ING Bank Slaski

Good morning. It is my pleasure to welcome you at the conference during which we present the results of ING Bank Śląski for the third quarter. The presentation will be delivered by Brunon Bartkiewicz, CEO, and Bożena Graczyk, Deputy CEO in charge of finances. My name is Piotr Utrata. And I'm working in the press department. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Third quarter results. I would love to start my presentation by saying that this quarter was similar to the two previous ones. However, unfortunately, I cannot start, I cannot open the conference with these words. I think it's not nice for the head of a listed company to announce losses. Therefore, my duty today is not pleasant at all. Of course, you are all aware of the reasons why we do not report good results for this quarter. The times are difficult. you know us, and you're aware that our tension is not generated by the result, because the result is just a result. The current situation is quite unexpected. It's something that we were not able to foresee last year. In a nutshell, the whole business sector has become less predictable. So I have in mind not only our institution, but the entire sector. Our business model as a bank is based on a stable and predictive growth. And the current macroeconomic situation and the regulations that are enforced generate a lot of instability. This has been going on for the last year. One of the source of our worries is the retail loan portfolio, which is not growing. It's not growing because the production level is relatively low. Moreover, we have a high level of overpayments and repayments. We understand the situation quite well. However, it is difficult to predict anything about the fourth quarter and the coming years. Making any predictions is quite difficult. It is difficult because the cost of retail loans is going up. We also have a difficult situation on the housing market. Moreover, the loan moratoria or the suspension of mortgage repayment have taken its toll because they may affect our results. Taking all that into account, I would like to stress a few things. The first is that a model that is based on a very fragmented retail portfolio gives us quite a stable situation in terms of lending and assets in our balance sheet. The same applies to our deposits. We're present in various parts of the market which have varying dynamics. Thanks to that, our bank is more stable despite the generally unpredictable situation. Therefore, I believe that our bank is able to continue to grow and develop its business model. We can still focus on our clients' needs and on improving the quality of our relationship with the clients. This means that the transactions and the sales procedures that we offer to our clients are as transparent and clear for them as possible so that we can contribute to our client's success. I don't know what you are most interested in. I will hand over to Bożena Graczek in a moment. She will give you the details of our results in the third quarter and over the last nine months. I'll just say that this quarter was quite unusual, but we can still remain on a stable trajectory of development and we can still achieve our goals. Maybe this quarter has not been ideal. Nevertheless, our tactics and modus operandi remains the same. Yet we operate in a slightly less predictable environment. So this affects our results, of course, but they are secondary to our general business model. And now I'll hand over to Bożena.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. That's true that it's much more difficult to talk about Q3 reports when we need to report a loss. It was 317 million PLN this year, and this is the first for 14 years loss recorded in the history of ING Bank Slonsky. Of course, as it has been said before and in relation to our current report of July, the main reason behind this loss is, of course, the effect of loan repayment suspension and repayment holiday, which affected our net interest income. This adjustment has been included, as you perfectly know from quarterly report, the impact of the repayment capital. It's 1.3263 billion, and it is in accordance with our preliminary a forecast where we assumed average 70% participation of customers and repayment holidays. In Q3, this participation amounted to 62%. When talking about our forecast for the future still, we assume similar predictions as the ones which were presented at the early stage. And result, after nine months of 2022, net profit was 1.40 billion, which represents a loss by 36%. I think that from the perspective of what happened to our PLN and what happened in 2022 in relation to the financial reality and economic reality in 2021, That shows the situation. Of course, I'd like to comment our net interest income. On slide number 12, you can see our presentation with regard to net interest income, which has been adjusted on purpose by credit moratoria. So it's difficult to talk about any trends and portfolio behaviors. Maybe before I move on to explanation of this position, let me tell you that in this quarter we reclassified the position between the net interest income and net provision. This is the reclassification that we get from provisions securing our IFRS transactions in micro-hedge in order to reflect the real character that affected the net interest income. The net interest income is 155 million PLN. The second quarter, it was 130 million, and in the first, 27 million. We wanted to reflect the nature of this position, taking into account increasing materiality of this position in our balance sheet. What is worth mentioning at this point is that in Q3, our net interest income was 1.8 billion. It's a 5% drop quarter to quarter. And our quarterly net interest income is at the level of 3.53. It's a drop by 19 bps versus the previous quarter. And the main reason behind that is, of course, the rising cost pressure and funding cost pressure and increasing interest of customers' deposits. As you perfectly know, during Q2, we increased the interest rate at saving account from five base points to 1%, so the interest rate on our accounts in this position is 1.5%. When it comes to net commission income, quarterly income is 531.2% increase quarter to quarter. And from the aggregated perspective is 1.8, 1 billion 16% increase year on year. And it's worth mentioning that in this quarter, Our FX transaction income went back up by 6%, card transactions, and this is a result of a material increase of the number of transactions and the value of individual transactions, which translates into such volumes, of course. On the other hand, we experience a slight decrease, quarter-on-quarter, related to the capital market. It's a natural consequence of the situation on the market and commissions which are related to handling customer accounts, but this is an effect of the changes that we introduced and the cancellation of commission on high balance accounts. When it comes to total cost, you got accustomed to the presentation including the bank levy to present you the influence of broadly understood regulatory cost on the level of cost that we need to incur. Our cost operating, cost including the banking task went up to 986 million. They increased by 19% year on year, and that means that our costs for nine months 2022 represent 3.33 million, and they went up by 32%. Last quarter, we had some one-off incidents. It was the commercial banks protection system and creation of debt. The cost was $430 million this quarter. That was an additional contribution at the level of $41 million, which increased the burden and burdened the position this quarter, but also we had no deposit guarantee fund. There was only an amount of 39 million that we incurred in the first quarter this year, and it's worth mentioning that payment to commercial banks protection system fund They represent tax deductibles. So I will use this opportunity to refer to the Banking Guarantee Fund decision taken recently. So they increased the DGS commission from $2 billion from 2 billion to 502 million, which is a result of the decision. So taking into account the current level of assets credited to this account, which is 1.83 billion, and the target value, that means that we do not expect any charge of contribution to DGS. Apart from that, apart from all these additional costs to the so-called commercial banks protection system, the banking sector contributed the credit support fund. In third quarter, we had 25 million of costs, including 7 million for contribution for Q3 out of 400 million as total contribution, and 18 million, this is our estimated impact resulting from this contribution at the level, at the sectoral level of 1 billion. So this cost has already been deposited and included in Q3 results. So when we take a look at the total regulatory costs that we incur as similar phenomena are experienced by other banks, so together with the banking task in Q3, we incurred 231 million. Of course, that means an increase of... 39% year-on-year, and after nine months, it's worth mentioning regulatory cost is 1.2 billion, and that means an increase by 9% year-on-year. This is a significant factor and element of our cost increase at ING this year. Additionally, regulatory costs represent 36% of the total bank costs. When it comes to our own costs, They amounted to 752 million in Q3, and they are practically stable quarter on quarter. When we take a look at an increase of cost year on year, they went up by 13 percent, mainly due to the effects of roaring inflation and related increase of employee costs and as a consequence of pay rises that we announced in April this year. When it comes to the cost of risk, as you can see this quarter, the cost of risk was 206 million PLN, including on the one hand 132 million of costs with regard to the change of macroeconomical landscape. And as you can read from our presentation, this cost was related mostly to the corporate client segment. And it is directly related to change of GDP index. We also released some provisions at the level of 73 million with regard to the sales of loan from stage three, mostly in the retail segment. So I think these two phenomena explain our quarterly cost of risk, which this year due to all these changes and the normal behavior of credit portfolio amounted to 53 base points. If I were to comment the quality of our loan portfolio, I think it's worth mentioning that it is stable and on a good level. In stage three, the participation, the share of these loans went down by 15 bps. It is related to the sales of stage three loans, both in the retail segment and in the corporate segment as well. You might be interested of what you can read from this slide at the bottom. So the reasons behind the increase of stage one in our gross portfolio. So here let me provide you with an explanation. This is due to our modeling changes related to normal revision of our modal approach to identification of Stage 2. What happened in Q2 2022 means a change of premises. two important premises related to declassification of stage one loans as stage two. We accepted a methodological change consisting in the fact that three-fold increase of PD when the loan is sanctioned, it results in reclassification to stage two. This is one of the effects. On the other hand, we assumed that loans on the observation list get to stage two. As a result of that, you can observe that the share of loan in stage two went up. But on the other hand, you can see that together with this reclassification, the provision coverage ratio didn't change. So we can see that reclassification to stage one was marginal, had a marginal impact on the cost of provisions. And here it's worth mentioning, because for sure you would like to ask a question about this, that all these changes and all these reclassification changes from stage one to stage two, as I've said, these are purely modeling in their nature and they don't affect our loan policy. I would like to make that clear. At the same time, let me share one more comment. As you can see, our provision coverage ratio in stage three decreased, and this is an impact of decrease of sales of receivables from this stage, which took place in Q3. A few comments when it comes to our capital adequacy. As you can see, TCR ratio is at the stable level, 14.4 percent. What happened, on the one hand, we included this result to our solvency ratio. On the other hand, we can see improvement of Tier 1 ratio, which affected our TCR. On the other hand, together with rising loan volumes mentioned by Bruno, especially in the corporate segment, which are covered with a higher risk, this ratio went up proportionally to the volume of our loan portfolio. Before we start our Q&A session, I will refer to the comment about MRL. As you can see, last quarter we informed that we can see a need of higher engagement, a higher exposure in terms of minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities. As you can see from the Banking Guarantee Fund, which was announced at the end of September, the principles and requirements with regard to MREL have changed. So such requirements will be decreased in a short perspective, and that means to us and that that has its consequences on us and on the entire banking segment of course following the voice of the financial stability committee we agree that emerald instruments should be tackled in a systemic manner and knowing that we do not have such a need that we informed about before because of this internal targets that's changed. Now we are in the middle of analysis in order to establish our short term within creation of our MREL buffer. So the works are underway and we will inform you as soon as such analysis are over. So I think that I would wrap up my presentation and I would like you to ask your questions.

Yes, let us open the Q&A session. I have already received a few questions. Let us start with more general questions. The first one is from Interia. Why do business owners decide to take out loans given the current economic situation? I think it's a very good question. Let me answer you in the following manner. Life goes on. and business owners take informed decisions. I think that it may be connected with preemptive action that business owners want to take because they expect that in the future there will be higher costs to be borne for loans. The inflation in Poland is quite high, and also in Poland we have a very widespread phenomenon of transferring the effects of inflation to the target customer. These loans also support, to a certain extent, investments. I think that also the business owners just cannot continue to put off certain business decisions. In our case, an increased activity in this segment is not connected with large infrastructure investments or projects, because I think other banks in Poland finance these types of endeavors. In our case, this is a result of a regular activity of our clients. This concerns revolving loans and investment loans that are usually taken out by our clients. So this is nothing out of ordinary. We also have observed increased activity in renewable energy sources, in investment in these renewable energy sources, and in energy efficiency investments. And we welcome this fact. But still, this is not the only answer that would account for an increased dynamics that we observe in this segment in small corporate loans. However, I'm unable to make any forecasts regarding the activity in that segment because there is a lot of uncertainty and I think we all intuitively sense that this is the case. Another question concerning the assets in the balance sheet. Interia, another question from Interia. Do you intend to buy out more bonds in 2023 and to increase their share in the bank's assets? Our main goal is supporting economic growth by offering direct support to our clients. This is our priority. we give enough loans to provide funding to the market this is our priority not investing in state bonds there are a few questions regarding suspension of mortgage repayments pop did you analyze the decisions that your clients took with extra funds that stayed in their pockets due to the suspension of mortgage repayments. In other words, what do your clients do with the money they saved thanks to the suspension of mortgage repayments? I'll be honest, it's difficult for us to make any deduction, to deduce anything about our clients' behavior. As you're probably aware, we have a complicated relationship with our clients who have taken out mortgage loans with us. The level of consumption that may have increased in connection with the suspension of mortgage repayment is difficult to estimate. What is a source of concern for us and for the entire market is that this situation is not possible, is not stable. In the media and also among the decision makers, there were calls to use these funds to overpay or to repay mortgages. However, we haven't noted any additional repayments or overpayments. Nevertheless, we assume that there is a group of clients who save up the money from the suspension of mortgage repayments to make an overpayment or an early repayment of their loan but we haven't of their mortgage but we haven't noticed this type of activity but please remember that for the time being only two repayments out of the possible eight have been suspended. So it's too early to make any forecasts or estimates. Regardless of the suspension of mortgage repayment, we have noticed increased consumption among our clients and increased level of remuneration. So our observations are in line with the media reports. However, whether increased consumption is the effect of neglecting inflation or quite the contrary, being worried about inflation, that we do not know. So we do not know why we have observed increased consumption spendings. Naturally, we are all excited with the current situation, but still we cannot draw any definite conclusions from what we see because we do not have enough data. A question from Business Insider, also about suspension of mortgage repayment. How... does it affect the risk connected with mortgages? What would be the cost of risk if this government program had not been introduced? Well, the quality of our mortgage portfolio is good as a rule. So taking into account the average risk level in that portfolio, I can see that we haven't noticed a direct relationship between the level of interest in the suspension of mortgage repayment and the risk level in principle. As you're aware, the decision to apply for a suspension of mortgage repayment does not affect the rating of a client. However, as a bank, of course, we carefully analyze our mortgage portfolio in order to be able to predict what may happen to our mortgage portfolio when the possibility of the suspension of mortgage repayment is over. For the time being, this has not affected our cost of risk and the risk level. I think I understand what is behind this question and I'll answer it in the following manner. Those clients who have been defaulting on their payments or have been repaying their mortgages irregularly before the moratorium was introduced and now they do not have any irregularities in their repayments, we still adopt a conservative approach and we treat them as quote-unquote problematic clients. On the other hand, those clients who have not shown any symptoms of difficulties with repaying their loans, We do not change our assessment of them because we are unable to assess or predict to what extent the moratorium affected them. Trigon, have you observed any new areas of risks in the corporate segment? Is the bank benefiting from a growing demand for loan in that sector? And what about the solvency ratio? That's a lot of questions. Our bank in the corporate sector has always had a conservative approach. We're observing new risks and the new threats. However, we are not as a bank modifying our policy in any significant manner. We haven't noted any, major tendencies, new major tendencies forming. What we are observing is early signs of decreasing activity in that area. However, this is not a reason enough for us to change our ways. Let me add that our portfolio of corporate loans is systemically growing. And we respect our values and our principles with regard to the corporate loan portfolio. So no changes on our part. Santander, how does ING assess its capital position? In TCR, the buffer is at 3%. If a systemic risk gets back to the level of 3%, ING would have no buffer with regards to TSR. How would you comment on that? Our levels of solvency ratio, we have provided enough buffers in our solvency ratio indicators. If a requirement for new buffers appear, we have a host of instruments that we can apply to make sure that our solvency ratio is in line with our strategy and risk assessed assets. Therefore, we are not afraid of any negative impact of our adopted solvency ratio. Let me add that we expect a certain equity surplus because the OSE buffer will change and it has not been reflected yet in our capital adequacy ratio.