Capturing value and growth

through cutting edge credit

risk management
IIF MENA CRO forum

Dubai, May 14 2013

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY

Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited
 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Contents

▪ Overview of MENA context

▪ Best practice elements in credit risk management

▪ Where you stand vs. peers – McKinsey credit survey

McKinsey & Company | 1

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

GCC overall remains effected by overall macroeconomic NPL ratio

Percent
environment
USD billions1
Lending volumes NPL volumes

+6% p.a.
+37% p.a.
776.8 842.8
664.7 681.2 708.4 42.1 42.4
32.4
16.5
▪ GCC experiencing
sustained volumes
2.2 4.2 5.2 4.8 and revenues
growth in the last
few years
Total revenues2 Profit ▪ However, significant
high NPL levels
+6% p.a. putting pressure
+11% p.a. on profitability
53,372 55,882 24.5 27.6
43,685 47,138 48,231 21.0
18.4 18.1

2008 09 10 11 12 2008 09 10 11 2012

1 Includes KSA, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, covers 55 top banks in GCC covering 90% of the market
2 Revenues before risk cost

SOURCE: McKinsey Global Banking Pools for lending data, National Banks for profit before tax McKinsey & Company | 2
 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Across GCC countries, the situation is quite different NOT EXHAUSTIVE

2011 NPL Vo.l

NPLs stock growth NPL ratio
Country USD billion ’08-11 CAGR Percent

UAE 24.9 72.4 7.9

Situation very
differentiated with:

KSA2 5.7 20.7 2.3 ▪ Countries still reeling

from after effects of
financial crisis (UAE,
Kuwait, Bahrain)
QATAR 1.5 28.7 1.3
▪ “Solid” countries with
high growth yet
manageable NPL ratios
KUWAIT 7.4 9.0 6.5 (KSA and Qatar)

▪ Countries with
low/moderate volume
BAHRAIN 2.0 20.1 3.9 growth and high NPL
growth ( e.g., Oman)

OMAN 0.9 0.2 2.5

SOURCE: McKinsey Global Banking Pools McKinsey & Company | 3

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Over the past couple of years several trends have forced banks to focus
on previously untapped and profitable segments

Falling interest rates, leading banks to hunt for high return

1 opportunities

Higher cost of funds and smaller balance sheets of Mid-tier

2 and small banks making it uncompetitive to focus on large
corporate deals

Increased competition in traditional segments such as

3
consumer forcing banks to search for untapped opportunities

Increased regulations on consumer segments e.g. DBR

4
caps, fee limits, forcing banks to seek high profit opportunities

Overall push by Governments to promote certain segments

5 e.g. SMEs through programs such as credit guarantees to limit
credit risk

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 4

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

As a result it is important for banks to re-think their credit strategy and

infrastructure to successfully access new business

Intimately tie business strategy with risk appetite/credit

1 strategy

Get granular understanding of the risk and returns of a

2
segment/sector

Re-think credit processes to reduce cost to serve while

3
increasing effectiveness

Develop new ways of assessing credit risk in a data light

4 environment

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 5

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Contents

▪ Overview of MENA context

▪ Best practice elements in credit risk management

▪ Where you stand vs. peers – McKinsey credit survey

McKinsey & Company | 6

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

A complete turnaround to credit risk management best DISGUISED RESULTS

practices yields significant impact

Effectiveness – Radical performance improvement in all the phases of Margin and client
the value chain with a sizeable cost of risk reduction service improvement
Better underwriting Reduced losses Best practice CoR Net margin
GINI Index Credit loss drop Bank CoR vs. peers, bp
40
-64%
-60bp +30%
x1.4

-20
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Efficiency – Significant time released both for front-line, credit, and

back-office resources with a direct impact on productivity
RM time release UW time release Back-off. time release Time to cash for loan
Percent Percent Percent with collateral

-20% -20%
-30%
-50%

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 7

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Best practice credit risk management comprises 7 blocks covering the full
credit life cycle
… and focus on originating the right loans
Effectively manage the existing credit portfolio… to faster growth

▪ Asset valuation ▪ “Granular” credit

A
▪ Disposition risk strategy
strategies Asset Credit
valuation risk ▪ Advanced risk
and strategy modelling
disposition
B ▪ Forward-looking
▪ Collections/
rating and scoring
workout Loss Credit
performance mitigation, origina-
forecasting tion and ▪ Risk-based pricing
improvement
▪ NPL crash and
Risk culture
pricing ▪ MIS and reporting
programs provisioning ▪ Credit monitoring
▪ Early warning
systems
Credit ▪ LEAN design, end-
Portfolio monitoring and to-end process
! Active portfolio management reporting optimization
management
Credit
! Forward-looking
sector view
processes, C ▪ Performance and
admin and incentives
! Credit placement,
operations
trading,
securitisation
▪ Collateral admin,
and loan servicing
Credit risk advanced analytics

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 8

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Credit strategy – Refocusing the loan portfolio on sub-segments with

more attractive risk-return profile

Define the “optimal ▪ Assess every business (sub)segment in terms of risk

portfolio” and expected return (e.g., net revenues/RWA) at a
“granular” level (e.g., considering sector, geography,
product family for SME customers)
The imple-
▪ Identify the most attractive clusters, including a
mentation of
prospective “view” on risk-return evolution (to “penalize”
these actions
industries/geographies which are more exposed given
leads on
the expected macro-economic scenario)
average to a
▪ Define your target portfolio (e.g., rule out suboptimal 2-4% increase
segments) in lending
revenues,
Translate target into ▪ Break-down credit limits at various levels (portfolio, while
operational levers segment, deal) to ensure alignment with the achieving a 5-
optimization strategy 7% cost of
risk
▪ Define risk parameters to assess risk (e.g. LTV limits,
mitigation
ratings, specific risk policies targeting customer
clusters)
▪ Align marketing and sales key levers to strategy
(product features, front-line incentives, pricing authority
power differentiation, etc.)

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 9

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Based on attractiveness/potential of priority segments, EXAMPLE

banks can (re)define structure of their target portfolio Target industries

High

Trading (SME) Financial KPI’s 20132 (LCU mn): ▪ Market

Loans: x2 Profit: y2 equivalent
Construction Equity: z2 ROE: a2%
Financial KPIs portfolio: is the
20131 (LCU mn): portfolio
Loans: x1, Trading (nano) New portfolio
Profit: y1, of the bank under
Equity: z1,
Telco the assumption
ROE: a1% that assets
Transport
in bank’s portfolio
Industry potential

Market B2B services has

Manufacturing
Actual equivalent characteristics
RE management
portfolio portfolio similar to market
Mining ones
Agriculture Restaurants and Electricity, Median
▪ Actual portfolio
hotels water, and position
other utilities determined
Other Trading (LCs)
Finance hypothetically
personal services under the
Forestry
Education Public assumption that
Fishing administration
Public health credit assets of
and other social services the bank are
riskier
Low

High Median Low

Riskiness
1 Under the scenario 1: baseline; 2 Under the scenario 2: optimized

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 10

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Translate credit strategy into “operational” CLIENT EXAMPLE

measures to ensure execution

EUR billion
Deal level limits
Segment level limits
Credit standards
Portfolio level limits Risk
drivers

4 Rating/ 4 - 9 40%
Other 1 - 3 LGD > 9 LGD
≤ LGD
35 Other LGD ≤ 40% ≥ 60%
8 Aviation ≤ 60%

20
Prop Lending ≤ EUR ≤ EUR > EUR
trading volume 150 m 300 m 300 m
20 Shipping

20 Corporates Debt- IBD/ 4 < IBD/

servicing IBD/EBIT-
EBITDA EBITDA
ability DA ≥ 6
≤4 <6
… … …
Special 22 CRE
50 Go Discussion No
finance
Potential additional inputs on
▪ Price differentiation
Target limits Target limits ▪ Product accessibility

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 11

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Traditional credit risk models have significant shortcomings in

addressing the full range of business imperatives
Shortcomings of traditional credit risk models

Significant time lag and backward looking

▪ Ratings typically based on 12-36 month old information
▪ Statistical models have no consideration of future economic development

Volatile performance
▪ Discriminatory power of rating models vary significantly over economic
cycle (up to !20% pt variation in Gini)

Limited input data

▪ Focus on financial and delinquency information in models, other
information typically considered in qualitative rating

Noisy qualitative data

▪ Qualitative information mostly based on subjective assessments with
limited transparency

Simultaneous steering and capital management

▪ Limited specialization of models
▪ Lack of integration of models when specialization exists (e.g., different
pre-approval, propensity, risk model for same customer segment)

SOURCE: Experts' interviews McKinsey & Company | 12

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Relationship in
Non-traditional data sources increase predictive power of same bank
models; benefits are higher for some customer segments Application
Bureau

Nontraditional data increases predictive

Data from different non-traditional data
power of segments that have little ▪ Non-traditional
sources can be used to build models
bureau information data sources
provide higher
Sources Examples Proportion of variables from different benefits when
▪ Checking account sources in different portfolio segments bureau
Deposit transaction history Percent information is
relationship ▪ ATM usage history scarce
▪ Tenure of customers Bureau history
5 5 90 ▪ Including non-
> 10 years traditional
information
▪ Utility bills
Third party provides issuers
▪ Rent payments Bureau history
9 9 82 opportunity to
information
▪ Payday lending 4-10 years
better differentiate
information line assignments
▪ Partner information
Bureau history ▪ Using only bureau
17 8 75
2-4 years information for
▪ Expected PXL these accounts
Qualitative evolution will lead to
information ▪ Quality of operations Bureau history models that have
27 3 70
< 2 years very low
predictive power

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 13

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

The qualitative credit assessment1 is a powerful way to leverage

non-traditional information in a scientific manner

QCA key features QCA approach

A distinctive way to convert judgment into a Develop QCA

questions
Prepare QCA
sample
Develop QCA
sample scores
Calibrate
weights
Test and refine

consistent and objective assessment

▪ Structured selection of a limited number
of highly predictive risk factors
▪ Codification of experience and judgment
of the bank’s best client experts and front-
line staff in objective and observable
questions
▪ Highly efficient, industrialized and
statistically robust assessment process
▪ Standardized assessment questionnaire
(18-25 questions) fully tailored to local
market and client’s portfolio
▪ Single forward- looking score that is
calibrated to provide a precise
PD estimate
1 Rigorous question development process that
crystallizes observable and objective risk
factors
2 Local experts replace “textbook factors” with
unique insights into local behavior
3 Layout of questionnaire safeguards against
human bias
4 Clarity of questions and manual reduce skill
requirements
5 Each question validated using test cases
(retrospective assessment of historical cases)
and a statistical test
6 Weight of each question based on predictive
power

1 Proprietary McKinsey approach

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 14

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Application of QCA with a proven impact on risk assessment quality

Credit loss reduction

QCA impact Description Percent

Leaner
▪ Replace 20-page credit qualitative
considerations memo with a standard
processs Bank 1 32
codified questionnaire

Lower credit
▪ Improve model predictiveness (GINI
coefficient) with a more than Bank 2 28
losses
proportional impact on credit losses

Higher
▪ Improve average portfolio quality and
reduce rejected applications Bank 3 57
growth

Regulatory
▪ Address specific regulatory concerns Bank 4 29
(e.g., override rate reduction)
compliance

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 15

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

An E2E (end to end) approach to customer excellence delivers

significant impact

What is achieving excellence

What is achieving excellence through E2E? Examples of impact
through E2E?
▪ Follow the end-to- ▪ Improve conversion rates in
End to end end customer Increase all steps of the funnel
journey to identify
transformation that conversion ▪ Collaborate across
goes beyond sources of leakage rates channels and value chain
traditional “siloed” ▪ Design
steps to cross-sell and
approach countermeasures to
follow-up
address them
across the entire
end-to-end chain ▪ Reduce total costs to serve
Reduce cost- ▪ Streamline and simplify

+ ▪ Use various
to-serve

▪
processes and interfaces
across functions
Reduce risks
Multi-functional ,
methodologies to ▪ Reduce lead times of the
multi-disciplinary Improve full end-to-end process
address leakage and
approach pulling
inefficiencies customer ▪ Reduce number of total
different satisfaction interactions
simultaneously to
transformation
maximize impact ▪ Provide more
levers flexibility/freedom of choice
simultaneously across channels

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 16

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

This approach, implemented well, can significantly SME BANK EXAMPLE

increase within a short period of time

Income and profit
Profits before taxes, percent of total income before transformation before transformation

Increase conversion rate and customer satisfaction Reduce cost-to-serve

▪ Leverage released capacity to increase
customer facing time
▪ Align of front-office organization, products,
and channels
▪ Establish of performance driven organization
▪ Simplify end-to-end operations with focus on
lending/credit process to drive efficiency, improved
service, and reduction in risk
▪ Match cost-to-serve with value of customer and
risk/complexity

5-10% 10-20%
32-33 105-110 >2X
5-10% 2-3 5-10 5-10% profitability
30 32-36 improvement
74-77 potential
4-7 5-10%
23-24 45-56
100
10-21 23-24
70 22-34
35 12-24
10
Lending Service Total FTE Operating Operating Impairment PBT
and Deposits Charges Income costs costs profits
NII and Fees

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 17


Introduce lean credit processes through differentiation,
standardization, and streamlining
Description
▪ Automate procedures (e.g., ▪ Automation of collateral final
data quality check) reducing
Automation
reworks/ manual errors
▪ “Eliminate” paper flows
“Go digital” leveraging imaging
technologies for document/
information flows
Streamlining/ ▪ Redesign processes to
standard- eliminate waste (simplify
ization flows and ensure effective
workflow management)
▪ Consolidate/integrate IT
Complexity applications, introduce
reduction standard templates and
products
▪ Centralize non-client facing ▪ Centralization of collateral
Central- activities with low value
ization added and highly
standardized
SOURCE: McKinsey
MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm
Examples
value calculation Key benefits
▪ Upfront fill-up of credit
▪ Improved
application with all already
efficiency by
available information
removing reworks,
▪ Paperless transmission to duplication of tasks
back-office of application etc.
documents (e.g., collateral) ▪ Improved risk
accuracy by
▪ Introduction of integrated reducing manual
workflow (frontline - back errors and focusing
office) capacity on higher
value tasks (e.g.,
▪ Integration of front-line credit most complex files)
IT applications ▪ Improved client
(e.g., from 9 to 1) satisfaction by
▪ Standardized form for reducing lead
collateral data collection times, ensuring
reliable and timely
responses etc.
data registration and check
McKinsey & Company | 18
 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Underwriting overall organization redesigned to segment credit

applications by risk to increase efficiency and STP rates
Details to follow

“Automated”/localised underwriting

Individual Relationship
practitioner Manager Express
Underwriting

HTO Underwriting Back-office

RM Y ▪---
▪---
▪---
▪---
Standard
Relationship ? ▪---
▪--- Underwriting
Small
business Manager N
Underwriting Back-office
Advanced
Underwriting

Medium Relationship Underwriting Back-office

corporate Manager

Risk tools that support the process:
▪ Risk check-list and knock-off criteria
▪ “Risk matrix” that identified expected risk of lending
requests and routes request to the right path
▪ Streamlined interactive application e-form and check-lists
Work-cell team serving a single set of
customers
▪ Reduced handoffs (~75%) and rework
▪ Clear accountability and performance
management

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 19

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Risk tools and enablers introduced to allow for tighter NOT EXHAUSTIVE

control of effort and time spent based on risk and complexity

Risk Matrix Example
Percent of requests flowing through each track

Processing track
▪ Segment pending
by level of risk to Fully Automated w.
Risk Type automated RM discretion Express Standard Advanced
focus effort (f-o,
matrix
UW) where actually 75% 20% 3% 1% 1%
needed
Renewal (e.g., lending (e.g., potential (e.g., (e.g., (e.g., non-
of existing with no to expand overdrafts with overdrafts with performing
▪ Inform front office loan exceptions) overdraft) excess) risk flags) cases/defaults)
on likelihood of
Risk
approval with
checklist
specific “knock-off”
criteria and “what if” 30% 50% 10% 7% 3%
New loan
conditions (e.g., Low risk (e.g., Limited (e.g., Standard (e.g., Standard (e.g., Risky/
for
existing lending) risk/ lending for lending for complex
▪ Differentiate customer complexity) existing complex customer
application (e.g., customer) customer) and lending)
Simplified
express, standard,
application
advanced) and
reduce information 20% 30% 20% 20% 10%
needed (e.g., Small (e.g., Small new (e.g., Standard (e.g., Risky/
New
low-risk new customer with new customer) complex
customer
customers) limited risk/ new customer)
outside policy)
Matrix logic
based on key
risk indicators

SOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 20

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Contents

▪ Overview of MENA context

▪ Best practice elements in credit risk management

▪ Where you stand vs. peers – McKinsey credit survey

McKinsey & Company | 21

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm
MCKINSEY CREDIT SURVEY
The McKinsey Global Credit Survey 2013 creates full transparency where
you stand and identifies key improvement levers and optimization potential
Key aspects
Established tool to ▪ The McKinsey Credit Survey is an established tool that unearths key value
identify opportunities and improvement levers in credit processes
improvement levers ▪ Previous Survey participants confirm very valuable and critical insights
Global scale ▪ The Survey – for the first time – is a fully integrated global effort
▪ Target participants include top institutions from Europe, the Americas and Asia
Unrivalled insights ▪ The Global Credit Survey 2013 generates insights and improvement levers focused on 5
focused on themes as key “value drivers” covering areas from risk selection to IT/Operations
"value drivers" ▪ The Survey focuses on insightful benchmarks across the full credit chain from
underwriting to collection/workout; a bespoke peer group is selected for each participant,
reflecting size, business model, geography
Modular structure ▪ The Survey’s modular structure allows participants to decide which customer segments
they do not want to complete1
▪ The level of detail can be controlled by the participant on the basis of a required/optional
field structure allowing for additional deep-dive analyses
Easy to fill and use ▪ All Survey materials can be downloaded and submitted via an easy-to-use online platform
which complies to our high confidentiality standards
▪ The Survey itself is an easy-to-fill and well-structured Excel sheet
▪ Trough appropriate technology and processes, we guarantee highest confidentiality
standards
▪ New shape and format – more focused
▪ Optional areas for additional insight
▪ New innovative areas included (IT, Ops)
▪ Participation free of charge for early sign-up
1 Mortgage, Consumer, Credit card, Small business, SME/Business banking, MidCap (Middle Market), LargeCap/MNC, Leveraged/project/asset
finance, CRE

SOURCE: Global Credit Survey 2013 McKinsey & Company | 22

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm
MCKINSEY CREDIT SURVEY
Unrivalled insights and identification of improvement levers through 5 key
value driver themes
Example
Theme Objective Example KPIs insight outputs
1 Risk selection Give insights into quality of ▪ NPL ratios
and portfolio risk selection and portfolio ▪ Growth of exposure/commitment and RWA
quality ▪ RWA efficiency

2 Operational Provide holistic picture of ▪ Per FTE: Credit decisions, outstanding

efficiency end-to-end processes with exposure, customers
and cost KPIs on FTE efficiency and ▪ Underwriting unit cost per credit decision
cost ▪ Various cuts: e.g., Front office/Line vs. Risk
vs. Operations
3 Customer Generate insights into ▪ Time to yes
excellence customer excellence ▪ Time to cash
▪ Various cuts: e.g., Front office/Line vs. Risk
vs. Operations

4 Credit IT/ Compare quality of ▪ Benchmarking of workflow and supporting

Operations systems and supporting tools
tools, data quality ▪ Benchmarking of processes for ensuring
data quality

5 Governance, Create understanding ▪ Level of centralization and authority for

organization, about organization and credit decision
processes processes, level of ▪ Ratio of applications to actual paid-out
centralization and credits
governance

SOURCE: Global Credit Survey 2013 McKinsey & Company | 23

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm
MCKINSEY CREDIT SURVEY
Simple structure makes the survey “easy-to-fill”

Global Credit Survey 2013 Required Information

One work- Contacts and comments

sheet … Key contacts, currency, number of
operating countries
Customer segments
Segmentation criteria, geographical focus
… across Portfolio
General information
segments Quantitative data: total exposure, RWAs,
revenues, number of loans and customers, ~10 fields per
loan loss provisions, actual net write-offs, subsegment
non-performing loans, cost of risk
FTEs and Cost
Total fully loaded cost, direct/outsourced
… per Specialized ~40 fields per
Retail Corporate FTE cost, number of FTEs per role along
segment finance subsegment
the credit process in Front office, Risk and
Operations

Qualitative information
Mortgage SME/Business Leveraged/
Quality of (1) system and supporting tools,
Banking Project/Asset ~ 5 questions
Consumer Finance (2) data quality/performance management,
… per sub MidCap per category
(3) organization and processes, (4) credit
segment Credit Card (Middle Market) strategy, (5) monitoring
Small LargeCap/ CRE
Business MNC Quantitative information
Number of decisions and exposure along ~ 50 fields per
entire credit process and time to market sub segment
information

SOURCE: Global Credit Survey 2013 McKinsey & Company | 24

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm
MCKINSEY CREDIT SURVEY
PRELIMINARY
The Survey is designed to yield personalized benchmarking
reports based on a limited time investment

Discussion
Phase Survey startup Data collection Data fine-tuning
of results

Timing 1-2Q 2013 ~3-4 weeks time for 2-3 weeks Summer/Autumn
core Survey (however, 20132
<1 week actual touch
time1 required)

Objectives ▪ Share Survey ▪ Core Survey: ▪ Ensure, with ▪ Discuss Survey

scope and – Gather McKinsey support, results leveraging
objectives quantitative/ consistent data personalized
▪ Commit Bank to qualitative data for optimal reports
Survey – Perform internal comparability
participation consistency across peers
▪ Sign benchmark- checks ▪ Workload for
ing agreement – Fill in all required participants
(NDA) fields limited to
▪ explanation of
Identify 1-2 senior ▪ On top: Collect data Survey data and
experts for data for deep-dives
collection potential search
for modified data

1 Less than 1 week touch-time of 1 FTE (full time equivalent)

2 To be confirmed, depending on participants

SOURCE: Global Credit Survey 2013 McKinsey & Company | 25

 MIL-24.1/21.14.9.3.18-20032013-59747/APdm

Thank you!

Contact details

Carlo Frati

Partner
Mobile: +39 348 0760181
Email: Carlo_Frati@mckinsey.com

Jawad Khan

Associate Principal
Mobile: +971 (50) 653 9463
Email: Jawad_Khan@mckinsey.com

McKinsey & Company | 26