Yes Bank refutes report on advanced stake sale talks with Japan’s SMBC, says 'speculative at this time'

Yes Bank on Tuesday dismissed media reports suggesting that Japan’s Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) was in advanced talks with the State Bank of India (SBI) to acquire a controlling stake in the private lender, terming the claims as “speculative” and “not factually correct.”

In a clarification to the National Stock Exchange (NSE), the bank said that while it routinely explores strategic opportunities to enhance shareholder value, “such discussions are preliminary and do not warrant disclosure” under current regulatory norms.

The response came after a Moneycontrol report claimed SBI had reopened talks with SMBC to sell up to 20% of its 23.97% stake in Yes Bank. The report further claimed that SMBC could infuse fresh capital and make an open offer to raise its stake to 51%, potentially giving it management control.

“The information pertaining to these discussions as set out in the article is speculative at this time and are not factually correct,” the bank said in its regulatory filing.

“[W]e are not aware of any information that has not been announced to the Exchanges, which requires disclosures under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, at this stage.”

Shares of Yes Bank jumped nearly 9% intraday following the report, prompting a query from the NSE and the lender’s clarification.

The bank said the news article has “no impact” on its operations.

According to the report, SMBC’s potential acquisition would see existing investors, including SBI, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, and private equity firms Advent International and Carlyle, exit their holdings through the open offer.

The article also suggested that SMBC may seek board-level control by nominating directors to key committees, including the nomination and remuneration committee.

This is not the first time Japanese banks have been linked to Yes Bank. In 2024, talks with both SMBC and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group reportedly fell through over regulatory constraints, particularly India’s 26% cap on voting rights for bank promoters.