Steven van Rijswijk: I’m sorry, I take the question on operational risk-weighted assets. That is not the 20 basis points, but that is based on a change in our operational risk-weighted asset model that has caused that change. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. You can also see it in previous quarters. So that is not different. In the end, by the way, we will go to standardized on operational risk-weighted assets. And that is what that 20 basis point is relating to .
Tanate Phutrakul: Then your question on replication, why we are shortening the replication. We basically manage that on interest rate outlook, client behavior, their sensitivity to kind of rate movements. And given the current rate environment, we just feel that our models indicate we should be shortening the duration, and that’s what happened between Q3 and Q4. So it’s more driven by balance sheet stability, earnings stability than any particular interest rate strategy.
Michael Harrison: [Indiscernible] is based on where rates — what rates look like in the fourth quarter, not necessarily what the forward [indiscernible] with pricing at the end of the year.
Tanate Phutrakul: It’s a combination. We run various different interest rate scenario and also customer behavior sensitivity to rate movements. So it’s a combination of factors.
Michael Harrison: Understood. Thank you.
Operator: And we’re now moving on to Marta Sanchez Romero from Citi with our next question.
Marta Sánchez Romero: Thank you very much. So you’re stocking down today almost 9% because of an NII miss that was long in the making and I think, a result of a lack of transparency. So my question is, have you consider improving your disclosure? I’m not sure that [indiscernible] today are very helpful. And when I see other banks in Europe, they do provide a framework that allows the market to have a better picture about NII trajectory, and there is no disconnect that we are seeing today. And my second question is on deposits. Can you give us an outlook for deposit volume, deposit growth for your three key markets, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium? You’ve lost [indiscernible] of deposits in the Netherlands. What is the expected trajectory? And then related to this, what has been the retention rate on the campaign you launched in Germany back in April?
Steven van Rijswijk: Yes. I will respond on the first question and Tanate will respond to the second question. Thanks for the feedback. And I think that we have been very clear in what we guide for 2024, and we will — thanks for the suggestion, we will look at it. But for now, I think that the rates are where they are, and I think we were very clear on what that means for 2024. Tanate?
Tanate Phutrakul: And then the reduction in deposits in the Netherlands is more — I think if you’re looking at the table, more treasury-related declines, not so much on our core deposit numbers, which are somewhat up, actually. And in terms of deposit campaigns in Germany, you shouldn’t take that as an indication for what may happen in Germany in 2024. That was an exceptional campaign. What we can say is that competition for deposits in Germany seems to be coming down in light of what what rates are doing and what rates per year. So I think 2023 was more exceptional than normal.
Operator: And we’re now moving on to Johan Ekblom from UBS.
Johan Ekblom: Just two clarifications on NII, please. Just first of all, do I understand it correctly that the rate assumptions you’ve used are forward curves as of the end of December, which would imply to be at at the end of this year? And then secondly, just on this accounting asymmetry, which I think has caused a lot of the volatility or uncertainty in recent quarters, you make an assumption that it doesn’t change from the Q4 run rate. Can you talk a little bit about to what extent that is a kind of simplifying assumption or if that’s a prediction of what you think will happen in 2024 because I think in the past two quarters, you said that it should reverse over time. And I guess, at least my interpretation was that it was in the kind of medium term rather than something that will stay for years and then gradually reverse at some point?
Tanate Phutrakul: So on the deposit curve, yes, the simulation was done on the basis of December curve. And then on the guidance on NII and other income that you see in treasury, we provide more stability now and more guidance on that. And our expectations is that it would remain during the course of 2024, but that, of course, where there such arbitrage opportunity would continue to exist or not. But for now, our guidance, [indiscernible] would exist in the same pace in ’24. And if that were to change, then obviously, you can see that in our quarterly results announcement through the course of this year.
Operator: Thank you. And we’re moving on to a question from
Unidentified Analyst: Two more questions on the liability margin. I’m afraid. So the first one is to understand, does the liability margin as you presented include the drag from the treasury rate differential effect? So am I right to think that, that’s based on statutory NII? So if you were to give an adjusted liability margin, it would be even higher, is that the right way to look at this? And then secondly, this 100 basis point normalized level, how do you get to that? What time period or what’s your frame of reference to get to that level because presumably you’re having to look quite a long way back to find a previous normalized rate environment to base that on. So just to understand where you get your confidence in that 100 basis point end point from, please?
Steven van Rijswijk: Okay. On the confidence of the 100 basis points, well, we have been through a number of cycles and have seen that we are able to actually manage it at that level. Secondly, if you now look and you can also see it in the appendix of the presentation, how much the amount of current accounts compared to the number of savings accounts that are still relatively high. So that still means that we have a lot more to — a lot more cushion in that sense. And thirdly, in the previous cycles, we had a lot more savings only customers and now we have a lot more primary customers that are a lot more sticky than we have seen in the past. And that gives us the confidence that we can manage this at 100 basis points.
Tanate Phutrakul: Then to answer your question, Matthew. And I hope I understand your question correctly to say that if we don’t have these arbitrage trades in the treasury line with our NII be higher? And the answer to that will be yes.
Unidentified Analyst: But specifically, it would be in the liability margin.
Tanate Phutrakul: It would be in the liability margin indeed.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]. We’re moving on to Hugh Moorhead from Berenberg.
Hugh Moorhead: Just a quick one on other income. I appreciate that you’re assuming stable accounting asymmetry in the 2024 NII guidance. But what sort of assumptions around other income and retaining that €3 billion 2023 figure are in your guidance for revenue to be somewhat lower in 2024? And then the second one on cost of risk. You’re currently guiding for through the cycle level of [indiscernible] in your 12% 2024 ROE guidance? And could that level be reviewed as part of your CMD engine?
Steven van Rijswijk: Sorry, can you repeat the second question, please?
