Georges Elhedery: So purely for the funding cost of the trading books, you should expect that the trading balances will remain broadly stable at around $130 billion for the quarter, then kind of the math are simple. It’s just that times the short rate levels, essentially in USD. As you look at the overall banking NII, I think the indication is that we’ve grown $0.1 billion Q2 to Q3. We haven’t given indication for Q4. Again, feel comfortable with where the consensus is for Q4. And just reiterate that banking NII is probably a better measure because it kind of gets you immunized for some of these choices we make in how much we fund the trading book with. With regards to your first question about tech and ops, so it’s a mix of necessary and discretionary.
We made the decision on the basis that well, first, when we put our cost base at the start of the year, we had materially higher inflation in some areas and some geographies and some pockets than we anticipated for the year. And we felt that it would be adverse for certain customer outcomes if we needed to take more restrictive action on it. And this is putting it in the context that our nine-month year-to-date reported cost is down 2% year-on-year — is down 2% year-on-year. So this is why we were willing to tolerate the continued investment in tech and ops. I just want to reaffirm what Noel said. We’re absolutely committed to our cost discipline and we will be giving you visibility about how we spend money now in the future. Thank you, Joseph.
Next question, please.
Operator: Our next question today comes from Jason Napier from UBS. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line and ask your question.
Georges Elhedery: Hello, Jason.
Jason Napier: Good morning. Can you hear me?
Georges Elhedery: We can hear you, Jason.
Jason Napier: Thank you. The first one please on the 600 million of losses on the hedge reset [ph] expenditure this quarter and the extra sort of 400 that’s penciled in for Q4, I wonder whether you wouldn’t mind adding a bit of color in terms of exactly what it is you’re doing there to pay that period. You said sort of longer than five years. It feels like a downside risk hedge that’s being put in place. If you could just talk about how much you might get the sensitivity down once all is said and done? I’m just concerned whether it really pays [indiscernible] rather than support [indiscernible] in the near term. And then secondly, we’ve had a busy week of mainland Chinese bank reporting. All of the majors have missed our own forecasts and one of your peers wrote down their mainland Chinese [indiscernible] results. Could you update us please on where [indiscernible] versus book value on BoCom and how that process runs towards year end? Thanks.
Georges Elhedery: Sure. Thank you, Jason. So first on the treasury losses, so a few things to share here. First is, we see this as one of the multiple tools we have to manage our structural hedge and obviously to manage the risk in our balance sheet. Second, importantly, the losses themselves have been taken already into CET1 mostly last year. So these are already factored in our CET1 and this is why effectively they have a mild CET1 ratio benefit where we sit today. And then third, as you indicated, Jason, we are looking to retrieve these losses in the NII line essentially over the next five years. So this is a reinvestment into either longer dated or higher yielding instruments by disposing — faster disposing of lower yielding instruments to allow us to kind of move faster than our structural hedging of the balance sheet.
