Benoit Petrarque : Yeah, good morning. Thank you for presentation. Now just to first come back on the accounting asymmetry, which creates a lot of noise, obviously and maybe focusing on the financial market NII, clearly quite difficult to estimate. But I understand that the trend was very much linked to the kind of ECB rate hike cycle. So when this cycle will kind of stop or we get probably a cut even at some point, it’s fair to assume that the NII from the Financial Market will recover sharply potentially back to the previous level. But I wanted to check that with you first. And then on the stress test outcome, sorry to come back to that. But it was 550 negative on your TRIM and adverse scenario. I think you were ending at just below 9% in the adverse scenario with a starting point at 14.5. So can you really bring the CET1 ratio back to 12.5 given your sensitivity to an adverse scenario according to the ECB that will be the other question?
And also linked to the capital distribution, I was wondering if you think we can we can plug payout ratio kind of blended, including buyback above 100%, if technically, there’s no issue because obviously, if you want to bring your capital down, we have to think about payout ratio above 100%. So I wanted to make sure we can do that without much problems. Thank you.
Steven van Rijswijk: Okay. Let me answer the question on CET1, and then Tanate will talk about the financial markets NII ratio. With regards to CET1, and you mentioned the stress test, it was, of course, a very insightful stress test. There’s also quite a static stress test. And the input factors of that stress test this time had their impact of banks with presence more in the northern part of Europe and that’s what you see reflected. The stress test does not talk about how would you respond to this stress, which typically is being done, but this is just a stress test, which is good, and we do many stress test. And then separate from that, we have very good capital of 14.9%. We have a targeted capital ratio of 12.5% that we’ve also, at the time, agreed when we set it and agreed with the ECB and we are confidently moving in roughly equal steps to the 12.5%.
And that also means, and you’re right that in that mathematical calculation, that means that on aggregate we need to pay out more than 100% of our profit to get there. So we are calculating as well and giving you an update in the third quarter.
Tanate Phutrakul: And Benoit, just on NII, it really is more volatile and harder to predict, but it depends really on two factors. The first one I think will be sustained for some time to come, which is that the absolute cost of fund is higher, right? That clearly will be visible in coming quarters. But at the same time, it also depends on our trading strategy on the product mix demanded by our customers. So I think it remains a volatile line item from an NII FM perspective.
Benoit Petrarque : And if you think about 2024 on the FM NII kind of do you think we can go back to the €300 million run rate? Or will that be kind of too positive?
Tanate Phutrakul : No, I think it’s harder to predict. But as I said, the big driver is that the absolute level of borrowing cost is higher, given Central Bank rates, and it depends on the product mix from our clients.
Benoit Petrarque: Okay. Thank you very much. Operator
Operator: The next question comes from Benjamin Goy from Deutsche Bank.
Benjamin Goy : Yeah, good morning. Two questions. One follow-up on 12.5%, is there any material risk weight inflation left from a regulatory point of view in your view? And so say, by 2025, would you keep a buffer for cyclical deterioration when your risk rates increase in that? And then secondly, a bit more high level or bigger picture question. Anything on AI you would like to flag you’re currently doing or opportunities to see going forward?
