Cesar Rios: Yes. I wouldn’t consider that one-off, I will consider more than temporarily, and the distortion is an accounting thing. Let’s say, what you are doing is charging a fee and recognizing in the other part of the equation, higher FX exchange. For that reason, I will say we have a positive margin, but is reflected in an abnormally high fee and an abnormal loss in effects. So it’s a structural business that in this moment has more volume and wider spreads in these two variables. That is part of the business in Bolivia.
Gianfranco Ferrari: But maybe on top of that one. What we’re seeing in the fee income business is that what we’ve been investing for, I would say, decades now. Were we have — when I say we basically BCP Peru was transactional app in Peru. That’s obviously paying off. And what we’re also seeing and maybe Yape part of it is — the amount impacted in noncash alternatives is constantly increasing beyond Yape. I mean David grade and things like that. And obviously, that is also an important driver for fee income generation.
Juan Recalde: That’s helpful. Thank you for the comments.
Operator: Our next question will come from Yuri Fernandes with JP Morgan. You may now go ahead.
Yuri Fernandes: Hi, guys. Thank you. Good morning. I have a question regarding your cost of risk. I understand you have expected losses. So now you’re calling for a challenging outlook, lower GDP. My call is regarding 2024. I guess, the scenario still I don’t uncertain here. But in this 2.1% to 2.5% cost of risk, the level we should expect for 2024? Or basically, you are going to build those anticipatory provisions for the total environment now? And maybe for the next year, we should see cost of risk running at a more normalized level. So just trying to understand if this is like somewhat a new normal for the short term or maybe you’re just doing this now because you’re seeing a challenging environment. And given you do expect losses will improve at some point.
That’s the first one. And I would like to check the box on the portfolio sale. I guess you put out that some of the wholesale NPL improvement was regarding a portfolio sale. How big was that? Just to understand how that affected your new LP formation.
Gianfranco Ferrari: Reynaldo?
Reynaldo Llosa: Yes, in terms of the guidance for next year, what I can mention as of today, Yuri, is that, I mean, our estimations, our levels of provisions today include the impact of El Nino with the probability between weak and moderate. That is reflected on our provision level today, and that’s included in the guidance for a year-end or between 2% and 2.5%. Regarding next year, as I mentioned before, it’s too soon to tell, and we will be able to provide you more information in the following months and next two quarters probably. And in terms of the sale of that specific case in the wholesale banking, it’s around $30 million.
Cesar Rios: That was — that’s the sovereign bond — that’s not in exchange we made. And we…
Gianfranco Ferrari: We’re talking about the sale of term.
Reynaldo Llosa: It was a loan we had in our books, and we would be — we had an impact in terms of the NPL or the wholesale book of around USD30 million.
Yuri Fernandes: But we didn’t recognize any gain on that? Like did you need to provision and sell at face value? Or did you have like an economic gain on that sale? Just trying to understand like the formation, right? Because if this was an outperforming loan, probably you had some amount of provisions– just trying to understand the moving parts on the economic future.
Reynaldo Llosa: Yes, we — I mean, as compared to the provision level, we had a profit. So we estimated a higher loss than what we finally obtained by the sales. So it had a positive impact on our levels of provisions in the quarter.
