Steven van Rijswijk: Right. On the first — well, on the first one, capital allocation, we will always look to optimize capital allocation. We have return equity targets for Wholesale Banking and Business Banking and Retail Banking, and we price the marginal deal. And we’re not going to deviate from that because we now have more capital. We want to continue to grow with prudency in all of the markets in which we’re active. Big focus also in further growth in Germany, like I said, growth in Retail customers. And we want to strengthen our network position that we have as a wholesale bank across the world. But again, we do that in the existing framework of pricing the marginal deal to the return. If we can’t make that and if we can’t make the client return wholes, we will not do it.
No deviation from that. Secondly, on the deposit growth in Germany, that marketing campaign at the time was 103%. So also, we made money on that marketing campaign because the ECB rate at that time was already higher.
Operator: The next question comes from Farquhar Murray from Autonomous. Please go ahead.
Farquhar Murray : Good morning, all. Two questions, if I may. Firstly, on capital management, kind of two competing signals in recent months. One, the cut in the O-SII buffer and the other the heavy drawdown on the stress test. I just wondered if you could outline how those play through into the discussions on the 3Q update and more generally the dialogue with the ECB. On paper, I think the stress test should feed into the P2G in some way. So I wouldn’t mind just some color around that. And then secondly, just coming back to Benoit’s question on the Financial Markets NII. If I look back more than a decade, I don’t have a period where FM NII was negative, though it is volatile. But your answer to Benoit seems to suggest that if I think rates remain more normal from here, I should build in a structurally negative NII for FM with a positive counterpart in other? Are we understanding you’re right there? And how do I square with the history? Thanks.
Steven van Rijswijk: Thank you. Regarding the lower capital buffer of the DNB at the time that, that buffer came in, that was at the time that there was no three-pillar system in Europe. So the ECB hasn’t started this yet. And there was no SRB and no European deposit system. And in that setting, local supervisors increased buffers for their large banks. Let’s put it, a too-big-to-fill buffer. Increasingly, banks have increased their own capital and there is now that three-pillar system in Europe, as a result of which, that has undoubtedly weighed for DNB to, in the end, decrease the buffer. And that means that the capital requirements that I just said they moved to approximately 10.7%. And therefore, that’s in line with our around 12.5%.
And regarding stress test. The stress test is a stress test as there are many stress tests. We do a number of strategies internally as well that we share with the ECB and with other supervisors. And that has no bearing currently on our 12.5% target, and we’ll remain in positive discussions with the ECB about the next steps that we would then — then to take, we will update you for in the third quarter.
Tanate Phutrakul : Then Farquhar, on NII in Financial Markets, maybe a bit more nuance in the answer. It’s three things, right? The absolute rates are higher, but it also depends on the product mix. And also it depends on the differences between major currencies, the arbitrage between euro and dollar, for example, right? So I wouldn’t call it that you should be looking at a structural increase in NII of that such, but I remain that funding cost is higher, but that it just depends on these three things, which remains volatile in the financial market results.
