 | -100.0 | 4,000 | +60.0 | -55.6 | 4.44 |
| Conversion at a price fixed at issue, Rs 10 | 571 | -61.9 | 3,429 | +37.1 | -61.9 | 3.81 |
| Conversion at the post-rescue price | 1,500 | 0.0 | 2,500 | 0.0 | -72.2 | 2.78 |
A full write-down transfers the AT1 principal, rupee for rupee, to the shareholders: their stake rises from Rs 2,500 crore at the decision to Rs 4,000 crore, 60 per cent up, while the AT1 holders lose everything. The FSI brief cited above puts it plainly: unless CET1 is also written down, value passes from AT1 bondholders to shareholders. Conversion at the rescue price is the textbook order, with the shareholders absorbing the whole loss. Conversion at Rs 10, the pre-crisis book value, makes the AT1 holder a shareholder at that price, and both lose 61.9 per cent.
| CET1 after losses, Rs crore | Full write-down | Conversion at Rs 10 | Conversion at the rescue price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4,500 | 0.0 / 66.7 | 57.1 / 57.1 | 100.0 / 50.0 |
| 2,500 | 0.0 / 44.4 | 38.1 / 38.1 | 100.0 / 27.8 |
| 1,000 | 0.0 / 27.8 | 23.8 / 23.8 | 100.0 / 11.1 |
| 0 | 0.0 / 16.7 | 14.3 / 14.3 | 100.0 / 0.0 |
When losses consume all of CET1, a write-down still leaves the old shareholders 16.7 per cent of their pre-crisis value, all of it the AT1 principal, and a conversion at the rescue price leaves them nothing. Neither extreme is a malfunction; each is what its design says.
Jurisdictions differ on whether the first outcome is allowed. On 20 March 2023, after a large Swiss bank's AT1 bonds were written off in a merger that left its shareholders with shares in the acquirer, the European Central Bank's supervision arm, the Single Resolution Board and the European Banking Authority stated that in their framework equity absorbs losses first. India's Directions state instead that equity need not go first, and India withdrew its draft resolution law, the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017, in August 2018.
The Indian case, in the order it happened
SEBI's adjudication order of 12 April 2021 found that between December 2016 and February 2020 the bank's wealth management team resold AT1 bonds bought from institutions to 1,346 individuals for about Rs 679 crore; 1,311 were its own customers and 277 had broken fixed deposits to buy. It records complaints that the bonds were sold as "super FDs", and that the lot had been cut from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 10 lakh to widen participation. SEBI's Rs 25 crore penalty on the bank was stayed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal in May 2021. The issues of December 2016, Rs 3,000 crore, and October 2017, Rs 5,415 crore, make up the Rs 8,415 crore later written off.
| Date | What happened | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 5 March 2020 | Moratorium to 3 April, withdrawals capped at Rs 50,000; board superseded, administrator appointed | RBI announcements |
| 6 March 2020 | Draft scheme with a paragraph writing the AT1 bonds off; fund houses side-pocket the bank's bonds | High Court judgment; fund announcements |
| 13 March 2020 | Final scheme in force: new shares at Rs 10; investor bank 26 to 49 per cent; 75 per cent of existing holdings locked in for three years; no AT1 clause; all contracts, deeds and bonds kept effective | Scheme, sections 1, 3 and 6 |
| 14 March 2020 | Administrator writes off Rs 8,415 crore of AT1 by letter to the exchanges | High Court judgment |
| 18 March 2020 | Moratorium ends | Scheme, section 11 |
| 20 January 2023 | Bombay High Court quashes the write-off | Writ petition 850 of 2020 |
| 3 March 2023 | Supreme Court stays that judgment | Trustee's hearing record |
| 19 February 2025 | Appeals admitted | Trustee's hearing record |
| 26 February 2026 | Judgment reserved; government's records of the scheme decision called for | Supreme Court order |
| 19 and 20 May 2026 | Records examined, Cabinet approval process questioned; written submissions by 25 May | Trustee's record of 1 July 2026 |
| 23 September 2026 | No judgment reported; the stay remains | This guide's check |
The equity survived by the scheme's design: shareholders kept their shares, diluted by the subscription at Rs 10 and with three quarters of each holding locked in for three years. The High Court did not decide whether a write-down was justified; it decided who could order one and when. Paragraph 26(3)(vi) and the bonds' information memorandum of October 2017 both place the write-down before the reconstitution. The scheme in force on 13 March had dropped the draft's write-off paragraph and kept all bonds effective, and the write-off came on 14 March. The appeal asks whether the contractual non-viability clause and the regulatory deeming carried it regardless. Every AT1 that counts as capital in India is subject to the same paragraph, so the court's reasoning matters for all of them, not only for this bank's bonds.
Who may buy an AT1 bond now
SEBI's circular of 6 October 2020 (SEBI/HO/DDHS/CIR/P/2020/199), in force from 12 October, admits only qualified institutional buyers to the issue of an AT1 bond proposed to be listed, sets the minimum allotment and the minimum trading lot at Rs 1 crore, mandates the electronic book, and requires disclosure of every call condition and of RBI's "absolute right" to direct a write-down of the entire value at non-viability. Its stated reason is that the full import of the issuer's discretion "may not be understood in the truest form by retail individual investors". The QIB rule shut the primary route, and for every bond issued under the framework the Rs 1 crore lot closed the small-ticket resale the case had relied on.
SEBI's master circular for non-convertible securities of 22 May 2024 (SEBI/HO/DDHS/PoD1/P/CIR/2024/54) extends the rule to similar regulatory capital instruments of NBFCs and fixes the face value at Rs 1 crore, with the trading lot equal to face value (Chapters V and XIII). The Rs 10,000 face value allowed from July 2024, widened to zero-coupon bonds on 18 December 2025, applies only to debt securities with a fixed maturity, which a perpetual cannot have, and NSE's bidding platform guidelines of August 2025 still admit only QIBs. RBI's Directions still describe retail sales of perpetual debt, with a bold 14-point statement that it is not a deposit and not insured (paragraph 20(22)), but for a listed AT1 SEBI's rule governs the issue.
| Buyer | Terms | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Individual, new issue | Not permitted: only QIBs take part | SEBI circular of 6 October 2020; NCS master circular, Chapter XIII |
| Individual, secondary market | Permitted, in lots of Rs 1 crore for bonds issued under the framework | NCS master circular, Chapter V |
| Qualified institutional buyer | Permitted; minimum allotment Rs 1 crore | SEBI circular of 6 October 2020 |
| Open-ended debt scheme | Up to 10 per cent of debt NAV in such instruments, 5 per cent per issuer; fresh investment only in the highest interest-rate-risk class | Master Circular for Mutual Funds, 20 March 2026: para 13.1 item 9, para 6.18.17 |
| All schemes of one fund house | At most 10 per cent of one issuer's such instruments | Para 13.1 item 9 |
| Close-ended debt scheme | Not permitted | Para 13.5.2 |
| The issuing bank and related parties | May not buy it, fund its purchase or lend against it | RBI Directions, para 20(11) |
A debt scheme that holds or may hold AT1 bonds must provide for a segregated portfolio, and its trigger date is the date of a write-off proposal, not of the write-off (para 5.5.3, from SEBI's circular of 10 March 2021). Funds side-pocketed the bank's bonds when the draft scheme appeared in 2020; the mechanism is set out in the guide to side-pocketing.
What the instrument is for, and what it asks of a holder
For a bank, AT1 is going-concern capital that does not dilute shareholders until it has to. For a holder it is a priced exposure to a bank's survival, with equity's downside and a bond's capped upside, suited only to a holder that can size a total loss, and its failure modes are written into the terms rather than hidden in them.
Reading a term sheet for its options before its coupon, the first call and whether the coupon resets, the trigger, write-down or conversion, temporary or permanent, and the order of write-down against other capital that RBI requires the offer document to state, is method. It is how the curriculum teaches every instrument whose headline figure hides the contract underneath.
Frequently asked questions
Is an AT1 bond a fixed deposit that pays more?
No. A deposit must be repaid and is insured up to the statutory limit. An AT1 bond has no repayment date, its coupon can be cancelled without a default, and its principal can be written off while the bank stays open. RBI requires retail communications about such a bond to state in bold 14-point type that it is not covered by deposit insurance (Directions, paragraph 20(22)).
What happens if the bank does not call the bond on the first call date?
Nothing that counts as a default. The bond continues, and in the Indian structure examined here the coupon does not reset, so the holder keeps the original fixed coupon indefinitely while the price moves toward that of a perpetual at the prevailing yield. The bank must report every call it does not exercise to RBI (paragraph 20(13)).
Can a bank skip an AT1 coupon without defaulting?
Yes. The bank has full discretion at all times to cancel coupons, cancellation is not an event of default, and coupons are non-cumulative, so a skipped payment is lost rather than deferred (paragraph 20(8)). Coupons paid out of reserves are also subject to the capital buffer restrictions.
How could AT1 holders lose everything while shareholders kept their shares?
Because the rules allow it in terms: equity need not be written down before AT1 at the numerical trigger, or written off before AT1 and Tier 2 at non-viability (paragraphs 26(2) and 26(6)). A full write-down extinguishes the AT1 claim and the capital it frees accrues to the shareholders. The ranking of AT1 above equity (paragraph 20(14)) governs a liquidation, and a write-down comes before one.
Did the bondholders win their case?
Not finally. The Bombay High Court quashed the 2020 write-off on 20 January 2023, but the Supreme Court stayed that judgment on 3 March 2023, admitted the appeals on 19 February 2025, reserved judgment on 26 February 2026 and reopened the government's records in May 2026. No judgment had been reported as at 23 September 2026. A page saying the bondholders won is reporting a stayed order.
Can an individual still buy AT1 bonds?
Not in a new issue: since 12 October 2020 only qualified institutional buyers may take part in the issue of an AT1 bond proposed to be listed, with a minimum allotment of Rs 1 crore. Anyone else may buy in the secondary market, in lots of Rs 1 crore for bonds issued under that framework. A debt fund's exposure is capped by its own limits.
How do mutual funds value AT1 bonds now?
On a yield to call basis with risk spreads, since SEBI's circular of 5 August 2024, which followed the National Financial Reporting Authority's view that this is how the bonds trade. The 2021 rule deeming a perpetual to mature 100 years after issue still stands in the master circular for other purposes.
Is an AT1 bond safe while the bank's CET1 ratio is above 6.125 per cent?
No. The 6.125 per cent figure is only the numerical trigger. The point of non-viability is a decision, not a ratio: the earlier of RBI deciding that a write-off or conversion is needed to keep the bank viable and a decision to inject public capital (paragraph 26(6)). It can come at any reported ratio, and a reported ratio lags the losses such a decision responds to.
As at 23 September 2026. Each rule, order and document is cited in the body beside the claim it supports; the RBI Directions are cited as updated to 16 June 2026. Rules, orders and pending cases change: verify the current position, including whether the Supreme Court has since ruled, before relying on anything here.
How the computed figures were produced. All inputs are illustrative and stated on the page; tools/build-article-167.py produces every figure. Yields: 8.40 per cent annual coupon fixed for life, valued on a coupon date, first call in 3 years, annual compounding; yield to call solved by bisection to a tolerance of 1e-12; yield to perpetuity as coupon over price; the deemed maturity priced at 98 years. Break-even: constant annual probability of a total, permanent write-down with zero recovery, bond bought at par, riskless comparator yield equal to the coupon less the spread; closed form (c minus r) over (1 plus c), cross-checked by bisection over a three-year horizon to within 1e-6; cumulative figures as one minus annual survival raised to the fifth or tenth power. Loss comparison: the bank stated in the text, rescue capital sized to restore CET1 to Rs 9,000 crore and subscribed at the post-rescue value per share, conversion at Rs 10 or at that value, book value for value, tax ignored. No simulation, random draw or seed is involved, so there are no replications. Every figure was re-derived by a separate script that shares no code with this page.
Not verified this session. The final outcome of the bank's appeal against SEBI's 2021 penalty; only the tribunal's interim stay of May 2021 is stated. The October 2025 edition of SEBI's master circular for non-convertible securities could not be read directly, so the QIB and Rs 1 crore rules are cited from the May 2024 edition, NSE's August 2025 guidelines and SEBI's December 2025 circular, which leaves the master circular's other provisions unchanged. Whether the Rs 1 crore trading lot also binds AT1 bonds listed before October 2020 was not confirmed; the 2020 circular applies to instruments proposed to be listed. RBI's document server returned a verification page, so the draft scheme's clause is taken from the High Court judgment and the details of 5 March 2020 from secondary accounts. The Indian coupon and call structure rests on two term sheets of one issuer, not a survey. The absence of a Supreme Court judgment was checked in news reports and case databases on 23 September 2026; a judgment delivered but not yet reported would not have been found.
Bharath Shiksha is an educational publisher and not a SEBI-registered investment adviser or research analyst. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any bond, a view on any bank, or a forecast of how the Supreme Court will rule.
Ready to go deeper than this article?
Bharath Shiksha is a 90-volume curriculum across 6 stages, from chart reading at ₹14,999 through capital raising, or the full bundle at ₹1,49,999. Hybrid capital is taught as a contract with options inside it, priced one option at a time, so that a yield is read for what it assumes and a term sheet for what it permits.
Take the free diagnostic →