Good morning. This is Anita Ogulin welcoming you to ING's first quarter 2020 conference call. Before handing this conference call over to Ralph Hamers, Chief Executive Officer of ING Group, let me first say that today's comments may include forward-looking statements, such as statements regarding future developments in our business, expectations for our future financial performance and any statement not involving an historical fact. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements. A discussion of factors that may cause actual results to differ from those in any forward-looking statements is contained in our public filings, including our most recent annual report on Form 20-F filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and our earnings press release as posted on our website today. Furthermore, nothing in today's comments constitutes an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Good morning, Ralph. Over to you. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first quarter 2020 results call. And for many of you, I thank you specifically because I do know that for many of you it's actually a public holiday today. So thanks for joining us. I truly hope you're all in good shape, healthy in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As always, I'll take you through today's presentation, which is a bit longer than usual because we are trying to give you as much information as possible. And for the Q&A session, as usual, our CFO, Tanate Phutrakul, and our CRO, Steven van Rijswijk, are here with me as well. So let's go through the presentation here. On the key points, the first quarter is not what I would call a standard quarter. For me personally, it's not, as it is the last quarter I'll…

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Mr. Raul Sinha, JPMorgan.

Ralph, I've got maybe 2. One, a very long-term question for you, given we might not get another chance to ask you this. How do you think, Ralph, the riskiness of the loan book at ING has changed since the GFC? I'm sorry for such a long time duration, but it'd be useful to get your perspective just in terms of where do you think the risk concentration might be given the sort of crisis we are seeing? And what are the areas that you're closely managing, particularly if you could touch upon how you think the oil book will react given you had very limited losses in 2015. So how should we think about that, its past and your guide to the future when it comes to your risk costs? And then the second one is just around capital and the moving parts, perhaps some detail there. Could you -- maybe, Tanate, could you give us some more detail around what are the positive driving factors maybe later in the year that might help your capital ratio? I'm thinking about smaller things like the SME supporting factor, the software deduction. Is there anything else you can do in terms of managing the loan book? And if you'd like to flag perhaps the credit risk migration, which was a positive in this quarter, does that become negative going forward? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Raul. Yes, so I think for the people around the table, I can actually kind of take you through how it all has changed. Remember, when we were in the financial crisis at that moment in time, ING was largely a savings bank, using those savings to invest in bonds, and we had quite some concentration risk in some of these investment portfolios. And these…

And then Raul, just adding your question with respect to capital, I think you're right, those -- we are monitoring the changes in CRR quite carefully, whether it's the SME supporting factor. When we're looking forward, for example, for the RTS on the software capitalization to benefit from that. And also, I think we're looking at their flexibility in terms of how prudential value adjustments and CVA will be treated over time. So these things will have a positive impact on the capital of ING going forward. And lastly, of course, as we have mentioned over the quarters, that with the implementation of Basel IV, which is being delayed, we are still working on management actions, right, to make sure that we optimize our risk-weighted assets. Whether it's data, whether it's treatment of sovereign exposure, those efforts are ongoing. And part of the positive risk migration that you see in Q1 is also to this improvement, for example, in data that we have.

The next question is from Mr. Pawel Dziedzic, Goldman Sachs.

Two questions from me as well. The first one is on cost of risk, and thank you for all the comments you made so far. I was hoping that you can maybe give us a better insight into the cost of risk trajectory in the coming quarters. And I know there is a lot of uncertainty. But essentially, to what extent you feel you have front-loaded any of the costs? And how it can develop going forward? You booked 42 basis points in Q1. And if we go back to Slide 7, which very helpfully show us it's close to peak levels of 2009 and 2013. So could you comment -- again, this is a longer-term question, but could you comment if this crisis is likely to be similar in magnitude or perhaps greater than those 2 peaks in the past? And I think more specifically, if you can, you mentioned that the assumptions that you are relying on for Stage 2 provisioning have deteriorated somewhat already. But could you outline your baseline scenario that you took to calculate Stage 2 provisioning this quarter with regards to things you mentioned, so length of the lockdown, effectiveness of government scheme and pace of macro recovery? So that would be the question on cost of risk. And also, if I can squeeze in the second question, it will be just on the cost initiative. So I think you mentioned in your press release and in your presentation earlier that with uncertainty in the current environment, you will need to have another look at the cost base. Can you just give us a sense on what initiatives you're looking at? Which part of the bank? And what exactly do you mean by that? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Okay. I'll start with the second…

All right. That's very helpful. And maybe just to follow-up. Do you feel you front-loaded any of the losses in Q1? Or you feel that as environment gets perhaps or expectations get a little bit tougher, this charge essentially will remain high or maybe slightly higher in the coming quarters? What would your process result in if the environment is slightly more challenging than you thought at the end of March? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Thanks, Pawel. I mean, the process will remain the same. So we will again look at the end of the next quarter in terms of the economic indicators that we then have, given the models that we then have and the activities that we then have, and then we will look at our calculations again, so that will not change. Clearly, by definition, the Stage 2 provisions that we have taken, including, by the way, the Stage 2 overlay for oil and gas, is forward looking because those are not loans that are currently not performing anymore. So by definition, that's forward looking.

The next question is from Mr. Benoit Petrarque, Kepler Cheuvreux.

Yes. First of all, Ralph, good luck at UBS. I think your digital focus has been very useful, and you saw it right since 2013, so well done. All my questions will be on risk -- well, almost. The first one is actually on the oil and gas exposure. It seems that you are pretty relaxed actually on this exposure, and there's also quite a big gap with the market participants, which have been, I must say, quite scared by this oil exposure, so I wanted to try to reconcile that view. I mean, you had an opportunity to take some Stage 2 provisioning in Q1, you did not take that. Is that just a matter of, you took the oil price end of March and you will relax on that level, or what do you see clearly on this book? And what can we expect? Because this is a big gap again with what we see on the market and what you booked this quarter. The second one linked to risk as well was on the leverage finance. So Page -- Slide 30. I see an Asian exposure of 39, I guess, 39%, I guess this is a typo. But more focusing on this U.S. leverage finance exposure, could you talk a bit about your sector exposure specifically to the Americas? And what type of statutory you see currently on this portfolio? And also the developments over the quarter? And then finally, on the state-guaranteed loans, I was just curious to get the take-up of those guaranteed loans at the end of April, and how much you expect going forward. And also what is the kind of pricing model for guaranteed loans, maybe starting with the Netherlands? I heard that it could be a quite generous pricing model for…

You do not disclose the Stage 3 on that book specifically because this is just diversified and across different sectors, I guess? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Yes. That's correct. But maybe I should then add to it that the number of Stage 3 provisions on individual files for this book have been very benign in the first quarter.

Your next question is from Mr. Stefan Nedialkov, Citi. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Stefan, you may be on mute.

Sorry about that. It's Stefan from the Citi bank's team. A couple of questions on my end. Number one, in terms of dynamics between loans and deposits, so deposits went up quite a bit, loans went up quite a bit. Can you just give us some color on what you expect to happen over the next few quarters? Are we going to start seeing more of a drawdown on deposits from corporates as the liquidity needs really start hitting? What is happening with the undrawn lines? I believe you had around EUR 120 billion or so at the end of the year. How much of that has been drawn down? What are you expecting for utilization going forward as well? So that's on loans and deposits. And secondly, in terms of your capital targets, you are pointing to a pretty solid MDA buffer of 400 basis points. Would you consider moving to -- moving CET1 targets in case your RWA consumption shoot up through the remainder of the year? Or are you sticking with an absolute as far as you can see at this point? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Okay. So on the general dynamic, Stefan, if economies shrink, the need for working capital decreases. So the general dynamic normally is that liquidity in companies is freed up. Clearly, what we saw in the beginning of the crisis is just in order to secure funds for these corporates to get through in the beginning and the uncertain moments in the -- when the markets were so volatile, they basically want to reserve quite some liquidity in order to have it for unforeseen developments. But if you kind of stay away from an initial kind of action there and you just look through the normal economic cycle with a decrease in…

So I think as we mentioned, if you go into this particular situation and crisis, you want to be liquid and you want to be well capitalized, right? And the fact that, just to complement Ralph's point on deposits, it's really the strength of ING that we fund ourselves predominantly with retail deposits, and that's something that, suddenly, we're not going to discourage more inflow of deposit during challenging times like this. And from a capital target perspective, you're right that we are sitting on a 3.5% cushion compared to MDA. But as the regulators have pointed out, some of these relief that they provide in terms of capital relief may be temporary in nature, right? So some of it may come back. But having said that, we're going to take an assessment, as we mentioned, in terms of capital structure and dividends. Would look at that at the end of Q3. So beginning of Q4, we will give you more updates then.

Okay. If I may, just a quick follow-up in terms of loan growth. As far as you can see it for 2020, would you say 0% overall at the group level is something realistic? Or should we expect something more positive than that? And in terms of the deposit base, this increase in deposits, how does that affect your replicating portfolio strategy and, obviously, implications for the NIM going forward? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: So Stefan, on the loan growth, so clearly, there's 2 different businesses here. So on the Wholesale Banking side, that will kind of be pretty limited from what we expect. You will have the occasional maybe drawdowns, and there's some under those committed revolvers in times of uncertainty. But overall, they will make less investments, long-term investments. So less term loans needed and less working capital needed. So on the Wholesale Banking side, we do expect that to be limited in terms of loan growth. On the Retail Banking side, it's actually -- it's the machine that continues. Clearly, depending on the markets in which we are active, the log down doesn't really provide for a lot of opportunity to look for a new house. And therefore, the mortgage business has come off in some markets. But in many other markets, like in Germany, we see it just continuing. And we have -- we see still volumes coming through. In the Dutch and the Belgium markets, we also see quite some refinancing happening with -- on the mortgage side. So honestly, I think on the Retail Banking side, you may still expect, given our model, some growth because we're taking market share off the branch banks, so to say. So that's where we are. Then on the NIM going forward, well, clearly, the money that is deposited by Wholesale Banking clients is -- we don't replicate it. I mean there's no replicating value in those deposits because there is no term aspect to that. So from that perspective, it doesn't kind of affect the replicating portfolio. And on the NIM side, the only impact it will then have is the lengthening of the balance sheet, but as said, we already see it moving back. So I don't think it will have a big effect going forward. On the Retail Banking side, as we see, most of the -- basically the governmental support schemes in salary support and consumers basically spending less given the uncertainties, you can expect the deposit base either directly in savings or in current account to continue to increase. And we're not changing our replicating portfolio for that because if you move away from that -- the characteristics of that money and then, basically, start inherently taking a position on it, which is not what we do.

Your next question is from Mr. Robin van den Broek, Mediobanca.

I hope you can hear me. I just wanted to follow up on the risk migration within the book. I mean over the last years, you have sort of consistently shown 15 to 20 basis points tailwind per quarter. You've already briefly mentioned that -- what the drivers are for that. But I was just wondering, I think the are some worries about this turning into a headwind at some point. But what are the critical drivers for that to happen? Is it the LTVs within your mortgage portfolio that's the most important driver? And can you say something about the likelihood of this becoming a similar headwind into the future? That's the first question. And the second question is coming back on, yes, your target level, sorry, I know you want to clarify more with Q3. But I appreciate all the detail you've given on cost of risk, which I think is quite reassuring. But at the moment, your MDA level is 10.5% roughly. I think a lot of peers are alluding to willing to keep a ballpark, roughly, 200 basis points on that level. So if this whole world, basically, will deteriorate much quicker and much worse than we currently can see, what is a critical level for you to maintain, basically, apart from the 13.5% Basel IV target, which it's a longer-term target, basically, at the moment? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Okay. Thanks, Robin. So on the first question, if you look at the risk migration in the first quarter of this year, basically, it's an improvement of the collateral value that we've seen in different markets, mainly the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Poland. So that's basically on the mortgages. That's not so strange. But if you see what happened in the first quarter or last part of the first quarter, also in that regard, and I point back at the previous crisis, what you see in many of these markets is that the impact on the loan to value in Netherlands, Germany and Belgium was quite limited. And if there was impact at all, it was delayed. And that, of course, has to do with the social structure and the way the unemployment laws would work here where you still get money for quite a lengthy period of time. After which, people typically will find a job. So that's the reason why we are not so concerned about big shifts in loan-to-value levels for these mortgage portfolios. But true, if you look at, let's say, the macroeconomic circumstances, that will have an impact in your PDs. And that basically means if your PDs increase, that will cause negative risk migration.

Then to answer your question on management buffer against requirement. I think prior to Q1, we had a management buffer of approximately 175 basis points, right, from the MDA trigger at 11.89% to 13.5% or around 13.5%. And clearly, that buffer has increased to 3.5%. And as I mentioned before, some of it may revert back because countercyclical buffers may come back, but we also know that some of it is structural, right? For example, the implementation of CRD V, that's clearly something that will be with us going forward. So I think, again, to say, we look at also post Basel IV implementation, whenever that may come, and we'll give guidance on that. But clearly, there is room for a narrowing of our current management buffer given what I've said.

Okay. Ralph, good luck at UBS. Any words on your succession? I mean probably difficult to say something there. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Well, I'm not working on it is, so that's the word. No, clearly, so this is the Supervisory Board working on it. The process is followed thoroughly. Until the 30th of June, I'm in the saddle and running this beautiful company. Further questions? Well, according to our information, Omar was the next one to raise a question.

Can you hear me? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Yes. Yes, sure. Go ahead.

Great. Just a couple of questions. Firstly, on commissions, could you give us a sense of what you think is sustainable versus what's more a function of the Q1 volatility given the number was extremely strong. I know there's seasonality, but should we basically be looking at the EUR 50 million sequential improvement as a pretty good guide of that? Otherwise, maybe another way to look at it would be how much growth the 170,000 in new investment accounts in March and April represents in percentage terms? I don't know what the base is. And then the second question is just a clarification. Sorry, if I may have missed this, but could you give us the actual amounts of payment moratorium across the entire group? As of today, would be even better. I know you mentioned 100,000 accounts, but just the absolute loan amounts would be helpful. And since I'm last, I'll be cheeky and try and fit in a third. But I didn't really get the answer from the -- one of the first questions as to what the actual GDP assumptions were that you used at end of March based on consensus. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Okay. Thank you, Omar. So on fees, yes, there's many different ways to cut this one. But in effect, what we have been telling you is that we think the model, in the end, the more primary customers you get, the more new products you introduce digitally, the more likely they will actually take products that you offer digitally. And what we've seen over the last couple of quarters by the introduction of new products, new services, but also by the introduction of increased fees on, for example, payment packages in order to stimulate specific behavior, like in Germany, we have introduced…

Great. And just as a follow-up for Steven, maybe a stupid question, but how do you define direct oil price risk in your oil and gas book? I only ask because some of the high-profile trade finance companies that have encountered difficulties recently, I'm guessing, would be in the no direct oil price risk as per Slide 32 of your slides. So I'd be interested in exactly how this is defined. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: So you're right on that one, and Steven can fill me -- can add. So you're right that the trading commodity finance clients in this one, we don't see as directly exposed to oil price risk because the value of the carry is, in itself, financed, and therefore, will also fully repay what you finance. So they are outside of that bucket. And what is normally determined as to be exposed directly to oil price risk is where the repayment of our loan is literally determined by the value of a barrel of oil and the number of barrels produced so -- by the well and the operator. So -- and that's what we call project finance, and so that's what we see as directly related to the oil price risk. Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Yes. I couldn't have said any better.

The next question is from Mr. Tarik El Mejjad, Bank of America.

Just a couple of questions, please. First, on capital. And coming back on Raul's question about the potential headwinds in terms of capital. Could you maybe give us just kind of magnitude in terms of the SME support factor and the software amortization in basis points? And then still on capital, I wanted to understand why you would put back only half of the TRIM impact you booked in Q4. I mean what's -- why only half? Why not all of it? And just to understand that. And then on the dividend, I mean, you ring-fenced the 2019 final dividend. That seems to be like a Dutch approach, very different from how the French approached it. Can you maybe explain -- I mean, while -- and that, clearly, is a signal that you still intend to pay the dividend, but just to understand. And equally, I find it a bit contradictory with the fact that you don't accrue for dividend for 2020. And then second question is on costs. I mean, Ralph, can you maybe set out how actually it's difficult to or not to continue your cost initiatives in the current societal and political environments where, I mean, it's very difficult to move people from a function to another, relocate, cuts, jobs and so on. That would be very helpful to give us an indication on that. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Tarik, you're right. Clearly, the -- on the cost side, if this is about massive restructuring, you're right, this is not the time to do so where a lot of people are uncertain and you don't know what the job market is all about. So that is very clear. And so from that perspective, I think it is warranted that you've got to take a look at it…

Adding on software, this is Tanate, it's really depending on the RTS to be issued by EBA. If they say simply only software which are purchased, then maybe on the low 10 basis points for us. And if they're more liberal, including developed software, software deployment, it could be potentially as high as 20 basis points. That's the range between 10 to 20, but we are awaiting the RTS on software to come out. Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: And then on the capital, if you look at our models, we also have an own model risk management framework with many rules and definitions that's based on the regulatory technological standards. Based on these standards, we also do more validation of all of our regulatory models at a given cadence. And in that cadence, then we say, "Okay, where do we, based on the newest and latest regulatory technological standards, need to make changes?" And on that changes, we take an add-on. Separately, we have looked at, "Okay, if we look at the potential outcome of a TRIM mission, what could that in total mean?" Hence, we have taken this EUR 13.2 billion. Now we take that back, but we leave, as part of that, our own improvements still in there. And hence, we've taken out of the demand, EUR 6.6 billion.

The next question is from Mr. Benjamin Goy, Deutsche Bank.

Two questions, please, from my side. First, just wondering on your markets outside the market leaders. So do you see the crisis as an opportunity to gain further market share? Or is it at the moment, more protecting the book and more risk management focus? And if so, then maybe you can specify countries or products, in particular, willing to grow on the lending side? And then secondly, I mean, back to trade and commodity finance, I think it was now the third more visible loss in less than 3 years, and I might have missed some smaller ones here and there. So does this change your appetite in TCF? Or pretty much still the same? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Thanks, Benjamin. No, I think that the -- in C&G, you know we have a model that is very attractive to customers. And even if we would want -- I mean, if customers really want to come to ING, we're very happy for them to come to ING now. So that is in terms of general banking, it is in terms of current accounts, savings, investment products for which we don't really need appetite in itself. On the other side, so in terms of whether we also see this as an opportunity to take market share on the asset side of the business, clearly, there, we have to be careful not to have too lenient underwriting standards. So we've basically looked already on these underwriting standards to ensure that also given the current uncertain circumstances, we don't kind of load on customers that may not be able to repay those loans. So yes, so to the extent the model itself, our business model itself, the digital model itself provides the opportunity at same risk appetite. We will certainly continue to…

The next question is from Mr. Kiri Vijayarajah, HSBC.

Just a couple of questions from my side. Firstly, coming back to RWAs, clearly lots of moving parts. But in terms of the underlying, underlying, I mean, what's the organic growth rate in RWAs we should really be thinking about for the rest of the year, if we park a lot of that regulatory noise to one side? And then just linked to that, coming back to the credit facility drawdowns in wholesale, I think you said that started to reverse after the quarter end. So could we have a sense of magnitude? Do you think most of that EUR 11 billion, I think you said, drawdown, does that fully reverse, you say, by the end of this year? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: I think on the RWA, I mean, typically, if you look at our RWA density, that's around 60%. So if you project a certain growth, and I think we alluded to what Ralph said, what we thought about Wholesale Banking and what we thought about Retail Banking, then that's basically the calculation that you could make. If you look at drawdowns of -- maybe I should add in RWA that if you look at retail growth compared to Wholesale Banking growth that density of RWAs in retail is lower than in wholesale. So I think that gives you some pointer also of how to calculate it. If you look at the drawdowns, how much has it come back? Yes, let's say, half of the normal level that we see. So the levels that it increased with, half of it came back. And we have disclosed in the presentation how much the loan book in Wholesale Banking grew, especially in general lending, and half of that came back already.

The next question is from Ms. Martina Matouskova, Jefferies.

I just kind of like -- many questions have been answered. But if I go back to the KYC program, just thinking if there is any risk it could be delayed this year with all the lockdowns and everything, or what is the progress on that? And second question, apologies for coming back to the oil and gas book, but I think you made a sort of stress -- internal stress test internally on oil and gas back in 2015. And if I remember, sort of the maximum loss you predicted was about EUR 300 million. And I wonder how this ties back to the current situation. You booked EUR 45 million -- EUR 41 million this year, and how to kind of tie this back more? I know it's difficult to reconcile the figures, but more or less how the conditions have changed on the kind of -- if you were supposed to -- if you were to run this test again? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Well, thank you, Martina. So on KYC, as you know, the enhancement program has a couple of pillars. It's got the pillar of look-backs, and that's generally done. It's got the pillar of file enhancement, which basically means how can we go through the client files, how do we make sure that we have all the information, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Clearly, in the beginning, when people needed to work from home, that was kind of maybe we lost a bit of productivity there. It may still -- COVID itself may still kind of impact some of the -- some of that file enhancement given the productivity loss that you have a little bit on the more operational side of things. So yes, there could be some of that, but we…

The next question is from Ms. Anke Reingen, RBC.

Just following up on Martina's question. On your $20 stress test, a little bit higher, is that on top of what you've already provisioned? Or is that gross of what you have already provisioned? And in that context, would it be possible when you talk about the 2.4% Stage 3 ratio in oil and gas, what the coverage ratio is? And then secondly, just on net interest income. In the past, you've talked about a flattish outlook. Is that still achievable given the many moving parts? Or is it just too uncertain? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: The $20 stress test, that is gross because in the end, you look at -- also at what you already provisioned in your Stage 2. The second question was focused on... Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: So the NII, so I can do that. Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: No. No. There was one more question.

That would be the -- I mean... Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Oil coverage ratio, yes, yes, I see it. No, the coverage ratio, we do not disclose. But the 2.4% is for the oil and gas book as a whole. So again, I want to stress test the oil and gas book that is under attention, at least under my attention, is the directly exposed risk to oil and gas price, like we also discussed on one of the previous questions. The 2.4% pertains to the whole of oil and gas book, which is EUR 35 billion. We do not disclose coverage ratios. Ralph?

So it's -- you're not able to give us any more indication about the net hit of $20 price for a longer period? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: I've given, I think, a fair indication that it is a bit above the EUR 300 million that was indicated based on $30 per barrel.

But just to clarify, that's the gross number pre any provisions taken? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Yes. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: So on NII, Anke. So we're looking at a flattish yield curve, and we're managing the margins. As you know, we have very disciplined pricing, so that should continue to help us on the margins there. What is unknown is challenges in new production. New production in Wholesale Banking is going to be limited, so more or less a flattish book if -- and on the Retail Bank, we expect some continue -- to see some continued growth on the book. And then there is this effect that we that we don't know quite how it will work out. But clearly, if you give payment holidays, if you extend the loans, less will be repaid, and that will actually have a -- kind of a positive effect, if you may, on your interest income because, basically, the outstanding will continue at the same level because there was no repayments coming in. So the payment holidays will actually delay the decrease of the book. So the combination of some increase in the retail bank, flattish wholesale and the effect of the payment holidays, margins being managed in a flattish yield curve, we still feel that we can guide around flattish NII for the next quarters.

Your next question is from Ms. Giulia Aurora Miotto, Morgan Stanley.

Two questions from me as well, please. The first one on TLTRO. Of course, new conditions announced by the ECB are quite or at least seem quite interesting for banks, 1% paid. So can you make any comments on -- do you see this as an opportunity? Are you planning to use it? And also on the TLTRO. That's my first question. Then the second question, if I could go back to Slide 30, you disclosed the cap on leverage, which is, in my view, quite high, 6.5x. But do you disclose the average leverage of the portfolio? That would be quite interesting. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Thank you. Tanate?

Yes. Giulia, on TLTRO III, indeed, it's improved from what we've seen before, so 1% based on certain growth rate of our book. So that, we do find attractive, and it's likely that we will utilize that part of the funding. The petrol is less favorable, so I think we would focus more on the TLTR III over the petrol funding. Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Yes. On the leverage book, yes, 6.5x is an absolute cap. I gave it as an indicator. Clearly, on some of the books, that's lower. On our books, it's a bit higher, but at least it will not be above the 6.5x. I put that cap in there to make clear that in a number of structures where they went beyond those levels that we were not going to play ball there and that we do not make any exception. And you run always a risk in these type of structures that you make 1 or 2 exceptions, and before you know it, then you will be called up by our own inconsequential policy, as you did once, why don't you do it twice? What do you do 10 times? So I said, there was no exception. This is it. And here we stick to regardless of the sector. Now the level is below what the cap says. We do not disclose it because one day, it is this, the other day, it is that. And clearly, if the sector is more cyclical, the caps, of course, will be a lot lower.

Your next question is from Ms. Daphne Tsang.

It's Daphne from Redburn. I've got one on capital and one on NIM. On the capital side, would you be able to give an RWA inflation outlook based on your forecast growth in loan book that you indicated earlier around wholesale and retail? And also, any further negative risk migration you would to see for the rest of the year? And also on capital headwind, the Dutch mortgage floor, for example, what is the latest timing and scale, please, that you are expecting to hit? And then on Basel IV, now that you have taken the DoD impact and half of the expected TRIM impact, I am assuming they are somehow overlapping with Basel IV. Could you please give us an update on the expected Basel IV impact on RWA versus your previous guidance, and how much of that you could mitigate? And then my second question around NIM is actually more focused on the loan guarantee schemes. How efficient it is to translate that to the SMEs and corporates at the moment? And what is the impact on NII and NIM you would see for the rest of the year? Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: So thank you, Daphne. On -- so on the NIM, so the NIM is on our total portfolio, our total balance sheet, and these governmental schemes, generally, because they are supported by government guarantee, you could expect the margins to be lower than if you would have a flat-out risk in your book. Having said that, the total book versus the new production coming out of these schemes will not heavily impact the NIM in itself, in my view. And therefore, all the circumstances: the flattening of the yield curve, the lower for longer even, we do still think that the NIM will be, at least in the next quarters, towards the high end of 140s. So whether this may have been a dampening effect and others will have an increasing effect, it's too -- that's too detailed even for us to go through because in the grand scheme of things, the way we calculate the NIM is over the whole balance sheet, and the new production on these government schemes, with maybe a bit lower margin than if you would outright generate these loans, is not going to have the biggest impact in our view. So that's the first one. And the second one, I'm looking at Tanate.

So as mentioned, I mean, we don't give a risk-weighted asset forecast. But as I think Ralph and Steven mentioned, you can look at our loan growth and then make an estimation of what the inflation of the risk weight may be. In terms of negative risk migration, again, I just want to reiterate the point that it potentially will come with the potential changes in property prices. But at the same time, we are taking steps, as we mentioned, in terms of data improvement, sovereign treatment of certain bond holdings, which should mitigate some of that as well. So we can give you color, but not a forecast. The Dutch mortgage add-on, indeed, has been delayed. Our current estimate is that it would have an impact of around EUR 8.4 billion on risk-weighted asset inflation, but that potentially could come over the next couple of years given what the DNB has told us. So if you look at Basel IV, again, as we mentioned, the Dutch mortgage add-on is front-running Basel IV, the TRIM impact is front-running Basel IV, the DoD impact is front-running Basel IV. So a significant part of the Basel IV impact is either already in our numbers or you can define that number over time. And then, of course, we are working on management actions, as we disclosed before.

Is your previous guidance of 15% to 18% inflation still hold? Or that should be reduced to reflect the full-off DoD and TRIM?

So I think we gave guidance back, I think, based on 2017 figures even, whereby we said that, that 15% to 18% represents roughly 2% compression of our core Tier 1 and that we would take management action of roughly 50 basis points, and that remains, including what is already appeared in our numbers that I just alluded to.

And around 20% could be mitigated?

50 basis points.

50 basis points is the mitigated number.

The next question is from Mr. Farquhar Murray, Autonomous.

Sorry for dragging out the call. I will try and stick with 2 questions and keep it brief. Firstly, on Stage 3 impairments, given your kind of macro outlook from here, can you just give us a sense of how you expect those to emerge over the coming quarters? I imagine there's different dynamics between some of the books, and I also just wondered if you could give a bit of sense of where you're seeing emerging stress at the moment? And then secondly, briefly on the favorable risk migration you saw. You've mentioned housing collateral. I presume that was the vast bulk of the 19 bps we saw, but you've also mentioned data improvement. I just wondered if there's a split between those 2 elements. Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: On a positive rating migration, it's basically increasing collateral values. So that's the largest part of the risk migration over the first quarter. Stage 3 macro outlook. Well, if it's -- if it would be there, it would have been Stage 3 and -- sorry, or Stage 2, which it isn't. So yes, we look, of course, at watch list and other early warning indicators. Yes, those are developing and you see that moving up. Again, that will need to play out. So at this point in time, that would be too early to call.

Is there any kind of focus points within that watch list in terms of sub-sectors? Steven Van Rijswijk;Chief Risk Officer: Like we said, we look at the harvest sectors, our aviation, agriculture, hospitality, the leisure sector. That -- those are particular sectors that we look at. And in our case, our sectors has always been small, but we monitor them by the day.

There are no further questions. Ralph Hamers;Chief Executive Officer: Okay. Thank you, operator. Okay, then. Well, thanks all for being on the call. Just to give you a quick summary. I think given the circumstances, we had a good set of commercial and operational results. It's very difficult to look into the future at this moment in time at what will happen. And that's basically why we look at what we do know, and what we do know is that we have a strong business model, a digital business model that actually has tailwinds because of this crisis. We have a strong asset base, and we've shown you much more granularity there today also as to -- for last question, as to the sectors that are specifically hit, we have very small exposure there. We have a very strong funding base and a very strong capital. So if you can't predict the future, then you have to look at what you have. And that basically shows that we are well positioned to go through it and support our clients. But before we close, let me then take this opportunity to first thank my investor relations team here for supporting us and me, personally, for the last 27 calls that we've done. The presentations and the information have always been super prepped, so thanks a lot for that. I think they do a lot of good work for us here, and hopefully, also for you out there. And then let me thank you, the -- basically, the analyst community. You've always taken a very keen interest in ING from the start. And when I started, we were still facing and looking at this bank insurance company that I had to sell the U.S. insurance company, had to list the European insurance company, we had to repay the Dutch state, and all of that, you kind of followed closely. We kept you up to date on that. And then at the same time, we were trying to build a future for the bank, and we decided to go into a digital direction. And I feel that you have followed us and me, personally, with a lot of interest, with a lot of in-depth questions and, therefore, always keeping us on our toes. And I think that's how it should work. I mean you are a critical bunch out there, following us with questions that are often spot on that help us also to stay sharp in order to ensure that we run this company well and that we also prepare for some more difficult times, which, regretfully, we are heading into right now. So thanks for keeping us on our toes. It's made what ING is today, well positioned to enter the crisis. And well, I hope that some of you I will speak to in a different capacity by the fourth quarter of my next employer. Thanks very much. Bye.