Bnp Paribas Ord

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the presentation of the BNP Paribas First Quarter 2025 results with Jean-Laurent Bonafé, Group Chief Executive Officer, and Lars Maschineel, Group Chief Financial Officer. For your information, this conference call is being recorded. Supporting slides are available on BNP Paribas IR website, invest.bnpparibas.com. During today's presentation, you will be able to ask your questions by pressing star 1 on your telephone keypad. If you would like to ask a question, please make sure to be in a quiet area to maximize audio quality. I would like now to hand the call over to Jean-Laurent Bonafé, Group Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are pleased to present a summary of our strong first quarter results and to have the opportunity to reiterate our 24-26 trajectory. But before I start, let me provide a brief commentary on the current environment. Of course, we acknowledge elevated uncertainties in the markets and the economic environment, but the best way to face them is to be ready first to support our clients, And in that respect, our focusing on high-quality customers and our readiness to help them redirect or adjust their investment plans is our top priority. Ready to monitor our risk, credit and market risk are monitored very closely, and we still have S1 and S2 provision to help absorb some of the deterioration should it materialize. And of note, investment-grade clients represent 78% of our credit exposure. ready also to grasp investment opportunities. The first quarter marked an acceleration in funding commitments by European governments. What is new is the wake-up call for Europe. The German 1 to 1.5 trillion investment plan and the EU 800 billion readiness program are just first steps. Finally, ready to capitalize on the likely changes to come in the European capital markets, including SIU. We advocate with European authorities to ensure a level playing field, particularly with regard to the FRTB, and we are already ready, thanks to our originate to distribute platform and SRT capabilities, to accelerate the financing of European investment needs in a capital light way. So now let me turn to our results. Moving to slide four, our revenues are up 3.8% this quarter, with our operating divisions up 6.1% in line with the trajectory we set for 26. During the quarter, CAB posted an impressive 12.5% revenue growth, including more than 17% at global markets. It was a record quarter for the division. CPBS was up 1.2%, despite lower used car sales results at Arval, which are in line with our trajectory. The quarter confirmed a gradual inflection at our Eurozone commercial banks, which are up 1% year-on-year, but also a strong 19% increase at Euromet, thanks to a much improved performance in Turkey and Poland. Finally, IPS posted a strong 6.6% growth, particularly driven by wealth management and insurance. Our commitment to cost control remains strong and we are on track to deliver a cost savings of 600 million this year, with 190 million of cost savings already implemented in Q1. Our cost of risk remains moderate at 33 bps, marginally up on the first quarter of 24, but still well below our guidance of below 40 bps. Our stage 3 provisions are stable year on year, but 24 benefit from releases. Overall, operating divisions generated positive Jaws effect of 1.9 points and an operating income growth of 6.7%, very close to our group net income growth target of 7% CAGR. All in all, our net profit was down 4.9% without compromising our trajectory of profitability. The gap between the operating income of the division and the net profit is explained by higher positive exceptional last year and the lower contribution from the corporate center this quarter, which will be rebalanced before year end, starting with the second quarter. As a reminder, last year's first quarter benefited from high positive exceptional elements, mostly the 226 million euro benefit from the reconsolidation in Ukraine. Our CT1 is down 50 bps quarter on quarter to 12.4%, but is stable compared with the first January, reflecting finalization of Basel for 50 bps. This is in line with what we guided for. Finally, we obviously confirm our policy distribution of 60%. We have already received the approval for our share buyback program of 1 billion, and we will launch it in the second quarter. Moving now to slide five on our growth trajectory. Of course, we acknowledge the scale of the challenges relating to U.S. tariffs and policy shifts. Nonetheless, in this context, We believe that our dividend-severed model and the growth levels we have implemented will enable us to meet our targets. So our mission remains to reach a return on tangible equity of 11.5% in 2025, 12% in 2026, leading to more than 7% group net income growth CAGR. And more precisely, our internal target for 2025 is currently much higher than current market expectations. This should result in more than 8% EPS growth CAGR. Our 26% return on tangible equity is only a stepping stone towards further improvement. Our targets will be achieved thanks to five key levels that you should have in mind. Starting with CIB, we will continue to grow market shares in a capital conscious manner, thanks to our state-of-the-art CIB platforms that are uniquely positioned to deliver the highest added value products to clients. Moving to CPBFs, we launched a new strategic plan for CPBF and extended the one for personal finance. We intend to lift the return on notional equity of these businesses to a minimum of 17% by 28, adding about 1% touchpoint to group return on tangible equity, and we will present these plans in two deep dive sessions in June. Our revenues in the Eurozone commercial banks should also benefit from normalization of the yield curve. we will prioritize protecting commercial margins in competitive market environments. We expect the second half of this year to show a pronounced rebound of NII. Moving to IPS, we will continue the dynamic organic growth of insurance, asset management and wealth management. This organic growth will be amplified by the acquisitions of HSBC Wealth Management Germany and of course AXA AM. Finally, we will continue our efficiency efforts with €600 additional cost savings in both 2025 and 2026. On slide 6, you can see our positioning. We believe that our revenue trajectory for 2024-2026 is underpinned by the growth levels just detailed. Some of those levels are self-created, such as AXA-IM and the recovery of NII in the Eurozone, but also thanks to significant cross-selling between our businesses, which account for a third of our total revenues. Our trajectory should also benefit from the acceleration of investment spending by European governments and the private sector to fund the significant investments we all know Europe needs in infrastructure, energy transition and defense, to name a few. The German growth plan voted in March and Europe's readiness program represents significant amounts of around 2 trillion euros, which should contribute to buffer GDP growth and trigger significant borrowing that we can facilitate thanks to our originate to distribute model. All in all, we remain confident in our ability to deliver CAGR revenue growth of more than 5% by 26, including external growth. Let me now move to our resilient profiles throughout the cycle. Our diversified profile, both in terms of sectors, geographies and business lines, enables us to find the right balance between growing distribution to shareholders and growing our tangible net asset value per share. This, of course, shows our organic and external growth. We continue to benefit from a low credit and market profitably profile and a key feature of our DNA. You can see that our cost of risk remains low and absorbs only 16% of our gross operating income. One of the main reasons for this is our very granular sectoral diversification, with no sector accounting for more than 4% of our overall exposures. Our selective origination also ensures we are basically exposed to the most resilient corporates. And now hand over to Lars, who will remind you of the achievements of the quarter.

Thanks Jean-Laurent. On slide 11, you can see that the first quarter of 2025 was driven by solid business performances within each division. We will have noticed in our slides this morning that we introduced a summary dashboard for each of our operating divisions, so you can analyze in a more straightforward way our operational performance. So overall group revenues were up 3.8% year-on-year, including 6.1% step-up for operating divisions. If we look at them, for example, starting with CIB, as mentioned by Jean Laurent, it had a record quarter, up 12.5% year-on-year, driven by a very good performance in all three sub-businesses. If we look at them first, at global banking, it was up 4.5%, supported by capital markets. Transaction banking showed dynamism as volumes managed to offset the impact of lower rates. If we then look at global markets, activities were up 17.3%, driven by a very strong 42% growth in equity and prime services, and a robust performance for FIC, which was up 4.4%, and particularly driven by macro, particularly foreign exchange. rates benefited from modest growth and credit was down as a primary activity did not offset weaker credit trading flows the third security services was up 13.4 percent driven by a sustained growth in fees thanks to balances and transactions as well as resilient interest margin if then we turn to the second division cpbs had a resilient performance up 1.2%, supported by commercial and personal banking activities. If we look at it, a few points are worth highlighting. If we look at our commercial banks, they were up 4.2% this quarter, consistent with our trajectory for the next two years and supported in particular by solid fee growth. Within this commercial banking concept, we have also the commercial banks in the Eurozone, They grew 0.6%, which is consistent with our trajectory of 3% growth over the year. Let me clarify, because on one hand, the positive impact of higher rates will accelerate in the second half of 2025 as the lag from deposit makes tapers off. So from side deposits into paying deposits, it's tapering off. Moreover, the ECB rates environment should be supportive of stabilizing this deposit mix. And moreover, the shape of the yield curve should enable us to continue our reinvestment on the long end of the curve with the progressive net interest income rebound. Furthermore, fee growth was strong at around 5% in all Eurozone banks, including a strong performance in financial fees. Then the other part within that division is Europe Med, where the revenues were up for 19%. This is due to the margin improvement in Poland and Turkey, as well as fees, particularly in payments in Turkey. Of course, the environment in Turkey going forward might be less favorable due to the slower decrease in interest rates. So that is the commercial banking section of CPBS. If we now turn to the second part, specialized businesses. They were down 3.6% year on year, impacted by the ongoing normalization of used car prices as we have flagged previously. Organically, Arval performed extremely well again this quarter, up 12%, even when excluding a positive one-off of around 50 million. So outperforming our guidance of more than 10% in growth this year. This growth, this P&L growth, is supported by fleet growth of 5% and outstandings of 14%. The other part in specialized businesses is personal finance core. I remind you that the non-core part, which is basically ramping off, is in corporate center. And so the personal finance core is driven by a solid commercial performance. Let me name some examples. The deployment of Apple partnership in France, the regular progression of the B2C, the good performance of mobility, especially in the partnership with Stellantis. There is also an increased margin at production, so at personal finance, with the main effect coming from repricing, which should lead to acceleration of revenues throughout the year. Last, a very good performance from the new digital businesses and personal investors. Up an organic 13% this quarter, thanks to further growth in client acquisition, as well as a high level of transactions. But note the disposal of an activity in the fourth quarter 2024, which impacts both the revenues and costs this quarter. So these are two of the three divisions. So let's end with the third one, not the least. It's IPS. So we saw strong growth in fees thanks to a high level of transactions. If we look at assets under management, they were boosted by strong inflows, but were impacted by negative forex and towards the end of the quarter, lower market levels. IPS is about to become an even more sizable driver of our growth with the acquisition of AXA-IM, which we expect to close early July. Now, if you look at the divisions within IPS, insurance revenues were up 4%, particularly by healthy savings activities in France. Then wealth management was up nearly 11% on strong fee growth, and asset management was up 6% thanks to good fee growth and good performance of financial investments. Let me add a comment next to those three divisions on the corporate center, basically complementing What Jean-Laurent said, it was impacted the quarter by the valuation of a few items at fair value. But nevertheless, we do not change our guidance for the corporate center of revenues close to zero, excluding IFRS 17, as Jean-Laurent mentioned. If with this, we turn to slide 12, which shows that our cost discipline is paying off. At the group level, the draws are very slightly negative this quarter, but stand at 1.9 points at the level of our operating divisions and are consistent with our stated trajectory running into 2026. We continue to allocate cost growth to fund development while we intend to continue to offset inflation by cost savings. If we look at the divisions, CIB reported positive draws of 4.4 points with cost driven mainly by increased activity. I remind you that global markets had significant accrual of variable compensation, which basically reflects the business momentum. CPBS posted negative jaws of 0.7 points. This includes positive jaws, in fact, at personal finance, leasing, and new businesses and personal investors. So it's basically Arval. We also highlighted the positive jaws about one point at the commercial banks in the Eurozone. Finally, IPS, positive jaws, 3.9 points. So with this, if we go to slide 13, which focus our cost savings and efficiency measures, this quarter we implemented 190 million of new cost savings, consistent even ahead a bit of our full target, which was 600 million to offset the inflation. If with this, we turn to slide 14, where I focus on our excellent risk management. And on this slide, you can see that our diversified balance sheet enables us to protect profitability. Once again, in the first quarter, only 16% of our gross operating income, so revenues minus cost, was absorbed by provisions. Our cost of risk remains low, 33 basis points, up on the first quarter of 2024, but still at the low level and well below our guidance of being below 40 basis points. It is mostly the cost of risk composed of Stage 3 loans with limited releases this quarter. Overall, our stock of stage one and two provisions is comfortable at above 4 billion euros, equivalent to more than a year worth of current stage three run rate. By division, we note particularly low level at BNL and a normalized being at low level in global banking. Despite the increase in personal finance, we continue to see a positive mix that supports our structural improvement going forward. Let me now address capital management on slide 16. Our common equity T1 is down 50 basis points, clocking in at 12.4% due to the finalization of Basel and is stable 1st to January 1st. So you know the impact of the 50 basis points of the finalization of Basel happened in the night of the 31st to the 1st. So within the quarter itself, it's basically stable. And so this figure is fully loaded but before FRTB. So if you look at the drivers, basically we have the typical organic capital, and this organic capital is after setting aside a generous 60% for the distribution, that organic capital leads to 10 basis points. This quarter, it was offset by the impact of model updates typically that we do every year, and this is in line also with our guidance. And so our CET1 remains comfortably above our strep requirement and is above our 12.3% target before FRTB. If with this, I rapidly skim through the remaining slides, if I look at slide 20 and 21, you see the track record of our CIB division reaching a record level this quarter. The key message I want you to take away today is that our CIB is stronger than it ever was and is well positioned with corporate and institutional clients to face the challenges and opportunities that today's environment represents. Our capital, cost, and risk discipline are key assets to ensure a sustainable shareholder value growth. If with this, we move to slide 22 and 23, so CPBS. First, as we indicated last quarter, we are working hard to improve the divisions not delivering adequate returns. more color will be provided during two deep dives that will take place in June. Secondly, you see that the deposit evolution and the anticipated yield curve underpin our top line outlook for CPBS this year. And so finally, if I can ask you to look at slide 24, 25 on IPS. This division will represent the biggest growth driver for the group in the next few years, and we are looking forward to completing in early July the AXA-EM deal. I remind you, a deal which is both strategically and industrially very, very important. As you would have seen recently, the ECB has communicated its interpretation of the prudential treatment concerning deals with asset managers independent if they belong to insurance activities. If the stance by the SSM were to prevail, the impact on our common equity T1 would be slightly higher than the expected 25 basis points and would gravitate to 35 basis points. And we will finalize these numbers in July after the closing while we do the PPA. But one should know that the AXA deal that we have signed consists actually of two different items. On one hand, it consists of a long-term contract with AXA. And on the other hand, the acquisition of AXA-EM. And they required a different handling. And our read of that handling is that the common equity tier one impact will not be 25, but would in that case be 35. But this evolution would not endanger our capital or profitability trajectories. The expected return on invested capital would be in any case significant at 14% in 2028 and above 20% in 2029. So if the 35 basis points would prevail, it would basically delay the full savings by a year. As we said, we will provide more details on the synergies later in the year. So in either case, the strategic appeal of this transaction and the positioning it will have on long-term savings solutions make this acquisition a cornerstone for IPS and our ambition to increase the share of earnings from this division to 20% medium term, so 20% of the overall bank, and 25% longer term. So with this, I think I've highlighted most of the things. I'll now hand it back to Jean-Laurent. Thank you, Lars. Sorry.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Please lift your handset. Ensure that the mute function on your telephone is switched off and that you are in a quiet area to maximize audio quality. We will take questions as many as time permits. Again, please press star 1 to ask a question. First question is from Tariq El-Majad, Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Two questions from my side, please. First, on the Saving Investment Union or Capital Market Union, it's clearly a center to your medium and long-term story. I published quite a lot on this topic, but I must admit I get a lot of pushback on this. So it always sounds, I mean, it sounds interesting, clearly a game changer to your profitability, but it would be really interesting to hear from you why do you think this time is different? Why, despite the clear EU member state will to progress that project, once we get into the details of, you know, securitization, prudential impact and so on, regulation in taxes, why do you think that there will be still a consensus that would emerge? Linked to that, could you start to put some numbers on the building blocks for the ROT going to 28? Or another way, are you actually doing an update on your 28 targets within this year? And then the second question is Danish Compromise. I have two questions here. Just to be clear, have you received a notification from the ECB specific to the treatment of Danish Compromise for your deal, AXA-IMA, BNP Cardiff, or was it just interpretation of what was publicly said by Claudia Buch? And then second one, if you can help me understand how you get to only 10 basis points benefit from Danish compromise. In my estimation, it's more 40 to 50 difference between the two methodologies. But I must admit, I don't have all the data to do the calculation outside. Thank you.

Tariq, thank you for your questions. If I take them one at a time. So on the SIU, I agree with you. I mean, before it was called SIU, it was basically Capital Markets Union and all these things. And it has been in the wings for several years. Now, I observe a change. Since the change has been happening, and particularly in the U.S., Whenever I pick up the words used by the Commission, they are now working on a very tangible kind of approach. So this is what we see. We see them working on the kind of evolution, so tangible things on how to have more capital flowing in, how it can be redeployed, how it can be redeployed at a European level instead of country by country basis. so that's what they're working on i agree with you that that is the commission it has then to go through the parliament and to the council so that is why it can take time so that is why we have said it's probably in the wave 28 to 30 where we will see it talking about that listen we are not giving an update we have said that we are working on a plan to 26 where we will get to 12 then we have an ambition to go to 26 basically with the changes we are doing on personal finance on BCRF and what we're doing with AXA-IM. And that our ambition, if you look at what is in the wings today, that could lead to an improvement of saying one point, but that is just an orientation. It's not an update on our ambition. And when it comes to the Danish compromise, so the Danish compromise, as you know, so we considered it the deal to be insurance. So it's AXA insurance to Cardiff insurance. It's insurance to insurance deal. And so that basically means that the insurance regulation would continue to apply. And so we're having discussions with the ECB, where the ECB is triggering the question, is this not an asset management kind of deal? So that's the discussions we're having. And then on the impact, the reason, the numbers you mentioned is because I consider, you consider this as a one deal, which is the acquisition of AXA-IM. What I mentioned, you should see the transaction we agreed on with AXA-IM basically consisting of two deals. There is, on one hand, a deal on a long-term transaction that we have with AXA, and on the other hand, the acquisition of AXA. So it's two different deals. And if you look at it, that's how we come to a step-up of 10 basis points, if this would be applicable.

So the 10 basis points is a fully loaded impact. There's no two-phase impact where an additional... Okay.

No, no. The 25 turns into 35 if you apply what I just mentioned.

Okay. Thank you very much, Lars.

Next question is from Delphine Lee, JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. So I've got two. First of all, thanks for your comments earlier on, Lars, on the Eurozone revenues that are still on track for the 3%. But can you maybe just elaborate a little bit more on the momentum that you're expecting more for the second half of the year? Are you expecting more deposit volume as well, not just a stabilization of the deposit mix? Just wondering, because TD&II, you know, it is a slow start with minus almost 4% in Belgium and Italy, and it's only flat in France. Just trying to understand a little bit, you know, what is the expectation for NII within that revenue growth of more than 3%. And the second question is on personal finance. I think you had a target of growth for corporate finance of more than 5% for revenue growth. And the start of the year is 2%. But are you also expecting an acceleration? And is that acceleration... related to volumes, if you could just, or improving margins, if you could also elaborate on this, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Delphine, thank you for your questions. So, yes, in the Eurozone. So, if you look at what are the main drivers, or let's put it this way, what are our hypotheses with respect to getting to 3%? On one hand, we suppose that the deposit mix is to stabilize, yeah? And we see that basically in transit has stabilized. It is stabilizing in Belgium, but we expect. So the allocation between side deposit term and so forth is stabilized. That is the basic thing that we assume. So that is then going to drive the pickup in the rest of the year. Moreover, we anticipate not then on deposits, but rather also on the other side of the balance sheet, that we can continue to reprice. And then thirdly, as you mentioned, we have this excess in deposits that we will redeploy at the longer term. So that are basically the three drivers that give us confidence that we'll get to a 3% increase year on year within the Eurozone banks. And then on the personal finance, yes, we stick to the guidance that we've given for the personal finance core of 5%. It is in this quarter 2%. Let's not forget, I mean, a lot depends on the evolution of the rollover of the business. On average, I oversimplify, but the majority of the business has been originated within the year. And so the repricing that is going on, that repricing is what we will see in the rest of the year. So that is why it's that pivotal point that you start now, but that we will see that will pick up during the rest of the year. So that, Delphine, would be the two answers.

Thank you very much.

Next question is from Giulia Miotto, Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, good afternoon, everyone. A couple of questions from me as well, please. So the first one, we have seen some market, let's say, dislocation or a lot of volatility at the beginning of April, post-liberation day. How has this impacted BNP business, if at all? I would say both from a volume perspective in terms of trading, but also from a corporate engagement. That's the first question. Secondly... I know you provide the impact to a parallel shift in the curve, but how should we think about the impact of steepening? I don't know if you have any sensitivity or if you provide any sensitivity to, let's say, 50 basis points steepening of the curve. And then, if I can just go back to the AXA-IM transaction, in order to extract the synergies with your asset management business, I guess you would have to book the AXA-IM in asset management, but I don't know how that works if you get the Danish compromise. So if you can perhaps expand on how the decision to get or not the Danish compromise would impact your ability to extract synergies with your asset management and Cardiff as well. Thank you.

Giulia, thank you for your questions. If you look at, you know, we don't give any intra-quarter kind of updates, but what I'll take is I'll read your question and basically what we see in the market, and then you can assume that we continue to have our fraction of that market. So what we basically saw at the beginning of April is that in the market, the volumes, the demand for volumes were higher. So as there are many changes and then there are changes on changes. So that leads to a lot of volatility. That is basically what we saw in the transaction. So that means there was a lot of volatility when it came to equities and also some other currency related activities. And then at the same time, that volatility led on the side of the corporates. I think of, let's say, eventually acquisition and the likes. We saw a bit rather a wait and see. So that's basically what we saw in the market. Then on the curve, the curve is indeed what we have given. is that there is a parallel shift, and we basically said that that sensitivity is wherever the rates are between 1.5% and 3.5% is a bit what it is. Then if it goes into the steepening, we haven't given any numbers, but yes, I agree with you that if the yield curve steepens, that is intrinsically a positive effect. And when it comes to AXA-IEM, listen, intrinsically, the Danish compromise, as I mentioned, is considering it's an insurance-to-insurance deal. So it basically is the activity of AXA, the insurer, going into Cardiff. If at that time one would merge also the asset manager into that environment, that would remain that kind of deal that would allow us to capture the synergies. So there is nothing else to say on that, Julien.

Thanks. Next question is from Jacques-Henri Goulart, Kepler Shubra. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon. Just two very quick ones. On your slide 13 on the cost base, obviously you had your savings of $190 million, which correspond roughly to a 2%. gain on the cost growth. So it's 4% year-on-year, would have been 6% without that. Is it a good way to look at it for the full year? And lastly, on the interest rate sensitivity bouncing back, as we're trying to look at reasonably worst-case scenarios, intuitively you would be better protected than others if the monetary policy of the ECB was to become deflationary, i.e. interest rates going back to 1%. Would you agree with that in terms of your own ability to actually sustain that? Thank you.

So on the cost base, for the year, the guidance is basically 2.5 points, knowing that top line is 4% away from external growth. If you look at the first quarter, what some specific impacts, one coming from the extremely high results from global markets, so where to book, I would say, variable compensation. Second, Turkey and inflation, and the perimeter effect, and the currency effect globally. US dollar in the first quarter is extremely high, on average. So all this is around 1.5 percentage point. so in reality the first quarter is just 2.5 so it's just the same and you will see progressively to the year the normalization and ultimately at your end we should be at 2.5 even slightly lower than 2.5 so this is the the first element of course if the ECB were to to opt for something slightly more aggressive in terms of decreasing short-term rates. Looking at the diversification of our model, we are going to be favored by this evolution. Obviously, personal finance would benefit very rapidly from such an evolution. But also, our domestic banks in the Eurozone, their fixed-term rates for mortgages and the steepening of the curve would be even i would say higher so uh in the two uh in the two dimensions we should get additional uh support in terms of margins both in the specialized factories personal finance aval and the ozone domestic banks so in a nutshell uh yes the the new scenario is probably much more in favor of uh business model like CPBS compared to other, I would say, floating rates type of domestic banks. Thank you.

Next question is from Joseph Dickerson Jeffries. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. Just on the CIB, to re-ask the question Julie asked a little bit, just in terms of engagement with customers since the 2nd of April, is there any color you can give in terms of the nature of queries from the corporate base, either as regards the U.S. or as regards future customers? future savings and investment union, which would perhaps help corporate lending and corporate securitizations, that would be very helpful. And similarly on the CIB, one of the benefits, in addition to your own investment, particularly in prime services, has been that some of the U.S. banks were hitting up against their SLR constraints. Do you see any – do you see that – playing field shifting a little bit if some of the proposed changes to the SLR in the U.S. go through that would favor maybe the U.S. banks? Any thoughts on that? And then lastly, on French retail, did you kind of pull away consciously from mortgage production in the first quarter? Is this just something that's being a little bit more de-emphasized in the context of some of the broader strategic initiatives elsewhere in IPS? Because it looks like actually all lending was kind of down year-on-year in France, but in particular mortgages. Is that something you're backing away from, and how should we think about that as it impacts NII going forward in that business? Thank you.

Well, looking at the corporate universe, especially large caps and mid-caps, The fact is those companies, they are assessing the situation. If they are global, clearly one way or the other impacted by the new environment. The fact is that you don't know what's going to be the final end game. You don't know. So you can assess, you can have scenarios, you can rebalance a little bit, you can adapt the level of investments, you can... But for the time being, I would say there is nothing that is really new. What you can see is that on average, companies, corporates are going to invest slightly less than anticipated. They are going to onboard slightly less, I would say, newcomers. So globally, this will have a kind of... global impact on the global economy. If you look at the most recent provision, I mean, this is going to impact the global economy in between half a percentage point up to one percentage point in the 12 months to come. So this is a hit. The global economy is going to suffer. A large part of it is going to take place in the U.S., another part in emerging countries, obviously, and a bit of this within the Eurozone and within Asia and China in particular. So this is the situation. This is more kind of macro impact than something that is, I would say, precisely having specific consequences on certain sectors. Then the day we have a more clear picture Well, those companies probably will rebalance their business model one way or the other, because they will have no choice but surely to say. For us, looking at the risk profile, I said in the presentation that 78%, close to 80% of our books are, I would say, extremely well positioned in terms of rating. They are excellent. So those companies, they are able to rebalance, they are able to invest, they are able to move. Probably there's a lot to come in terms of restructuring, refinancing, deleveraging, merger and acquisitions, and so on and so on. So I'm not saying this is an opportunity for us because This is a situation that globally is a bit bumpy, but obviously there is a lot to come. And especially in Europe, because Europe is going to reinvest massively. Basically, Europe has no choice but to reinvest. So not only the risk profile and... the ability of most of our large corporates, large counterparts to redeploy is nice because we can support them in any dimension. And second, most of this will take place in Europe. So also for us, it's a potential. So, well, all in all, I would imagine that maybe not in the coming months, but in the two, three, four, five years to come, there will be much more for us to deliver throughout Europe. And in between US, Europe, in between US, Asia, for all that nice franchise we're having and we've accumulated through the past 10, 15 years. So it's rather a positive situation for us. And of course, we can support those companies in so many different dimensions, including, I would say, Europe. financial markets and so on and so on so um well we are more patient uh we stick to our risk policy of course we are very uh we say we keep eyes open but probably there is a lot to come on on mortgages i will i will leave uh last

Yeah, so there's mortgages and then there is the leverage ratio when it comes to prime. So I'll take that one first. So indeed, on prime brokerage, the prudential constraint, quote-unquote, because it hardly consumes any capital, is the leverage ratio. So if indeed in the U.S. there is a review of the whole regulation and therefore also the supplementary leverage ratio, you could be tempted that for them there is less of a constraint. However, if you look at the day-to-day, what is basically the constraint is the ones who are using prime brokerage, and for them it's basically the counterparty risk. So they basically need different players to be in line with their counterparty exposure. And on the Atlantic side, in the US side, you have several options to offer the full flavor. Whereas on Europe, you don't. And that is one of the key drivers also for us stepping up market share. So we feel that we will continue to be well positioned. And when you look at mortgages, in mortgages, and particularly in some of the areas we are, we are indeed focusing in general on profitability. And if the mortgages are not necessarily where they have to be in profitability, we will therefore reprice and eventually have somewhat of a lower market share. That's the stance we have always taken. And so in some moments when the pricing is right, we participate fully. If the pricing is less appropriate, we are a bit more conservative. So, Joseph, that will be our answers.

Thank you very much.

Next question is from Flora Buchholz, Barclays. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you. The first question I wanted to ask you is on cost because I saw in the pre-Q1 information note that you published like two or three weeks ago, there was a mention in there of potentially additional costs beyond the 400 million usual run rate for restructuring IT and adaptation costs because of the acquisitions that are coming this year, especially obviously AXA-EM. I know the deal is not yet closed, so I guess this is something we want to discuss more in Q2. But this combined to obviously the cost-cutting plan you have in personal finance and in CPB France. I just wanted to ask if you can at least give us a kind of magnitude of how much potentially more cost there could be. I understand these are one-offs, but are we talking like potentially another 200, another 400 million? Because actually the run rate was much more than 400 million the past two years. The second question is on capital. I wanted to ask you about FRTB, simply because obviously you target 12.3 CET1 at the end of this year, at the end of next year. Supposedly, as of today, FRTB is still costing 30 basis funds to BNP. So have you had any news on this, how the European authorities are thinking about it? I think there's a consultation phase that started in March. Anything you can give us on the timeline, any deadline we need to have in mind, any progress that you feel is being made would be helpful. Thank you.

The FRTB clearly, how we say, the European level has progressively changed its approach and probably the idea to implement the FRTB but in a more neutral way so it's too early to say technically exactly what that means but um this is basically the the new approach uh there were a number of public communication around the frtb recently and one of them is uh do not i would say uh refrain European banks that are involved in financial markets because of the FRTB at a moment in which obviously the US universe is not going to implement. So there is a consultation being launched. It was launched two weeks ago. Clearly, it's new. And probably before your hand, you will get the result. One could be a new year in terms of postponing the implementation. Probably this is the first step. And in a parallel way, a new approach to implement so that the final impact could be to some extent neutralized or minimized. So probably those 30 bps add-on are not only of maximum, but probably more than the ultimate impact. But it's truly to say. So this is the evolution we are seeing at the open level. So implementing, but probably in a way that is much more neutral than the current approach, the previous approach. Yeah.

And on the cost, indeed, it is just a tad too early. I mean, as long as we haven't closed, we cannot go in and shine light on what we would do. So we will give you some update after the closing and so update on one hand what kind of cost it would be and eventually to what degree we could offset it with capital gains. So we will have to see. But it is not something which should weigh on our overall outcome.

Okay, thank you.

Next question is from Andrew Combs, Citi. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. I've just had one on JAWS and cost plan, and the second on IFRS 9 and cost of risk. So on the first question on JAWS, if you look at your group JAWS Year-on-year, minus 0.2. Operating division jaws, plus 1.9. Obviously, given some of those corporate-centered distortions, which are outside of your control on ALM and fair value movements. So when we think about the one-and-a-half points target, do you think about that at a group level or at an operating division level? That's the first part of the JAWS question. The second part would be that I'd imagine markets both in Q1 and probably April 2 have been much stronger than you would have budgeted on at the start of the year. It looks like you've elected to reinvest some of that strength in support of growth. So is that the mindset, given it's a JAWS-based cost target, you will take the revenue strength in CIB and some of that will be used to reinvest in the franchise? And then the separate question on IFRS 9, we saw JP Morgan put a slightly higher weighting with downside scenarios and light beacon on uncertainty. Nordea did something similar last week. Can you just talk us through your thoughts on the scenario weightings under IFRS 9? Thank you.

So the chose, I mean, the 1.5 target is at group level. This is a group level. This is for this year and next year. And this is a cornerstone of the ability to grow the return on tangible equity. So this is not only operational division. This is group level. Through the cycle, most often it's just the same at the operational level, at group level. But looking at a certain quarter, it can be slightly different, especially this one. But the target is at group level, for sure. Looking at CIB global market, on one side, the platform is gaining market share. This is for sure. This is the momentum. Any time the cycle is more favorable, you can grab additional market share. This is the way it goes, for sure. uh if you look at the first part of the year it went that way and not only global market but also the the corporate bank and capital markets so yes we are continuously investing in the in that business and uh well uh it cannot be uh i would say uh considered like uh More, I would say, domestic bank. It's a different type of approach. When it's the time to move and it's time to grow, you need to take the cycle. It's not something you can decide in advance. When the market is there, you have to follow the curve. You cannot just say... I was not prepared to invest or do not have enough people or whatever. I mean, you need to follow up and, if possible, to anticipate. And this is the momentum we are seeing at CIB.

Maybe as one compliment, Andrew, on the costs. So indeed, the operating divisions have the jobs that we need. And so the fact that that group level, it is not, it's due to the corporate center. And what we mentioned is the corporate center a year ago in the first quarter had a positive event that ironed out back to zero over the year. Whereas in the first quarter, in 25, it has a negative effect. So that delta weighed on the JOLs. However, as we said, that those two corporate elements over the year will go back to zero. You can clearly see that having the operating divisions with positive JOLs will also lead that at the group level. So that's on the cost of risk and IFRS 9. So IFRS 9 and particularly the models, yes, it depends which bank you look at, depending on which geography it's in and in which business model it's in. Now, I'm going to answer with respect to BNP Paribas. So being exposed for a part into Europe and having exposure mainly on the corporates and the restaurants. And so what that basically means is you have to take a step on what the scenario that you're going to face. and so the scenario as we mentioned as Jean-Laure mentioned is that yes there will be impacts of tariffs which will slow down a bit the scenario but then there are the massive investment that is following from the wake-up call in Europe that will basically stop it up so for us before that we were on a growth rate of around one percent Europe-wide I mean and that's basically what we stick to and now in order why do we feel comfortable to stick with that is I basically look at the front the front-loading indicators for the cost of risk. And so for corporates and institutions, I basically look on their quote-unquote liquidity needs. So if a corporate, instead of coming for an investment loan, but needs a liquidity loan, that's not a good sign. If a fund has problems paying their initial margins, that's an issue. Today, for clients of BNP Paribas, I don't see this. I don't see corporates coming for liquidity needs, and I don't see funds having initial margins issues. So that is why we basically stand in the outlook of the cost of risk of the IFRS 9, Andrew.

That's very helpful, Beth. Thank you.

Next question is from Stefan Stahlmann, Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. I have two questions, please. The first one on Arvide. You disclosed the results from car sales for each quarter last year. Thank you very much for that. Could you also maybe give us the number for the first quarter, 25? That would be great. And then beyond the results, the EBA actually created a bit of waves during the early parts of April when they were discussing the dollar-based NSFR ratios of European banks. I was wondering if you could actually give us the U.S. dollar ratio NSFR ratio of BNP, but if not, could you maybe indicate whether your dollar NSFR ratio is higher or lower than the average of the French banks that was mentioned in this report, which was 99%. That would be great. Thank you.

Stéphane, thank you for your question. If I can be quick on Arval. So in the first quarter, it's basically 28 million. So you know that we've guided for it to go to basically zero. So you basically see we're just a tad above that. So that's that. When it comes to the dollar base, listen, what I can tell you is that you should not forget that in the end, if you look at our dollar, we have dollar access in particularly on long-term funding and so forth is that we do because that market is very deep. Then, moreover, let's not forget a big chunk of our dollar exposure is basically not U.S.-based. There is a lot in Asia, for example, that is also having that. So if you look at our deposit base that we have, it is long. If you look at it, it's basically $50 billion that we have in the U.S. that is basically covered by the U.S., and then you have a multiple of that outside of the U.S. base. So from that point, it's very diversified. It is also diversified over all the terms, and so we feel comfortable with the ratios that we have. Thank you.

Next question is from Sarat Kumar, Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. First one that I have is on capital. If I look at the evolution from here, I have acquisitions costing 30 or 40 basis points depending on what the outcome of the AXA deal is, potentially some positive SRT effects coming later in the year. Can you clarify if the ongoing sale of non-core personal finance would add anything to capital? And is there a possibility that you could be operating at below 12.3% CET1 at the end of the year if we were not to get a favorable environment for SRTs? So what is the plan B if we were to get more negative surprises on capital? So that is the first one. The second one is on EuropeMed. Again, if we... How would you look at the outlook and the sustainability of strong revenues in this division? Because I believe this is one of the divisions that consistently is being underestimated by consensus. Also, if you could provide any sensitivity of Turkish and AI to rising rates, that would be helpful. And finally, a clarification on your USD exposure. I noted the CET1 sensitivity to Euro appreciation or rather USD depreciation. Can you also provide the P&L sensitivity? Thank you.

If I go on capital, just to – I oversimplify the role forward, why we feel comfortable to be at 12.3%. So, first of all, so we're at 12.4%. Now, imagine that all the deals we are closing or we will close over the summer, like the AXA IEMs, HSBC and whatever, imagine that if I round the numbers, it consumes 40 basis points. Yeah, so we fall to 12%. And then every quarter, we add 10 basis points. So two times that makes 12.2. And then we will have three quarters of securitization, which will add another 10 basis points. So that's basically where we stand at 12.3. So there is no need for us to sell whatever. So in the run of the mill, we basically stand where we have to be. So we are well capitalized. We are ready. And as we mentioned, we've guided to be at 12.3 to be ready for if FRTB would come next year and if it would come at 30 basis points. And you've heard Jean-Laurent, well, it's probably not going to be 30 basis points and it's probably not going to be next year. But nevertheless, we want to be at 12.3. Then if we look at EuroMed, I suppose you are probing about Turkey, because the Poland and the Moroccan activities, they are basically in an environment which is more stable, quote-unquote. And so what indeed we saw is that a past year in Turkey, which indeed is under hyperinflation, so it is that IS that is reflecting hyperinflation, And that was basically therefore driven by the fact that the rates and the inflation were basically on different scales. And then we anticipate that basically it would come down and that it would gravitate towards 25 basis points. And that is basically what we anticipated. Today, It doesn't look like, given the uncertainties, that it's probably not going to be 25. It's probably going to stick to something like 35. So that will be something that on the fringe changes. But that's basically how you should read it. Then if you look at the U.S. sensitivity on P&L, let's look at it this way. It represents the U.S. activities or U.S. dollar activities on the top line represent something like 10%. So I let you do the math what the sensitivity is. Thank you, Lars.

Next question is from Anke Rengen, RBC. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you for taking my questions. I just have two follow-up questions. The first is on capital. So you reiterate the 12.3 in spite of the 10 basis points higher hit from the AXA deal and just like trying to understand what the source of the capital flexibility is. Is it more securitization just so we get an idea of to see if there's any more flexibility needed where the source of that generally is. And then secondly, I understand on the economic outlook, it's all very much uncertain. But when you described the potential GDP impact, 0.5%, 1%, Would that already be incorporated in your 2025 and 2026 ROTE targets, the lower GDP growth, or is it all very much uncertain? Thank you very much.

On the 1% impact, this is kind of an average number. If you look at the Eurozone, we're talking maybe at something that is in the range of 0.3%. Our own economic research published last Friday a report moving the growth in 2025 from 1.3% down to 1%. This was already 1% scenario internally for our roadmap in 2025 and what they did. 26 ended up at the same level we picked up already for 26. So I would rather say that we're already having for that 25-26 roadmap a robust, quite prudent scenario. As of now, we do not see the need to go further. And away from that, the red scenario we already commented should be even more favorable compared to the initial scenario we were having in mind at the beginning of the year. And ultimately, looking at the CIB platform, not only global market, but also the corporate bank, there's a lot to do in the context. So it's not going to be immediate. But probably a lot to do and to deliver if that universe should be constrained to rebalance. And to some extent, this universe will rebalance, especially because I would say Europe will reinvest more in its own perimeter. And probably this is an opportunity to us. So looking at the landscape today, uh we believe that we have already now roadmap uh the room to maneuver to uh in terms of in terms of targets there is no need to to change our targets this is why basically we are confirming our targets and probably uh some additional support coming from the red scenario comparing to the initial of the year and probably additional businesses in the global universe corporate, large-cap, mid-caps, and probably also financial institutions. So, not, I would say, mentioning the fact that this is the first time that we're looking at a Europe that is really willing to unlock at least part of the former capital market union. It was just conversation since many many years and now we were having a consultation. So there is something that is really moving and we are ready for that and even if the first phase is not going to be perfection, I mean there will be something very different and we are prepared for that and to some extent the CIB platform we built from since many years is basically the the platform that is needed in that context so uh nothing is uh is for free nothing is easy But looking at the economic scenario, looking at the rate scenario, looking at the type of platform we're having in our hands, looking at the diversification, probably, yes, there is something that is much more positive for us as a model business compared to, I would say, other type of banking platforms. This is quite obvious.

On your first question on the tools or the toolbox with respect to capital, we will continue to use the toolbox that we have been using over the last 10 years. It is things like securitization. It will be insurance. It will be optimizing through focus. It can be eventually sale of a subactivity. So that's the kind of toolbox that we have that we will keep on using. And that's why we feel comfortable with our trajectory. So I think that would be our answers.

Thank you very much.

Next question is from Chris Harmon, Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Yeah, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for taking my questions. So first of all, on JAWS, If I exclude Arval, it looks like you did around 100 basis points of positive jaws in the first quarter. And I think you've been pretty clear on the revenue moving parts for Arval. But just through the rest of the year, how should we expect costs to trend in that business? And then also, are there any other businesses within the group where we would expect to see a better run rate in terms of operating leverage or jaws through the next nine months? And then secondly, on provisioning, a bit of a follow-up to Andy's question earlier, you mentioned sort of lower growth assumptions for the year area for 2025. I think in the URD, you talked about 1.1% real GDP growth for this year. So I just wanted to sort of clarify, is it the case that you could adjust those growth rates lower without that mechanically leading to higher cost of risk or a change in the scenario assumptions, i.e. do the specific triggers you mentioned around usage of revolving credit facilities or margin calls, do those act as more of a trigger to an IFRS 9 reassessment than just a negative growth revision? Thank you.

Chris, on your question. So intrinsically, let me repeat, right? So the goals for the year that we will have at the group level is basically 1.5%. And that's one hand. The negative effect of the corporate center will basically taper off. That's one thing. Then you also have, as you mentioned, ARVAL, where the effect of the... If you look at the resale, you've seen the part. So the contribution of the revaluation last year was highest in the first quarter, lower in the second quarter, and basically tapered off in the third and the fourth. So that one will do that. And then if you also see the evolutions in the networks, where our top line will basically further grow, that should also intrinsically go for the jobs that we will see. So that's on the job. So intrinsically, it is 1.5. The dynamics on where it will further improve, as I mentioned, is so CPB, Arval, and the corporate center. And then if you look at the GDP, so the intrinsic way to apply it is that you have to look to take a forward model. So you have to assume what the economy will do going forward and then that economy, you have to apply it onto your book, onto your models. So something what you see might be different from a bank in a different region or for a bank with a different setup. So that's basically what it is. And so with what we see, what I mentioned that we saw on the initial margins and the likes, for us, makes us one hand comfortable that with the clients we have, that if there is a growth, is it 1%, is it 0.7%, is it 1.3%? Basically, the moving parts and the fact how we are diversified basically does not make us suppose that the cost of risk will deteriorate going forward. So that's a bit the read on this, Chris. Okay. Thanks very much.

Next question is from Kiri Vijayaraja. HFBC CIB, please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon, everyone. A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, on your trade finance business, I'm drilling down a little bit there. I appreciate some of your comments earlier on the outlook for corporate decision-making, et cetera. But I wonder, are there kind of any metrics you can share with us in terms of what's really Europe to Europe within your trade finance business? Because I think versus some of the more global players, I sense that part of your business should be maybe more insulated from trade dislocation, perhaps. So just your kind of thoughts there on your trade finance. And then secondly, on Arval, I see you're still growing the outstandings there at a mid-teens growth rate, you know, much faster than peers. And so my question is really, at what point does that growth rate start to normalize? And linked to that, you know, when you take out the used car sales result, how do you see the core growth lease contract servicing revenue margin evolving, particularly if you maintain that kind of volume growth orientation at Arval. Thank you.

Kiri, I'll start on Arval. So, indeed, what you look at, so, you know, we are having diversified, yeah? So, we are in many countries on one hand. On that, also, if you look at our revenue streams, the revenue stream is on one hand financing, if I exclude for the moment the retail value, right, that, and then there is the whole servicing around it. And if you look at the overall model that we have, it's a very interesting party for our corporate clients. Let's not forget what Arval is basically serving are the corporates for their fleet, for their employees. And so that's basically what we have projected, what we see now, 10%. I remind you that we've guided here also at a 7% longer-term growth. So you clearly see that we are well on track to deliver this. and then on your question on trade finance indeed if you look at it well we are in particularly uh european inactivity and what is interesting is that with the interest rates coming down you would have assumed that that activity the p l contribution would be going down but at the same time given the uncertainties and whatever you have you see that there is basically higher volumes that are coming over to us. And so that is why, even with the interest rates tapering off, the volumes are higher, that's what you see in Q1, and that's why you see the evolution that you see. So that's a bit the dynamic that you see there on those two, Kiri.

Okay, thank you.

Next question is from Matt Clark, Mediobanca. Please go ahead.

Hi, a couple of questions, please. So firstly, on interest rates and slide 23, that chart, the table in the bottom right-hand corner, I'm just trying to understand what that 2.3% for 2025 and 2.2% for 2026 represent. Is that what was embedded in your plan in terms of ESTR rates? Because obviously that's somewhere above where forward curves would seem to be now. So just to understand what that number is specifically. Second question is on the duration of the contract that you're signing with AXA. And I guess I'm interested to try and work out whether the 20% return on investment in year four is still going to be burdened by the amortization of that contract. So economically, there could be a higher return on investment even than that 20% that you've guided. And then final question is just when will the buyback start and what's delaying that? Thank you.

So on rates, yes, your interpretation on the slide is basically there. That is what the assumption. Of course, as we mentioned earlier, most likely the yield curve is going to be steeper. When it comes to the share buyback, you know, so I'm So what we have is that we have the approval of the ECB to basically do the buyback. We've clarified that we will do it in the second quarter. I'll tell you a certain morning that we've launched it and you'll see it happening. Sorry, I missed your question on AXA. What was your question on AXA? The duration of the contract, yes. So what we basically have intrinsically, the contract runs over 15 years. So that's the duration that we go for. And it basically has every five years, it has a kind of a review in volumes and pricing. But intrinsically, that's the duration of the contract.

And so am I right to think that the 20% return on investment that you guided for year four is still burdened by the amortization of that?

No, it's included. It's included, so everything is in there.

Okay, but if you didn't have that amortization, it would be a higher return, right? Indeed. Yes, understood. Thank you.

The next question is from Pierre Chedeville, CMCIC Market Solutions. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon. One question, maybe it's a little bit premature, but I was thinking due to the evolution of relationship between the U.S. and Asia more globally, not only with China, I was wondering if you see in the future opportunity for BNP to develop more intensely there due maybe to more difficult environment for U.S. banks, which are very present in this area. Do you think it would be interesting for you to invest more in terms of teams or risk-weighted assets in this area in the coming months? And my second question is maybe a little bit marginal, but I was wondering where do you stand regarding your partnership with Matmeet in PNC? Because we know that Cardiff is very strong in life insurance and creditor insurance. But in terms of PNC, you are not very vocal, and yet it's a way to develop. So can you tell us about these two questions, please?

Around China, we do not see any kind of retrenchment from US banks. Looking at mainland China, BNP Piper is involved through a number of joint ventures, life insurance, car financing, asset management. So this is very much the domestic way. We're having good, strong, solid partners. We invest some equity. We do not have, strictly speaking, a risk weight because the funding is local. We are not having the majority, so these are kind of trans-venture corporations. They are domestic, locally funded. They are investments for us for the mid-long term. So it's very much based upon the regional kind of developments. This is nothing that is in China, away maybe from the asset management partnership. So it's a local approach. And again, we do not see US banks retrenching. And we're quite satisfied by the quality of those partnerships, the ability to grow. and the value we are creating progressively to those platforms that most often we do not control. And there is no plan to change this approach that is very much domestic with local partners.

On your other question, so indeed on insurance, it is true that we focus a lot now on the AXA-IM deal, which is basically the long-term savings and so on. Of course, that's the partnership we do. But then, as you write, so the non-life part is also an important part that grows. And so here also, we team up with a lot of partners. And so in France with Mahmoud, but also in other areas, in other geographical zones, We do this in the partnering and that is what we keep on doing and we are very pleased with that. If that can be your answer. If I can come back to a question by Kiri, because I draw the attention that I misunderstood your question. I interpret your question as transaction banking, but it was basically on trade finance. And so on trade finance, the role Europe versus the US. So we are basically 60% of the activities are European based. So sorry for that, Kiri, I misunderstood your question. So operator, back to you.

Thank you. There are no more questions registered at this time.

So thank you very much for your attention, and we can conclude the presentation with that last question. see you soon and we remain at your disposal if you need some clarification on some items. Thank you so much.

Thank you all.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the call of BNP Paribas first quarter 2025 results. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.