Raiffeisen Bk Intl Ag Ord

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Q2 2024 results conference call of Raiffeisen Bank International. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Mr. Johan Strobel, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our half-year 24 update call. Thank you for taking the time to join us today, and I hope that you will enjoy your summer break once the current reporting window is over. In the first half of the year, we can report a consolidated profit of 1.3 billion, and more importantly, 604 million, excluding the profits in Russia and Belarus. Our return on equity stands at 15% for the group and around 10 or 9%, sorry, for including Russia and Belarus. Finally, the CETV1 ratio improves to 17.8% for the group, largely driven by the repression in the quarter and remains stable for the perimeter, excluding Russia and Belarus. On slide five, we can report that long growth is picking up, confirming the green shoots observed in the first quarter. In our core, Customer business, the good dynamics in retail, unsecured improved further. Various mortgages and corporate lending, which were quite in Q1, have also accelerated. NII is again slightly down this quarter, mainly in Hungary and head office, which are the two areas where we expect the most pressure. Elsewhere across the group, NII is very stable. Fees have rebounded in the quarter after the seasonally weak first quarter, but also reflecting the pickup in landing activities. OPEX are 5% higher in the first half of 22 compared to the first half of 23, but up less than 2% in Q1 24 versus, sorry, Q2 24 versus Q2 23. We will discuss all these a bit further on. For now, let's move to the next slide and focus on the substantial business reduction measures which we're implementing to de-risk our presence in Russia. Until we find a way to exit Russia, we will accelerate the business reduction plans for the bank there with the clear aim to make sanction compliance as simple and verifiable as possible. As you know, we restricted business in Russia immediately at the start of the war. including strict limits on landing payments and new customer onboarding. You have seen the state reduction in our loan book, and what is perhaps not immediately visible are the broad restrictions on payments in and out of Russia, but also to and from the neighboring countries. We have implemented broad sector restrictions for our payments and trade finance business, including, for example, all electronic goods, the auto sector, oil and oil-related products. As a result, this has transformed the Russian balance sheet, as you can see on the left-hand side of this page. The Russian loan-to-deposit ratio now stands at 37%, and the liquidity coverage ratio is above 300%. Local CO2 ratio is above 48%, meaning over and excess 4.5 billion of equity above local requirements. More importantly, we believe that these measures significantly reduce the risk of our continued presence in Russia until we find a way to exit. As I told you on our last quarterly call, the business reduction and de-risking strategy will accelerate in coming months and you can assume that the business model of the Russia Bank will be further simplified. In essence, it means the loan book will shrink even faster. To a large extent, there will be no new lending or rolling of existing loans. Very few exceptions will be allowed, and we now expect a loan book reduction of around 55% by 2026. In the medium term, this means that excess liquidity will increase for Ubers. All cash and excess liquidity placements are expected to be placed with the Central Bank of Russia. This means no more deposits with MOEX or with Russian banks. For foreign currency placements, this will all go to subsidiaries of Western parents. On the liability side, This means broad measures to reduce deposits, including no longer exacting term deposits, pricing all current accounts, both in rubble and in foreign currency at zero, and charging high maintenance fees on all current accounts. While there are certain products which we cannot legally terminate, our goal is to make these as unappealing as possible. Another restriction on deposit taking relates to business with other financial institutions. Going forward, only subsidiaries of Western Barons may place deposits with Raiffeisen Bank Russia. In the medium term, you can expect to see the balance sheet shift to a higher share of equity on the liability side and liquidity placements on the other side as loans to customers and deposits from customers continue to shrink. As a side note, we should be aware that RWAs at the Russian Central Bank will rise as the risk weighting of CPR deposits is higher than the previous alternatives. This is already visible in Q2, as you can see on the graph. This increase in RWAs will continue as we move more deposits to the CPR and away from MOECs and local banks. For the business with corporate clients, only very small number of pre-approved customers will still be offered borrowing facilities. These pre-approved customers will be large and internationally active customers from a selected list of sectors and for each of these and individual compliance assessments will be made. Overall, These pre-approved customers will be a very small fraction of our existing customer base. This very small list of pre-approved customers will also apply to payments leaving Russia. From 45,000 monthly payments on average in Q1-24, we expect to process less than 15,000 per month in Q4, mainly in Euro and the Chinese Yuan. Dollar payments have all but ceased. And here the list of pre-approval customers is even much more restricted. We are all discussing the final restrictions for the retail business, but also there you can assume that at least 90% reduction in landing and payments with very strict limits and restrictions across the board. More importantly, these many measures materially reduce the compliance risk for the Russian bank and for RBI Group as a whole. We have aligned these measures with the ECB and briefed the U.S. Treasury on our plans as well. Both of these authorities were in constant and transparent dialogue. In parallel to this de-risking approach, we are fully committed to finding a way to exit Russia, including via a sale or partial sale of Russia Bank. We have so far not found a solution which satisfies the requirement of all parties, but we will continue to work on this until we do. Let me be clear, however, any exit from Russia will be orderly and in alignment with local requirements. Even as we seek to disengage, we have a responsibility to our employees and our customers to ensure a smooth handover. Let us now Look at the core revenues on slide seven. As you can see, and as we have guided for, net interest income has likely peaked at the end of last year. On the other hand, the decline is very moderate, and we do not expect a collapse. The rate cuts across the regions are, of course, the obvious driver for the trend downwards. In some areas, we have also seen increased pricing competition, which has added some pressure as well. On the other hand, I'm satisfied that we have hedged our NRI about as much as possible, and the big up in loan growth should also help offset some of the headwinds. In most of our markets, NRI was stable, with the drop largely coming from Hungary, where rates continues to come down. and where we have very little room to reprice current accounts. And in the head office, where our deposits are largely from corporate accounts and therefore more sensitive. Overall, however, NI development is probably better than we might have expected, and we have slightly increased our guidance for the fiscal year, the full year 2024 to around 4.1 billion. Net fees and commission income has peaked up, and we can conform our guidance at around 1.8 billion. Let's move to slide eight. On the lending side, we continue to see an increase in demand for new lending. Retail unsecured products are another record quarter for new lending driven by the Czech Republic, Romania, and Serbia. Retail mortgages are up 1% in the quarter, but with good new volume trends in our two largest mortgage markets, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Margins are stable at Q1 levels, which is good news after the very narrow margins, what we had to accept in 2023. On the corporate side, demand for long-term loans has picked up nicely, driven by Austria, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary. In Austria, there was also some further growth in repo and short-term facilities, as we highlighted it last quarter. On the deposit side, we continue to see inflows across most of our countries, with these higher liability volumes probably helping to offset some of the margin pressure from lower rates. Let's move to slide nine, where you can see the liquidity ratios very stable at very high levels. And now with this, We can do the short let move to slide 10, the capital. And what you see here is on group consolidated basis, including Russia and Belarus, the 50 basis points increase that you see here is largely from the ruble appreciation, which we witnessed in the quarter. As you know, since the start of the war, there are no instruments available to hedge our ruble overcapitalization. Furthermore, as we reduce the loan book and our excess CD1 ratio in Russia continues to increase, our group sensitivity to the euro-ruble volatility increases. Also on this slide, for good measure, let me remind you that we deduct a dividend from our retained earnings and regulatory capital. This dividend deduction is based on last year's payout ratio applied to the earning of the consolidated group including Russia and Belarus. Like in the previous years, the final decision on dividends will be taken in January based on the consolidated profit excluding Russia and Belarus. On slide 11. The outlook for the CT1 is around 17%. This drop is largely attributed to the shift of all our liquidity placements in Russia to the CPR. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, risk weighting on CPR placement is much higher. and where we placed ruble liquidity until recently. This RWA increase and corresponding impact on Group CET1 is, as mentioned, a consequence of the business reduction plan in Russia. Of course, this has no impact on the CET1 excluding Russia, what we have referred to as the price book zero scenario, which brings us to the next slide. Group CD1 excluding Russia improves slightly to 14.7% and expected to remain stable at these levels into year-end. Again, please remember that this does not include any relief on operational RWAs deriving from the Russian business, which would add a further 70 basis points to this worst-case scenario CD1 ratio. Let me now jump to MREL and Funding, which is on slide 14.

MREL for the Austrian Resolution Group.

As the core, our ratio drops one percentage point due to expected recalibration of eligible liabilities, which was partially offset by the senior preferred bond, which we issued in June. We remain seven percentage points above the requirement. And when the subordination requirement will be reintroduced in January of next year, we again expect to be comfortably buffeted. This also means no preferred senior issuance in the near term. The other purpose for non-preferred securities issuance was the LGF analysis at Moody's, which based on the latest review, now stands around 8.6, leaving a decent buffer above the 8% requirement to maintain the three-notch uplift. In terms of issuance plans, we look at another senior preferred issuance after the summer. Our subsidiaries were also in the market in the past few months. with successful placements by our Slovak, Czech, and Hungarian subsidiaries. Each of our MREL relevant resolution groups is now comfortably above its requirements with very little issuance, if at all, still to come this year. Let's now move to the macro outlook. This is an update confirming the good prospects of the core of our regions. And if I now move to the next slide, which is the inflation. So here what we see is broadly unchanged than what we had in the last presentation. In some markets, slightly above the targets. But what we can say, and we have forecasted it on that slide, in some of the countries with quite some room to reduce the key rates. In some others, maybe it will come at a slower pace. And with that, I would move to the guidance, which I touched already, $4.1 billion in core revenues. Just to restate and to be clear, this is guidance excluding Russia and Belarus. 1.8 billion net fee and commission income, a long growth somewhere between 4% and 5%. The OPEX around 3.3 billion and the cost-income ratio 52%. Risk costs around 35 basis points. Profitability at around 10%. And I see the one ratio in the price book zero, the consolidation scenario of Russia, 14.7. And with this, I hand over to Hannes, please.

Thank you, Jürgen. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your interest today. Allow me to share with you a brief risk update. First of all, portfolio quality remains solid with MPEs near record lows and improving coverage ratio. In the performing part of the book, we even saw rating upgrades. In fact, the RWA relief from the improvement in the portfolio quality more than offset the organic loan growth in the quarter. As you can see, our coverage ratio improved to above 53% as we were able to sell a defaulted exposure with a very high collateralization. Defaults and insolvency are still low. With that being said, we remain cautious. Refinancing rates remain elevated, and for some of our customers, this may well become problematic. Let me move on to the page 20, giving you more details. Risk costs in the quarter were 78 million euros for the core of the group. We saw releases in stage 1 and stage 2 based on rating upgrades and better market developments, and this allowed us to book around 60 million euros of additional overlays in the core of the group. excluding Russia and Belarus, which brings the stock of overlays to 505 million euros for the core of the group and to 788 million euros, including Russia and Belarus. This increase in overlays were mostly related to leveraged finance portfolio in Vienna and potential future interest rate risks in Hungary. Stage 3 risk costs came in. at 60 million euros for the core of the group, half of which is related to adjustments on already defaulted exposures, and the other half are new cases in the leveraged lending book. In any case, refinancing risk is already covered by the overlays. All things considered, we are satisfied with the risk costs year to date, and this allows us as stated beforehand by Johan, to improve our guidance for the full year to have risk costs of around about 35 basis points. Let me move on to the page 22. Well, here I would like to address our FX mortgage portfolio important. Overall, inflows of new cases have stabilized, albeit at an elevated level. Litigation in the euro portfolio have increased, But the run rate is, this has led us to book an additional 282 million euros of provisions. As Johan just said, we are now getting around 500 million euros of litigation provisions for the full year 2024. I should also highlight that we have improved our settlement offer in line with what our B is offering based on the early data. We have reasons to believe the customer's acceptance rate will increase potentially to about 50% over the course of the program. You all, this is my very brief risk report, and we are now more than happy to take your questions.

Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, we may now start the Q&A session. If you wish to ask a question today, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Please ensure that the mute function on your telephone is turned off or we will not receive your signal. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, you will need to press star 1. If for any reason you need to remove yourself from the queue, you may do so by pressing star 2. We will pause for a moment in order to allow a queue to assemble. Our first question comes from Mehmet Seven with JP Morgan.

Good afternoon. Thanks very much, and thank you for taking my question. I have just a couple questions, please, if I may. Maybe starting with the Russian exit or the de-risking that you're currently taking. On the RWAs and the increase there that you're saying is because of the increase of reserves at the central bank. Could you please clarify if this is because these were launched previously and which now you have to basically place as cash at the central bank? And going forward, where would you see the impact of this? So how would you basically think about PRWA's increase over the, say, 18 to 24 months in Russia because of that? And secondly, if I may ask, just on the CHF provisions, obviously the – provisioning has increased now, but when I look at the disclosures that you provide, the total coverage seems to be 98% now with 2.1 billion of provisions and set one held against it. In the first quarter, it was 99% with 1.7 billion euros of provisions and set one held against it. So it seems that denominator has increased this quarter. If you could kindly explain why that's happened and how you see also the future trajectory there, that would be very helpful. Thanks very much.

Thank you. So if I may start with your Russian question, the RWAs. Indeed, the risk weight for the Russian central bank is, believe it or not, for ruble above 100%. So all those banks and even the corporates which have under the modeling what we use a better risk with than what we have with with the CBR and as we have to move away from the MOEX, which was also one good source of, or one good place for depositing. So this increases significantly. And you have seen these numbers, as I said, partly because of this change, partly also because of the improved ruble rate. And this is an impact which should also be considered as compared to Q3, to the end of March, that the ruble rate has appreciated significantly, I dare to say. It is difficult to give you a longer view. So I think you can year-end. We tried to figure out or to explain in the CET1 ratio. In the long run, it depends also very much from the customer behavior. So what we assume is, of course, the reduced loan book. I think on the other hand, we will see how Russian customers deal with our very strict approach, paying no interest and some other limitational factors, also our reduced payments. I think we sooner than later will understand to what extent also the liability side will start shrinking, and then this will have also an impact on the RWA requirements. Hannes, please.

Neeman, thanks for your question, and I'm happy that you also spotted it yesterday when we have done our final preparation. I was also asking my dear colleagues to give me the details on how these things have changed and there would be two immediate things I want to point you at. The one is that, of course, the FX part, because we have seen an appreciation, this is increasing somehow the underlying stock. And the second thing is, of course, that partly also provisions have been used because of experienced losses. So, you know, the one is that we have built up provisions, and the other thing is that now provisions are being utilized when we have a final ruling on the cases outstanding. So that is the reason why we have seen then the changes you clearly observed when it comes to the overall coverage. And the second thing, most probably what we also have done is that initially in our coverage, we were also mainly focusing on the Swiss-ranked loan portfolio. And there you could also already see that we have a coverage of a buffer coverage above the loan amount outstanding. But now, of course, you also have to consider seeing the current dynamic that we see also Euro lenders and borrowers to reach out and find the settlement. These are the main reasons. Thanks for your question.

That's super helpful. Thanks very much. If I may just follow up on one comment, and this is Do you have any early indications at all how the Russian customers are reacting to your more strict offering right now?

We saw an outflow of liabilities, but not at a huge level. You can see this if you compare the numbers. I mean, as I said, as we report in euros, one has to consider also the ruble impact. So we see a reduction in dollars. We see a reduction also in rubles. Not a big amount. I think only in the course of the fourth quarter, we will get a better understanding what dynamics we will then have to face.

That's great. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to meet Nims with UBS.

Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for the presentation. A couple of questions, please. First one on NII and interest rate sensitivities. Ilan, you have mentioned that you try to hedge NII as much as possible, and hence quite pleased with the NII development in the quarter. Also, I guess the increase in NII guidance is a reflection of that. Could you perhaps talk a little bit about the implementation of those hedges? And secondly, if you could update us on your latest rate sensitivities, primarily in Euro terms, but also in some of the local currencies for the larger operating countries. The second topic would be Russia and the Russian exit. You mentioned that so far you have not found a solution that satisfies the need of all parties. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on that. What was really the biggest obstacle or what has been the biggest obstacle and what are the current options that you're reasonably pursuing? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for your questions and to the NAI sensitivity, what I understand the What most of you prefer is a simple 100 basis point shocks and what the expected 12-month impact would be. And we're using here the sensitivity analysis from end of June. And to give you an idea, so reduction by 100 basis points now over the various currencies in countries to give you some ideas. Yeah, in the Czech, for example, it would be, this is a bank with a sizable book, in the euro currency around minus 12 million and in the local currency minus 8, so around minus 20. Hungary, less impact on the euro, more on the local currency, also in total 20 million. Slovakia, more sensitive, 28 million. Croatia, 12. They only have euros. Then Romania significantly, so 12 million in euros and 23 million in the local currencies of 35. Serbia also very sensitive given their size with around 30 million. Again, both in the countries. I don't know if you're interested in Russia here. It would be around 70 million. and in Ukraine around 14. So this adds up to around 220 million for the group and 150 without Russia and Belarus. So here in this you have built in all those hedge positions already. Otherwise, the impact would be, of course, bigger given the size of the banks. Now to your second question, which is Russia. What we have to satisfy is the approval of at least five five involved institutions. There is the Russian Central Bank and the Russian administration. Then, of course, it's the European Central Bank and the Austrian FMA. And, of course, we also align with OFAC. The reason for that is we want to have a smooth transaction. We want to reduce the risks between potential signing and closing as good as we can so the idea is to get the informal okay by all these institutions which I have mentioned and they have of course different views and the core of this first phase is to introduce the terms and conditions of the sales agreement and the potential names of the customers. Currently, we assume that highest probability would be that we can sell around 60%, so we will have to keep 40%. a spin-off in these days. I would say we have not given up on this idea, but it's rather to be complete on all the options what we have. So the obstacle is to get the approval of all these authorities. I think the expectations what one can have around the commercial terms are well known. Of course, in these days, given the the high overcapitalization one can hope for hopefully for a price book multiple of one around that maybe a little bit less we'll see and then you have the maximum sales price of around the maximum 50 and then you have the exit tax which either the seller or the buyer has to pay. So this is it in a nutshell, but it's this approval of these various authorities. For us, this is very important for the one reason, as I said, not to have negative surprise during the phase between signing and closing, but also then after signing, We have to keep 40%. That's the basic assumption now. And you need an understanding that also the bank afterwards is not sanctioned. So let's say the probability is very low given that it is done majority on maybe by a Russian shareholder.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to Gabor Kiminy with Autonomous Research.

Hi. A few follow-up questions from me, please. Maybe the first one on the Russian exit. So if you were to deconsolidate, what would be the treatment of the overlay provisions? I think you are flagging some kind of 280 million of Russia overlay. Could this be released? The other question I had was on Poland. Now I understand that part of the portfolio, now you have around 100% coverage, I understand you also have a portfolio which has been repaid already. Can you share how much in Swiss franc and euros have been repaid, who I understand may potentially still come and see the banks? There's a second question. And thirdly, on NII, I think in H1, your core NII was annualizing at around 4.3 billion. So, yeah, I mean, that's a bit above what you are guiding for the full year. So I guess the question is what you see coming in the second half, which makes you relatively cautious.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, the overlays in Russia will remain in the bank, of course, and this is part of the final valuation and negotiation, of course, with the potential buyer to what extent the buyer would consider this as part of the overcapitalization. I mean, you have all this... smaller impacts on additional tax and whatsoever, but it remains in the bank and probably then can be released maybe sooner or later. But this is then a new policy. Thank you.

Annette will answer it.

Wait, wait, wait. We're not quick enough. So the second question was around Poland. As it's about the Swiss mortgages, repaid ones. Here, Gabor, I think what we are waiting before we have a better understanding is what is the ruling of the the Supreme Court, the civil chamber of the Supreme Court in Poland, and then we will have a new idea on what it could be. The outstanding, so we still believe that the highest risk is with what is not rebates, so what is the outstanding now? This is why we focus on that. Maybe in the course of this year, we will also get a better understanding of repaid loans, but this is definitely too early to give any numbers. In terms of the NII annualized, I mean, in my answer before, I tried to share the sensitivity. I mean, yeah, indeed, we see, you see that the, There is a negative trend in this, as I said in my speech, not at a high speed. But if you run through the various countries, then of course we would expect, as I said before, in Austria, so in the book of the bank here, we see from all the areas, we see the asset margin here and there under pressure. we see that as we have no, almost no in the Austrian business, almost no retail deposits. And if you say, yeah, but you do have some retail deposits in the Poshberg asset, then here we have an adjustment once a year. And this has to be also reflected here. And there we still see an increase. And of course, till year end, I somehow touched it, but the biggest impact we expect in addition to Austria will be in Hungary, maybe 40 million compared to your run rate and another, let's say, around 10 in Romania and in Croatia and then smaller ones in others. This is the reason why we see a drop from the annualist 4.3 to rather 4.1.

Very clear. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll go next to Johannes Forman with HSBC.

Good afternoon, everybody. Johannes Forman, HSBC. Three questions, please. First of all, on your policy of a DPS accrual, excluding the Russian business. What impact would a price book zero scenario have on this dividend payment? As this most likely would trigger at least a technical loss in the P&L. And you said that it would have no impact on AT1 and TA2 as the buckets are filled, but still, what's your understanding of the reaction of the ECB to such a technical loss. Secondly, could you give an update on the sale of the Belorussian unit you announced on 14 February that this was in good stages, but we haven't heard anything since then. And last but not least, really how realistic is this? Did you say 500 million impact from Polish FX this year? And couldn't it be rather more this year or next year? And please help me understand why you think that the size of the legacy book doesn't matter currently. Other competitors eat differently.

Indeed, you're right that the way we look at it in a price book multiple zero in the deconsolidation case, One can say, why at all are you concerned about this huge loss? Nevertheless, it is a loss. There is, in this 14.7, there is no dividend assumption. So no dividend assumption. Of course, if it happens then then we would we would need to to consider as the rest of the group is basically doing quite well so when we talk about belarus um yeah this is um an ongoing uh discussion negotiation with uh with uh the um The potential buyer, there is only one. Given the time since we thought we could agree on a deal, quite a lot of time has passed. Some technical questions have arisen as well. So we are in discussion. Yeah, we might slightly adjust also the terms. Maybe not to our benefit. But we will see. So still in the range of possible transaction. Otherwise, we would have already made a public statement. But the timeline, difficult to say.

Well, Johannes, on regarding, because you followed up on the 500 million euros, Poland, and also to the question raised by Gabor, Well, the 500 million euros for the full year when it comes to the litigation provision is the best guess what we can now currently share with you in the market. And I think that that is a prudent assumption and the best one what we can currently say. We did not say repaid books doesn't matter. That's very important. Of course, it do matter. But I think it's fair to say that it's more accurate that we see a higher risk currently still in the outstanding loans. because we have still too many uncertainties before we can quantify it accurately. And one last thought is you have discussion ongoing locally when it comes to the status of limitation and also legally, you know, I'm not a legal expert, I'm a risk manager, but as a legal expert, you could say, well, both parties have fulfilled their legal contraction. So we have, we borrowed the money, the money was repaid, and both parties have honored their obligation. And that's the reason why we are more mindful with the repaid part of the loan book. And secondly, also, as we see, it is the current, the outstanding loans who are still suing us. And last thought, you know, we also have really people where we are pretty confident that they would not sue us because of their local status or because of their background and, and, and. So that's the reason why at this time we are focusing on the outstanding loans and let's see how much headache the rebate part of the loan book will still give us. Thank you for your question.

Johannes, I have to correct my statement. Give me one more time. So the team made me aware that they have in the 14.7 CT1, so in the zero, deducted also a dividend of 1.5. So I was too pessimistic. Sorry for creating confusion, but also happy to deliver a good message.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Ricardo Revere with Mediobanca.

Thanks. Thanks for taking my questions. Good afternoon, everybody. A couple, if I may. The first one is, again, on Russia. Correct me if I – just tell me if I understand it correctly. The more you reduce your loan book – The more you free up deposits, given that cash cannot get out of Russia, and you cannot lend in Russia, and so you are obliged to park this liquidity to the central bank, the more your capital goes down, because your risk-weighted assets keep going up, because sovereign in Russia is weighted 100% or maybe more than 100%. Is this what's happening?

Perfectly, Ricardo. Ricardo, perfectly right. And I should have given the risk weight. So the MOEX risk weight is around 20%. Russian financial institutions is around 50% to 75%, whereas CBR is around 100%. So you are fully right. it's significantly increasing. I mean, I'm not that much worried about it, whatever it means, because we are steering the group at zero price book multiple deconsolidation, which is somewhere between 14.5 and 14.7, 14.8, whatever the development will be. So, yeah, wherever it develops, it's... It's fine. It's fine. Sorry, you might have another question.

No, no, but is this something that you are discussing with the ECB? Because the more you are successful in the leveraging the loan book, the more your capital requirement goes up, which is a bit counterintuitive if I may. The second question I have is still related to risk-weighted assets. Now, with Basel IV to be introduced on the 1st of January, did you be in the position to give us an idea what would be the impact on day one, so January 25, and what might eventually be the fully loaded impact? And then something related to this. Yes, about that. When it comes to your dividend policy, it's okay, you run the bank, including Russia, but the regulated entity includes Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong. So I was wondering whether, let's say, if you reduce the book, the loan book, but you cannot get rid of deposits, so your risk with the deficit go up and up and up. Could this be a matter of a problem for you in case you're offering zero remuneration and all the things you're doing, charging ITs on deposits and current accounts does not prove successful? Is it something that we should be worried about? Thanks.

To your action question. So I'm not worried about it. So I assume at least we are in – I dare to say in a permanent dialogue with the ECB, the ECB is aware of this. We have intensively discussed this and yeah, it's, I mean, you have seen that the perception of MOEX has changed internationally and this is what we also have to accept. My view is Yeah, the Russian bank more and more will be a bank with less and less loans and more and more cash, which is with the central bank, which gives a very good Russian CT1 ratio and whatever happens on group level is not important.

Ricardo, you also asked regarding the Basel IV impact. Well, to the best of our current calculation and assessment, we would believe that credit risk may come down by around about on the RBI group, ex-Russia, Belarus, around about 3.5, 3.8 billion euros. Op risk will slightly increase by around about 2 billion euros. And as we're all being aware of that the fundamental review of the trading book has been postponed to 2026, but also here we would assume a certain relief of a billion to 1.5 billion euros. Hopefully this helps.

Yes, it's very helpful. All those numbers, should I consider them on day one? Absolutely.

Besides the fundamental review of the day of the trading book, you may not assume on day one, but credit risk and op risk you may assume with 2025, indeed.

And would this be more or less of the same as fully loaded? More or less.

Say again?

Would it be more or less the same numbers on a fully loaded basis with the 72% output flow?

Yes, this is our assumption as of today. Okay. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. We'll go next to Lee Street with Citigroup.

Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. I have two on Russia please. If you manage to achieve a sale of 60% and are left with a 40% stake, is it fair to assume that you will be permitted to receive dividends as it relates to that 40% stake from the Russian bank? And my second question is if you're not able to achieve a sale or a spin-off over time in a year or two, I mean, Is it tenable just to have a Russian bank with a big amount of equity and some deposits at the central bank? I mean, is that something that, you know, I mean, what's the end game if you're unable to achieve a sale or a spin-off? Those would be my two questions. Thank you very much.

Well, the connection was rather bad, but I hope I can grab your questions. So, of course, if we... We hope, look, we hope so. If we have to keep 40%, we work under the assumption if dividends are payout, our share is 40%. So this is the first part of any decision. We work under the assumption that only dividends will payout if we also would have access to these dividends. Nevertheless, I mean, one cannot exclude the risk that the money would be on an S account in Russia, and we would have limited access to that. But the basic assumption is, yes, we assume that we also would receive dividends. Now to your second question, if we cannot sell, what is then the outcome? I mean, if we just look forward 18 months till end of 2026, then we will have a land book, which is half of what we have now. So then around 3 billion or so, 3 billion land book. And I assume they still make profit over the next years. Then we have a land book of 3 billion. equity of above 6 billion euros depending on the ruble rate and as Ricardo asked before I don't know where the deposits will be and what impact this would then have on the CT1 ratio of the group but the request of the ECB as a mean to de-risk the sanction risk the reputational risk this is what we implement it's not Not necessarily the best state what you might imagine, but in this direction we are heading.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll go next to Simon Nellis with Citibank.

Hi. Thanks very much for the opportunity. Just one last quick one from me, and that would be on the Hungarian windfall tax. Just wondering if you have reflected the removal of the tax relief if you buy long-dated securities in the second quarter number, or is that ahead of us in the second half and how much that impact would be? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what you think the impact of the increase in the financial transaction tax in Hungary and the introduction of a new transaction tax on FX transactions will be. And then if there's any other movements in regulatory news in the region, I think the Czechs were thinking also of modifying or imposing a new sector tax. What's the latest on that?

Thank you.

Yeah, this windfall taxes, it's really painful, no? It's... It's the status of what our banks are treated. And it seems that the... Difficult for me to assume that, I mean, as you said, the reduced 50, the amount what we can reduce is in Hungary, the 50% of the Gavi tax, of the Gavi bonds, what we have. I mean, the current assumption for 2024 is that it will be slightly lower than what we had paid in the first, what we paid last year.

So we assume it's 44 million.

Yeah. I assume, as of now, the 44 million for the Hungarians. But, yeah, with all the uncertainties and disclaimers, what I can have. Yeah, the transaction tax, what you also mentioned, yeah, transaction tax, 5 to 8 million, so rather smallish compared to the big ones what I mentioned before. And then in the Czech Republic, there is quite a lot of work and discussion ongoing, and I wouldn't dare to make any forecast how this will might end. But there is an intense discussion between government and banking sectors how to adjust this windfall taxes and what to newly introduce.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for all your questions. If you have any more, please remember to press star 1 on your telephone keypad to place your question. The mute function on your telephone needs to be turned off so we can get your signal. We'll go next to Aliana Golub with Goldman Sachs.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. I have one question, please. A local news outlet in Russia reported sometime in July that your Russian subsidiary could be downgraded from systemically important during the next regulatory review. I was just wondering, would that be based on the size of the business or some qualitative metric related to business activity? And is this something that would be of concern to your buyer? Thank you.

Well, I think these were rumors in the press. I mean, one has to admit that the size of the bank is going down significantly. Our understanding is that if that would be the case, this, of course, has some consequences. I think size is not the only criteria to be defined as significant or not, so there are others as well. So we think this is rumors, and I would not expect – I mean, the buyer knows what he's going to buy.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to Krishnendra Dubey with Barclays.

Hi. Hope you can hear me, and thanks for taking my question. I have a couple, actually. So first, on the loan growth, you're talking about a new number, which is 4% to 5%. Could you please break it down into key geographies, and how do you see the different parts of businesses, corporate and retail, doing? And second question is on – sorry to go back again on Russia – I guess in case you're not able to succeed with the sale process and I guess based on a plan, you already have a two-year continuity plan. So would you be able to get money or dividends from Russia in the next two years? Thank you.

Yeah, to your Russian question, of course, if we cannot sell, we would ask for dividends. Yeah, I think then it's in the hand of the authorities there if they would grant us to what extent. I mean that the rules in the past have been fixed and we have seen that some other companies, also banks, have received some dividends. but it's difficult to forecast to what extent we might accept dividend. I mean, one has to be aware that geopolitically the environment is quite volatile, so it's difficult to forecast, but of course we would ask for and apply for and then see what we then would have. I mean, when talking about your first question, the loan expectations, we had some loan growth, as I mentioned, in the first half of the year, as I mentioned, some of it very short term. So this has to be considered. We expect because of that also slightly less than before. than what we have in the first half of the year. The best, so in volume-wise, I think in Slovakia we can expect something. In Romania we can expect something, as I mentioned before. In Romania we had a nice development. Now again in the unsecured loan, little in the In the mortgage business, Slovakia and Czech have some ambitions to grow, so these are the main areas. Maybe still not too much on the mortgage area, but as I said in my introduction, The margin now in the mortgage books, at least for now, are significantly better than they had been last year where we kept the mortgage business only new business, new volume, not to be totally out of the market. So there it's improving, not in all the markets, but with the decreasing key rates, then probably this will come rather next year maybe than this year.

Sure. If I can just have one small follow-up, I think. I guess the previous questions you did highlight dividend of 1.5 has been deducted in 14.7. Have I heard the number correct or like, was it something else?

Yes, so this is if we have a full year view, then this would be 1.5 what we deduct in this calculation. But it's a simulation and not, Not now a dividend announcement. No, it's just for simulating the CC1 ratio.

Sure, not an issue. I was just checking, I think, if I had the number correct. Thanks a lot for taking my question.

Thank you. As there are no further questions at this time, we will now conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation.

Thank you for participating. Thank you, operator. Once again, I wish you a very good summer. Enjoy, recover from your hard work in these days. All the best. Thank you.

Have a nice holiday. Goodbye.

Thank you. You may now disconnect.