ING Groep N.V. (AMS:INGA)

AGM 2015

← View all transcripts

May 11, 2015

Welcome. We have shareholders here and depository receipt holders, representatives of the ING Trust Association and representatives of the Works Council and the press. On stage, at the first row, you see next to me, Walt Hammers, then Patrick Flynn. And Wilfred Nagel is to my other side. Next to me is the Corporate Secretary, Young Willem Fink. At the 2nd row, you see so 2nd row behind me that is, you see the Supervisory Board members from left to right Eric Boyer. That's the other left then to my left. Eric Boie, Hermann Josef Lamberti, Karen Horter, Henk Broking, Joost Kalper, Robert Reibustein, Isabel Martin Castellia. And at the side, the Secretary to the Supervisory Board, Mrs. Liliane van der Meij. And in the front row, you see several people that we may give the floor. They're the senior ING officers. I see Khost Timmermans. Khost, please rise. Bill Connelly Ruul Lauhof our external auditor, Marcel Van Lau I see he has 2 assistants. And later on, we'll hear from Marianne Feorfe. Please rise for a moment. We're at member. This meeting will be in Dutch. We have interpretation channel 1 for English, channel 2 for Dutch. When I entered the auditorium, I heard that there was a shortage of printed agendas, but I saw that we received some additional copies. So I assume that that problem has been solved. For the record, this meeting is being webcast, so you can attend it live via the website. The shareholders and depository receipt holders have been notified in keeping with the law and the articles of association so that this meeting can take legally binding decisions. Shareholders and depository receipt holders have not submitted any proposals to be covered. On the screen, you'll see the issued capital as of 13 April 2015 about 3,900,000,000 ordinary shares rounded to 2,400,000. Ordinary shares were owned by the ING as of the record date and therefore do not count toward the vote. Next, a list of the capital present or represented and the proxy vote cast will be projected on the screen prior to the first vote. The minutes from the meeting on 12 May 2014 have been adopted and signed by the Chairman, the Secretary and the designated depository receipt holder and have been posted on the website since 12 November last year where they've been available for perusal. Mrs. Van der Mey is going to compile the minutes from this meeting and an audio recording is being made of the entire meeting to that end. The executive and supervisory boards are seated here on stage. Okay. I can skip that one. I'd like to designate a shareholder or depository receipt holder to co sign the minutes and we propose Mr. Seitz. He's willing to do this. Please rise. Thank you very much for helping us out. That's a fine ING tradition. And we need you to agree to that we're not going to conduct a vote. I assume you're okay with it. Let's hear a brief round of applause for Mr. Seitzman. Did you want the floor on this subject? You have a remark about the minutes. Let's see whether this is the right time or perhaps later on. Okay, let's hear it. You have the floor. You'll just need to speak at a microphone. Thank you very much. I'm Mr. Bruning, I'm a Private Shareholder from Rotterdam. In preparing for this meeting, I wanted to view the minutes and download them from the Internet, but the PDF was secured with a password. So I took all the necessary precautions, but I was unable to open it. And I think that it was strange to find a PDF that I could easily access on the website. It turned out I could open it straight away, so anybody could have. Well, I'm not sure how you obtained the password or whether you were able to open it without the password, but we'll get there. We have quite a lengthy agenda today. In previous years, we wrapped up well after 6 p. M. And we've had some complaints about that. It's not desirable. We're quite full now in this auditorium, but at around half past 5 or 6 only half of the people will remain and that doesn't feel right. So please keep your questions and comments short and snappy. And when we start with any other business, I'm going to do it slightly differently than we did last year and hopefully we can accelerate a bit. Now as for items 2a through 2f, they'll be addressed separately later on, but Mr. Flonneau of Ernst and Young at Agenda Item 2F will elaborate on the duties performed by the external auditor just as he did last year. Also for the record questions about ING products or services or questions as an ING customer may be addressed to the people outside, then this meeting is not the right place for those questions. When we vote ladies and gentlemen, we will use the electronic handsets. We'll explain this when we start voting. Please don't take the voting handset home with you and return it when you leave this auditorium at the end. Ladies and gentlemen, that takes me to agenda item 2A. This is the report by the Executive Board for 2014, including the sustainability report. We've combined. I'm giving the floor to Mr. Hammers, our CEO. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Great. Thank you, Jerome. Okay. I'm going to briefly review what's happened in IMG in recent years and how we performed throughout the year. I just wanted to say a bit about that. I'm happy to see such a wonderful turnout here. And it shows your commitment and Zelle in attending this shareholders meeting on this fine afternoon. I'm happy to see you here. Okay. The first item concerns restructuring. ING is emerging from diversified financial services. Last year was crucial in that transition. As for the sale of our U. S. Insurance company, We're going we've also got the remainder of insurance operations in Latin America, but there are 2 other crucial items. 1 is launching NN on the stock exchange. That was a big success. NN performed very well. The second crucial matter is our gratitude by repaying the Dutch state early and the good return. Those were very important points for us to wrap up the restructuring properly. That's the first update. The second part, well, what remains of us as a bank? As a bank we're an international financial institution. We have very solid foundations in Europe or a European bank with operations in 40 countries, over 32,000,000 customers. Last year, we added 1,200,000 new customers. We're immensely focused on our customers and that carries over to our Net Promoter Score. Everywhere we operate, we measure both in retail and in Industry Banking, what the customers think of us, whether they think we're better than our competitors and why. And we also assess our areas for improvement. And we aim to be first in the Net Promoter Score in the markets where we operate. And in 9 of those countries, we do rank 1st. And it's that customer focus that has ensured our ongoing growth in the past year as well. So that customer focus was the foundation of the strategy that I touched on last year. It's the Think Forward strategy, in which we've highlighted our targets by enabling people to remain a step ahead both personally and in business. And we try to back this up with our promise to customers providing good insight and easy service and services that are continuously available in every time and place and presenting the services so that customers can do it on their own both technologically and in terms of substance so that they understand which decision they need to take. And as the last part of our customer promise, day after day, we work to improve and to go that extra mile. That's our integral commitment and that's what ensures our success. Now ultimately, in that strategy, we focus on making a difference in the customer experience. That all carries over to the Net Promoter Score. There are 4 priorities. 1st, we aim to get our customers to see us as their primary relationship, not simply a savings bank or a mortgage bank, but we want to be their integral bank with which they have their primary relationship. And that increasingly allows us insight into our customers and helps us serve them better. That's the second one. The third priority is that we want to remain at the vanguard of market developments and innovations in technology. So to embed this as quickly as possible in our services. And if things can be made easier, we want to do so. We want them to be easier. And at the end of the day, we want to extend our horizons beyond banking to see what's happening in that industry and there are other earnings models that we can leverage and need to consider with respect to our competition. Those are the 4 strategic priorities. Now with this focus and these priorities in our Think Forward strategy, we touch on many different fields in society. We figure in the sense of making our retail customers feel that they're in control. So if financial services are complicated, we're there for them and the government is receding in terms of supporting the financial industry and the social surroundings. We also figure we are the economy in support through lending at industry and smallmediumenterprise companies that want to invest. We support them there too. And we try to support companies actively that approach us with interesting proposals specifically about climate control for example. If they want to introduce improvements, we give that a little extra support. So we have a portfolio of €19,500,000,000 in the past year featuring such initiatives. So supporting sustainable transitions is very important in our strategy. And over the past year, after devising the Think Forward strategy, we examined the sustainability as part of that strategy. So it all comes together. The role that we wanted to play has been clarified both in helping retail customers and in helping industry customers. With retail customers, for example, we've launched the financial fitness test so that people can check whether they should save more or save more long term. And this embodies our decade of cooperation with UNICEF. And in recent years, we've managed to provide 1,000,000 children with a good education, not only in the countries where we already operate, but outside as well. That's part of our commitment as well. As for industry customers, we have our own responsibilities for sustainability. And we want to continue reducing our carbon dioxide emissions. The target that we set by 2020 is to cut that by another 20%. And in the past 5 years, we've already reduced it by 43%. That figures in our focus too, as does, as I just mentioned, building financing for sustainable transitions. One example is the portfolio for electricity generation. You see that the share of renewable energy as we call it increasing from 23% to 43% in the total portfolio. That's yet another way that we help improve society and we help control climate change. And we've also decided together with 42 other CEOs and policymakers to appeal to deal with climate change. There was an advertisement in the Financial Times and we were part of that. As for strategy, I'd like to highlight a few of our innovations. And to the extent that you're not only shareholders, but also customers of ING and if you're not a customer yet, we'll try to make you one today. In the past year, we introduced various innovations, For example, voice recognition in the Netherlands and voice activated menu management. In Belgium, we tested password systems based on fingerprints and we launched that in the Netherlands as well. We're doing that in Germany and Turkey as well now. In Spain, we provided a very transparent platform so that our customers know exactly where they stand financially. And then there's tablet technology that enables older customers to feel comfortable with the new technology because it's intuitive. And if they tap on items, they retrieve a lot of new information. These are the things that we're trying to integrate in our customer service. And we travel all over the world to get this ready on that screen. In Germany, for example, where we have nearly 1,000 new customers a day and all those new customers have to visit the post office to identify themselves because we don't have any offices. We've devised a system with the approval of the regulators enabling people to sit at their computers behind their desk to identify themselves in front of a camera with their face and an identity card. And they can do that from their home. They don't need to stand on line anymore. And we use technology that is not ours for these innovations, but we do need to know how it works to facilitate use and make their lives and banking easier. So we're continuously searching for these new technologies and trying to integrate them in the customer experience. And I said previously that it's that customer experience that makes the difference. Now I've got a few examples of that retail customers and one for the industry customers. In the past 6 months, we ran a test with various industry customers to ensure that all the information we have available for them and the products they have in different countries concerning their status and their accounts and the transactions they perform via financial markets that they can see everything at a glance on their tablet and that they can use a single password to obtain all that information. That's one of the new service products. It's called inside business and we're launching it now. The tests in the past 6 months were very successful. Both for retail and industry customers, we're trying to integrate new technology as quickly as possible in our services, so that people enjoy the service more and find it easier. We do this for our customers. The question is whether the customers are satisfied. The net promoter scores show us whether they are, but we also see this based on our progressively growing number of customers. In the past year, we had 1,200,000 new customers, but still more important in our strategy is that a lot of customers have their primary relationship with us. And you see those figures reflected here as well, because it's that primary relationship that establishes a true relationship with our customers. And that ensures that people are depositing their savings with us and taking out more loans from us. We're pioneers in technology, but we're very traditional in what we really do. We accept savings deposits and then we deploy that into the economy through loans. That's what we do. And it's important that the savings comes from different sources and countries as you see as well as the loans are issued to different countries, so that we have a diversified deployment system, so that we don't depend on one type of customer or group of countries. It's nicely distributed and ensures stability that improves things. Now if we're talking about lending anyway, we've indicated that in the process of growth, we want to continue growing mortgages, but we want to accelerate growth in assets and other types of loans such as consumer credit and SMEs and working capital credit lines for large companies and international financing. We want to step that up because we aim to ensure that on balance the ratio between all those different categories improves. And you've achieved quite a lot of that in the past year as well. Now my example here is based on ING Spain. That bank was structured as an ING Direct Savings Company, so we could receive savings deposits there. And over the years, it's matured as a full fledged bank. For 5 consecutive years, it's achieved the top Net Promoter Score on the market. But if you ask those who customers want to become customers of ING. And we're still receiving about 400 new customers a day and the primary relationship is increasing. So from a savings bank, we're becoming a full fledged bank, not only in retail, but especially in industry. And it's that mix in all countries that's increasing our stability and our role in society of recycling savings back into the economy and we're doing that well. That's a wonderful example. Ultimately, all this yields results that are important for you as shareholders. But that's the destination. It's not the starting point. We start with the customers and the destination, the net result is to do it in a way that benefits all stakeholders. And ultimately, you need to consider all those interests. And this shows that we've achieved a better result as a bank and profits of 3,400,000,000 in underlying net results. And in the last year, we achieved a return on equity exceeding 11%. For the year as a whole, it was 9.9%. So the policy is bearing fruit. Now how did we do this financially? We did it by increasing income and our loan book. We also tried to improve our margin a bit. And we curtailed our costs. We ensured cost neutrality. Where we invested, we tried to offset that with savings elsewhere. That shows that our costincome ratio is improving and our risk costs are under control. So the net result adjusted for the negative impact of what we call CVA and DVA, we'll debate that later on And the huge provision we announced in Q4, if we adjusted for that, the result would have been €5,400,000,000 last year. So good results any way you look at it. And that's also led our buffer capital to be greatly strengthened in the past year. Despite our having fully repaid the state, we've been able to solidify our buffer capital. As a consequence, we had some scope in Q4, not only for this year, but already in 2014. In Q4, 2014, we've been able to announce a dividend. So we've accelerated everything to make this happen. And it's continued. Last week, we announced the Q1 results over 350,000 new customers in Q1 alone. As for profit up to 1,200,000,000 for the bank, 1,700,000,000 for the group including the profit from insurance activities and the buffer capital of the bank that is same the same as before and is increased for the group. So the Q1 confirms that our think forward strategy and focus taking all interest into account is effective. And we noticed that we're heading for the targets that we announced last year that we'd like to meet by 2017. We're well on track. So you might say, well that was perhaps not very ambitious, but we do envisage other challenges, for example, the low interest rates. So we're not there yet. We're happy with our progress so far, but we still have a ways to go. And if we see that in terms of how the different stakeholders view us in a single impression. One country where we're operating for example in the Netherlands and in Belgium, our customers told us that they think we're the best bank. In Germany, for the 9th consecutive year, the customers are happy with the bank. And in Australia, the same thing. So in many countries, we're seeing that customers are really happy with the ING. As for Rett employees, unfortunately, in November, we had to announce a reorganization in the Netherlands, which will mean that many employees will be leaving us. Nonetheless, spirits are high and our employees are more committed and more involved. And they've also given us a certificate as a top employer in Europe and a great place to work. Shareholders, if we look at the ING share price over the past 12 to 18 months, We've at least matched the different indices or exceeded them compared to comparable institutes. That's also a very important indicator. Now last but not least, the topic I mentioned earlier, we're talking about corporate social responsibility, in the past year, we ranked at the top of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index among diversified financials for the first time. We're very proud of that. That's how we keep tabs on everything continuously. Now the conclusion is that last year was an important year for making it through that restructuring and seeing the missed clear showing that we're ready for the future and we're in good shape. We're a bank with many good options activities as market leader in growth markets and in markets where our model is a winner. And our think forward strategy shows that we're increasingly getting new customers and obtaining savings deposits and are able to lend more and more so that we can improve our results. And our capital buffers are more solid than ever. That's a very brief summary of what the 53,000 people working at the ING have achieved in 12 months. And I think that's plenty of food for thought and for debate. Thank you, Valvald. Thank you, Ralf. And before we proceed with the questions, first of all, we have a number of announcements under Item 2 of the agenda. 1st of all, the report of the Supervisory Board, I'm not going to repeat that. It has been included in our annual report. And then we also have a remuneration report which is also an item we're going to discuss. You'll also find it in the annual report. But here I would be asking Henk Broking and he's the Chairman of the Remuneration Committee to give us a brief presentation on this. Over to Henk. Yes, indeed. Thank you very much. A very brief report on my part. This meeting in 2010, the policy was adopted. And pursuant to this policy, 2014 was unchanged. Over the previous years, there's no variable remuneration which was granted to the members of the Executive Board. Now in the context of this remuneration policy in 20 14, a salary increase was granted to the CEO and the CFO. And for the 6th year in a row, no variable remuneration was granted. In 2014, the remuneration 2014 has been included in the remuneration report that you've been able to read. And I would like to point out that later on in the meeting under item 5A of the meeting, we will be discussing the amendment of the existing remuneration policy and we'll be voting on that. So I would request you to hold on to with your question to wait with your questions until we address this item regarding the remuneration 2014. I'd like to give the floor back to the Chairman. Thank you, Henk. T2E, Corporate Governors. And here we have also included a chapter on the matter in our annual report and I shall give you a brief explanation myself. In the Annual Meeting 2010, we debated the future of certification of shares. The Executive Board and Supervisory Board at the time informed the meeting that at the time that was in 2010 after conclusion of the restructuring and divestment there would be a natural point in time in which we would take another look at the overall governance of ING including certification. Although the finalization of divestments could take until late year end 2016, I. E. Already in 2015 I. E. Now is going to start this evaluation. And the outcome thereof will be on the agenda for the Annual General Meeting of 2016. So this year, we'll be working on the preparation and consultation and it will be put on next year's AGM's agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, an explanation in terms of item 2F, which is the adoption of financial statements. Of course, you'll find the information in our annual report. And by way of brief introduction on my part, the financial statements were drafted by the Executive Board in the English language and that was done on the 16th March and were available for Perusall on March 19 as for March 19 and was available on the Internet. The financial statements have been evaluated by ING and the order took the order has issued a so called unqualified opinion. I'd like to refer to the debate, which was held in the AGM in 2014. We would like to highlight that this is a more extensive, more company specific auditor statement. It may sound somewhat peculiar, but the auditor will explain that. We recommend we being the Supervisory Board, we recommend that these financial statements be adopted. But first of all, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Marcel van der N, the auditor. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as last year, I would like to take this opportunity to explain our involvement as an external auditor. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Marcel van Do. And since 2012, I'm the external auditor on behalf of Ernst and Young of ING Group and ING Bank. And for this AGM, we have been released of our obligation to maintain confidentiality. I'd like to proceed to give you a presentation on our auditing work and our opinion questions regarding our management letter and the auditors report. I'd like to refer you to our Chairman. In accordance with your instructions, we audited the single and consolidated financial statements of ING Group 2014. And we issued an unqualified opinion to these financial statements. And furthermore, we issued unqualified opinion with the statutory financial statements of a number of subsidiaries of ING Group the main ones being ING Bank and ING Group. And since ING Group is also listed in the United States, ING Group has to comply with Southlands Oxley legislation. And in this context, we also issued an opinion on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal audits regarding financial reporting of ING Group. I'd like to refer to page 86 of the annual report. In 2014, we also carried out an evaluation of the quarterly figures of ING Group and also the half year figures of ING Bank and NN Group. And in these intermediate for these intermediate figures, we issued an unqualified opinion or statement. And this year, we evaluated the sustainability information as included by IT in its annual report and also issued an unqualified statement. I'd like to refer to Page 60. And in conclusion, I would just like to highlight that the statements of IG in the annual report including those statements regarding corporate statements have been evaluated by us and we have found no material incorrectness or contradictions with the financial statements that we audited. We've also been able to confirm that the required information by law has been included as stated in our opinion. And the Chairman already referred to this. And this brings me to the new opinion. As I announced last year, as per 2014, this is mandatory. I'd like to refer to pages 335 until and including 338 of the annual report. I shall briefly touch on the most important elements. Based on our work, we reached the conclusion that the financial statements give us a faithful representation of financial position as per December 31, 2014 and of income in 2014. The financial statements have been drafted under the assumption of continuity of operations going concerns. And based on this work, we feel that we can reach the conclusion that the assessments of management are appropriate. Impartiality: We've taken sufficient measures in order to guarantee impartiality of ING materiality. The materiality that we applied for ING Group is €240,000,000 And by the way, we don't apply the same materiality for all items and all amounts audited. And certain explanations, we don't take into account materiality such as remuneration because the accuracy of the explanations require this. Any stated and not corrected differences in excess of €10,000,000 are reported to the audit committee and the supervisory board. We're not only the external auditor of ING in the Netherlands, but in almost all other countries in which ING has operations. We determine where and to which extent we carry out the audits. And the results of local audits are evaluated and are discussed with our teams and at the location also ING Netherlands. And every year we visit the most important countries once or several times. And this brings me to the next subject key audit matters or significant risks. A significant risk or key audit matter is an acknowledged and estimated risk regarding a deviation of material importance and significance, which according to your opinion requires special attention, significant risk concern, very often concern, significant non routine transactions or measures that require adjustments. And we have gained insight into the internal control operations of ING relating to these risks. And furthermore, we carried out specific data specific work in order to determine that the risk does not lead to a deviation of material significance in the financial statements. And for our audit 2014, we've acknowledged the following significant risks. And I'm just going to give you a list of them on pages 335 to 338. You'll be able to find more information and also those pages in the annual report in which ING itself discusses the different items. This concerns divestments of Voya and NN Group provisions for loan losses, actual value of financial assets and liabilities pensions, reliability continuity of electronic data processing, estimates applied in the calculation of insurance obligations, liabilities and possible liability of Unit Linked Products. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that our relationship with ING is transparent and excellent and we can qualify the controls at ING as good. Chairman, I'd like to give you the floor. Thank you very much. Thank you for this explanation. We can proceed to questions. As I pointed out in the introduction, we are going to try close the meeting prior to 6 o'clock and that would be a lot earlier than previous years. And now we have devised a method that hopefully will work. We're not entirely sure. Now what is this method? The method entails that we are going to allow a number of people to ask questions. And then so we'll do that in groups, so block 1. So let's say 10 people asking questions, some people may have lots and lots of sub questions. So we'll be gathering or clustering all these questions. And then I'll be giving people here at the table the floor in order to proceed to answer those questions. Now if you haven't been able to take the floor in Block 1, don't despair if you have questions because we'll make sure that there'll be a second opportunity that will be Block 2. It's just like in Parliament, if you know, if you will. The Parliament, after 2 rounds of questions, they proceed to a vote. And I hope we'll be able to do that here today. So we would like your cooperation to make sure that we can close this meeting a bit sooner. And of course, we want to do justice to your opinions and your questions. The first person to ask a question, I don't really see him, but he has reported to us before and that would be the Chairman of the Works Council of ING Netherlands, Bert Wolters. He's at the back of the room. He would like to make a statement. And I think that we should do justice to that request. So I said, why don't you go first? So Bert, you have the floor. Mr. Vollofeuer, Mr. Broking, first of all, thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us. Please could you stand a bit close to the microphone, a bit straight into the microphone. I am here as Chairman of the Works Council of ING Bank Business in the Netherlands. And I have an appeal for you Mr. Broking and Mr. Van der Vird to show more empathy towards the Dutch civil society and the Dutch banking business and its employees. I'm talking about the my colleagues, they hear the comments of family, of relatives and friends, but they cannot justify ING's actions. And they are at the end of the way, they are the people that speak to the clients day in day out. And they speak to customers as ambassadors. And as Mr. Hammers said in the introduction, the very passionate staff members, they are making ING Bank what it is today and they're doing their utmost to make ING a bit better every single day. ING Netherlands is about 30% of the international bank business, but these employees do get 100% of all the comments, all the commotion. So we would very much appreciate it should you take a bit more account what the position is of ING, the Netherlands and its employees. Thank you very much. Mr. Walters. Mr. Walters, thank you very much for your clear message, which we fully understand. Thank you very much. I'd like to proceed to the question. I'm going to start from the right hand side and then work my way towards the back and then towards the left for Block 1 and Block 2 will be anticlockwise. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Stephen The Foundation Legal Protection of Investors. Yes. Well, this item of dividend of course is not being addressed yet, but I would nonetheless like to touch upon it because it does have something to do with this. Mr. Hammers already said so himself. The buffers are stronger. ING is a strong company. And you want to proceed to pay out a robust dividend inverted commas to do justice to the people who've invested in the company. So now what do we see? The committee is pointing a finger and requires solvency to be higher than it was supposed to be. We find this unacceptable. And just as in ordinary business and we saw this at the time that banks said you're not allowed to pay out dividends. And now all of a sudden, the banks are being told off. And they're being told, watch out if you're going to pay dividend. Make sure it's as little as possible. We would like to hear your reaction to this. And then €2,500,000,000 is what you want to acquire with the issue of bonds. You had a roadshow week 16. As far as we know, you haven't made any announcements as to what happened. We'd like to get a bit more information on this as well. About 5 interests have been transferred from NN to ING. So did these participating interests go from 1 company to the next? Did it go through the stock exchange? How did that take place? Because it struck us that the percentage that first was with INN is the exact same percentage that ended up with ING. That is if you look at the AFM figures. Yes, the branch offices, the network in the Netherlands and Belgium, while you're going to reorganize that and you also referred to Germany. Well, we're quite worried that competition well, how should I put it, that ING be affected? How are you going to go about that? Because I understand that you're going to close offices. And then finally, competition from Facebook. Facebook. Facebook users will be able to transfer money by chat services. It seems that America they're already doing that. Now they want to roll this out in the Netherlands as well. So what are you going to do about that? Thank you. Six questions, Mr. Stephens. There you go. Mr. Jorna? Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, on behalf of the VEB, first of all, congratulations because you've come a long way. ING was in the dock for a while, was repaired and can head for sea. I was headed for sea. And actually your CEO has just explained how well ING is doing. So who are we to say that we have some critical comments? But then again, you know who we are. We're going to proceed nonetheless. The first critical comment concerns your own observation certification. You're going to look into certification. You already answered that question. I think I don't have to once again insist on the position of the VEB. Don't have to do that. You're familiar with our position. But should you wish to consult us, we'll be happy to oblige. Q1 2015 was extremely good. Two statements of your CEO. He says that he's somewhat worried about the low interest rates and that actually would make it more difficult to make money. I always thought that with banks, it's not really about interest. It's about the interest margin. So either you've been incorrectly quoted or you should go back to university, but I don't think that is necessary. Chairman, what I also hear from banks is that people who have savings and that's actually what was said in the presentation. We've got a lot of savings. So we have a lot of customers that do saving. But it seems that banks don't really like people who have savings. Do you agree with that? Because it's easier to borrow from the ECB. So savings as such, it seems that banks are not really pleased with savings. And does the same apply to ING? Chairman, economic growth in the Netherlands or growth in lending was less than in the growth markets that you had. I mean, there is criticism, particularly from SMEs. They're saying the banks are simply not giving us credit or not giving us loan. So there's a demand, but you're not doing anything about the demand for all sorts of reasons I imagine. I don't know. But these are things that are being said. The European Central Bank, we have a bank union and which is commendable. But when do you think that the restrictions that you have here you're getting all the money in Germany but then you have to lend it in Germany. But whereas you can sort of get the money the deposits in the Netherlands and then you should be able to lend that money in Spain. So when will you be done with the restrictions? When will they be lifted? The risk that you see in the U. S. Is sometimes and I don't know whether this is an issue that sometimes you have to proceed to inferior investments. That could be that it would be make it easier for you to lend money because you need to get rid of your money somehow. Basel IV, does that worry you? I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here because it's still being studied. But apparently, the mortgages are being scrutinized and that could affect the position of Dutch banks because Dutch banks would have to have much more capital. So how do you feel about that? What is your opinion? And what is it that you can do about that? Sorry. I don't think we're going to get out of European Union that quickly. But then again, you never know. Alternatives, innovation, crowdfunding is what you refer to. How far have you come? How do you feel about that? What would be the position for ING? Because I've been told that things are progressing very quickly. Prices. You weren't allowed to use the weapon of prices for a long time. Would you be doing that in view of competition? Omni platform excellent development I think especially if you're forward looking. I read an interview by Mr. Yeo, I don't know how to pronounce it, in which he actually refers to squads and teams and he sees all sorts of opportunities. Let me tell you that 15 years ago, I tried to work with this myself at Rabobanca. It's too American for it to work. If you outsource IT to a genuine IT company perhaps, but if you do it with your own staff, it may be a bridge too far. But it's a wonderful initiative. IT, what are you going to do about that? What is it going to cost? All the numbers are great. Cost income ratio is increasing from 56% to 58%. So either you've lost control of the costs, could be pension charges, things like that, could be an internal thing or you have to increase your income. But I'm sure you're doing everything in your power here. Now actually my last perhaps the most difficult question, Mr. Van Voehr, Page 222, actually you find all the legal issues, all litigation INGs involved. And I'm not going to list all of them. I'm just going to highlight one of them. And this is the case that was presented to the Court of Appeal in New York in January 2015, Bruce Filolo and their claims on Cuba. They have an issue there. These claims have been vested, but now they're approaching ING that with the OFAC, I think it was, that these claims were not secured. I mean, I'm putting it in my own words, if you don't mind. ING is has been taken to court and the estimated value of the plaintiff is between €2,000,000,000 €5,000,000,000 So we're not talking about small amounts of money. We're talking about serious amounts of money. So I hope you can shed some light on this and prepare us for a shock or perhaps not? Thank you. 8 questions. Well, I hope this is not part of a series of questions. I'm speaking on behalf of 200 shareholders or perhaps even more. So thank you. Please go ahead. You, Mideon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fila Mach. I work for PGM Investments, and I'm speaking and voting here on behalf of our customers' pension fund for the health care. And I shall also be speaking and voting on behalf of Menses. And I'm also authorized to speak on behalf of NN Investments. So I'm not the representative of Umedion. I'm sorry. I was confused as a Chairman. A couple of remarks and also questions. And you have clustered a couple of items together, so I'll try to be concise. First of all, we'd like to express our appreciation for ING's first integrated report. Financial and non financial information has been bundled together. Now this is something we have been asking for a long, long time and we're very pleased to see that you have succeeded in publishing such a report this year. So we appreciate that. This gives us more understanding and insight into the bank's business financial and non financial perspectives. One of the elements that you have extensively discussed is EDTF, Enhanced Disclosure Task Force and you've been involved in this initiative for a couple of years and you've made good progress with your explanation to the different recommendations in it. But there's still a lot of work to be done in this context. So our question is what is the current state of play? What is the progress? And particularly with other transparency requirements? The 3rd pillar of the Basel Committee is just one of the examples, but we would like to see that where EDTF has an added value over the other requirements whether these are still things that you want to work on in order to provide us with even more information. Now as far as corporate governance is concerned, you said so yourself that in the annual report, you have stated that you'll be carrying out a review. So we have great expectations in this respect because things have changed substantially in the ING group over the past few years. So I really think that there will be a far reaching change in governance. And you are familiar with our position regarding certification. We would like to see that this become an important part of your review. And the question that we would like to ask in this context is whether you can commit yourself for 2015 that there'll be specific proposals? Or will we only be discussing the outcome of the review? It won't surprise you that we're in favor of being able to participate in the discussions and that any intended plans that you have be put to us. The cultural changes, cultural changes are a big priority with the other banks. Could you point out perhaps what the state of play is in ING and what the changes are that you've already introduced in ING. Could you also point out what ING's ambition is in terms of the trust and confidence of the financial sector? Those are my questions so far. Key issues. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just continue on the right hand side. I'm going to proceed to you. Let me just take 2 more questions on this side and then we can proceed to a first round of answers. Please go ahead. My name is Sonder Bos. I'm from Stade Bruck. I'm a private shareholder. Just as last year, Mr. Hammers had a very thorough presentation, well substantiated. I would like to thank you for that. Opportunities were pointed out, ambitions. But Portugal wasn't part of that, which is remarkable because there was no bank consolidation there. There was France was on the map. And I'm wondering what is ING doing in France? It's French and they'll continue to be French. Mr. Hammers also talked about a boring bank, an old bank, an old banker. Just I hope you won't hold it against me. But to me, you are an old banker, the old type of banker. And then there's something else, certificates to be converted into shares. Well, I hope when you take your decision, you also take into account the net asset value of the share itself because we don't want shares far below net asset value because then we would be faced with another acquisition. We've we're done with that. Corporate social responsibility, part and parcel of that is remuneration. Now I've got to be careful here. If I'm well informed, Mr. Harmarth was tempted to leave Belgium and was given a job here and has done an excellent job with his team right now. So the salary increase personally, I would say yes, okay, I can go along with that. Don't have an issue with that. Another question. The capital that we have in Capital 1 in connection with the acquisition there ING Direct, I couldn't really find any information on that. And then I have another question for the auditor. Thanks. Surprises with LIBOR issues, currency issues, ABN AMRO just had an issue. So did you take any stringent action, any stringent audits in this respect? And then another issue for the auditor. Let me see. They carried out the audit. Ernst and Young has been working as an auditor for 8 years. And then they started at the time of Thilmann and Homa. And now we're experiencing better times. We have the Supervisory Board that has made an enormous effort. So now we're bearing fruit. So I think we should thank them for that. So these are my issues. Thank you. There is a comment I'll take one more question from this side and then we'll answer the first block of questions. You over there. I'm Joop Schneider. I'm a private shareholder and I have not received dividends for years. And the agenda item that doesn't figure there namely our holding in NN, I'd like that put on the agenda. I'd like to add it because if you have property, you should be in a position to decide what you do with it, namely whether to cash it in to get NN shares, ING shares or a debenture bond, I wanted to state this to you personally. So as for ICT, I think that a bank is now mainly an ICT companies about information and confidence. And if that were to be outsourced for whatever reason, I think that's a very bad idea. I could not accept that personally. Thank you. Our CFO and CEO will be answering these questions. We also have some questions for the company secretary, Mr. Fink and Mr. Feng Lo will be answering one of the questions. I'll start with the CEO and the CFO. I'll kick off. Now let's see where I'll start. I'll start with the strategy because there were some strategic questions and that will take me to culture and that will also take me to capital and related matters. And I'll try to run down the list. As for strategy, we do operate in France where we have over 1,000,000 customers. We have a net promoter score of 1 in France and we have a lot of industry activities in France. A lot of large companies like doing business with the ING because of our international network in 40 countries and we're very well positioned to serve them. So France is a very opportune country for us to operate both as a corporate bank and as a retail bank. We're not a very large retail bank there. As for the strategy and competition from new entrants in every part of our value chain as we like to call it in banking, whether we're talking about savings, payments or lending, we see new operators who use new technology and new operators that leverage new technology and they're in a better position to advise customers. And that takes me to Facebook. Of course, Facebook knows a lot about its customers and could carry that knowledge about the customers over to special offers about financial options. If you mention on Facebook that you're going to look at a new car this weekend, Facebook might make you a special car loan offer. Those are certain information flows that Facebook could leverage as Google does. And they'll probably attach a payment program to that to see whether they can give you a competitive option for payments. So in each part of the value chain, there we see competition savings, lending and payments. The competition is also in crowdfunding, which I believe is a very welcome alternative financing method. It's growing rapidly, but doesn't have the scale yet to make it decisive, but it's good to have it. There are a lot of crowdfunding platforms where we see that private people make their money available for lending. One word of caution. The question is, who determines the credit risks? What happens if things don't work out? Who has lost the money? Are those regulated bodies or not? I think all of us still need to learn this. There are presently a lot of online crowdfunding activities that are not regulated. We'll see what happens with those and to what extent that qualifies as alternative financing. So far, it's growing well, doubling every year, but the amounts are not huge. But it is a good alternative method. And we learn a lot from all these competitors. And we try to examine their mindset and methods and see whether it's compatible with us as a bank and with our strategy. Can we improve lending and services that way? And can we become more relevant for our customers? That's how we use it and that's how we handle those competitors. That's basically the strategy. Pricing was mentioned. When we've shed the pricing ban, we will be competitive again. I think we're already competitive, because perhaps we're not among the top players in certain countries, but we don't need that. The difference that makes customers approach us is because of their experience and the fact that we make things much easier for them. Over the past 5 years in Europe, we've demonstrated that the pricing ban has not restrained our growth, not in mortgages, not in corporate loans and not in savings. So we don't have to be the most attractively priced to offer the best service. And that's what makes the difference and means that we keep getting new customers. If we want to learn from our customers and want to operate as they do and want to be able to change as rapidly, then we'll need to work the same way our customers do. And I think Mr. Jorna had a remark about that. The Google style procedure, is that tenable? Well, we're already doing that in various countries. We already work that way using tribes and squats. Where we don't have people working in hierarchical settings, so the market tier sees a need with the customer, analyze the needs, forwards that to a product developer. The product developer devises a product to match it and sends it to the department to come up with a process and the IT department then writes a matching program that's 18 months down the road and the competitor has already filled the need and we've missed our window of opportunities. So we try to do that through multidisciplinary teams, where we work with the marketeer, the product developer, the operations expert, the IT expert and on the same team. And then within 3 months, they strike while the iron is still hot because that's how quickly you have to operate to compete as a bank and to ensure that you can meet clients' expectations. On the one hand, we introduced a lot of changes, but on the other hand, customers keep mobile phone means that customers expect real time balance information, but our IT systems aren't equipped for that yet. We supply it, but it isn't updated every second by our banks. So we supply it in a different manner. So you see that technology enables us to provide that insight, but much is going on behind the scenes to ensure that, that information is up to date and that coincides with particularly large investments and cultural changes. That's what I had to tell you about strategy. And that takes us to capital. Dividend policy, Basel requirements, We're basically meeting the Basel III requirement. Discussions are ongoing about what they call Basel IV. And we try to watch the risk model calculation so that banks don't impose their own system, but apply a standard approach or if the risk assessment according to the regulator is insufficient that they can establish a bottom threshold. Now what does this threshold entail? Of course, we consider the impact to the extent that the proposals are elaborated which they are not yet. So the discussion is ongoing. We supply information for that debate and we participate in it both with the legislature and the regulator. Of course, the regulator has certain ideas. Legislators, one tier from the industry and from the regulators, we have to see what that will bring. And the topic for Dutch banks, namely the risk assessment of mortgages, That's an important topic and we'll need to look carefully to see whether our buffers for mortgages in the Netherlands and the way that they're calculated are sufficiently high. In our view, they certainly are. We've just emerged from one of the biggest recessions in the Netherlands and have noticed that the risk costs for mortgages are still covered by the income from those same mortgages. So we do not envisage that our buffers might be insufficient. But still people might want a reserve on top of the buffers we have, but this is not based on our experience to date. Now as for the last two items concerning capital, the sale of NN, how are we going to approach that? From the outset, we indicated the timeframe that we wanted to sell by. We know that before the end of 2016, we'll have to sell all of it. And by the end of 2015, we'll need to have deconsolidated Our preferred scenario is to sell it to the market in stages because we also believe that this will maximize shareholders' value. We've spoken with many shareholders in the past 6 months regarding preferred scenarios and they don't all have the same views for the time being. We'll assume that we'll be selling our shares in NN in stages. Mr. Sabins asked about the AT1 that was successfully issued and was often oversubscribed. So that issue has even been increased. So it was a big success. Now reviewing the list rapidly. Excuse me? The legal claim. I'll have Mr. Fink answer that one. Yes, Mr. Fink will take that one. First, our CEO will take a look and see what other questions he wants to answer. Cultural change, PGGM. Well, we're not launching that today. We did so in 2,009. We've had a derisking program in recent years. And we stopped prop trading. So trading for our own account, we've discontinued that. And of course, all our R and D staff has to take the conversion oath. That's not limited to the Netherlands. We have our own orange code that we've devised and we're implementing that at present within the bank. And I think that if we consider the largest facet of cultural change, it boils down to the type of bank we are. We receive savings deposits and try to deploy that through loans. That's already a major change as for what we stand for and what we aim to do and our risk appetite there. Anders, if you would like to add. There was one question I think on the EDTF disclosures, which we have completed. I'm happy with the work we've done to get that significant improvement in disclosure published. I have to say that the reaction from users is modest. We're more than happy to improve it and work with it. But at this stage, we're looking for to see how our stakeholders use the data we published. And if they want us to take it to another level, more than happy to engage with them on discussing that. But so far, I have to say that the feedback on those disclosures is somewhat limited. Okay. First, the question from Mr. Jorna about the claim from the Filoldo Brothers that was filed against us in the U. S. First, when a legal claim is filed against us, it's up to the court to decide on that. That doesn't mean that we win. Our first step in the U. S. Is to submit a motion to dismiss, which means that you challenged the claim on legal grounds. The court will need to rule on that first And only afterwards, when the court says that this claim is admissible, then you deal with the substance based on the facts concerning that case. So that's still a long way off. We're working with the U. S. Law firm that represents us there. At present, given the very early stage we're in now in this case, we cannot assess whether this will have financial consequences. And if they are, we cannot envisage the amounts. So I'd like to leave it at that as far as this claim is concerned. Next Mr. Fedenbach asked about evaluation of corporate governance. Yes, certification is a factor there, but there are many other aspects to consider. We're considering the structure of the ING articles of association and developments in Europe and in the United States. And we're seeing whether there's any overdue maintenance and whether we need to adapt anything. So it transcends certification alone and we'll discuss the outcome of the evaluation with the depository receipt holders at the next meeting. And if various proposals arise to amend the governance, then conceivably, we might put those proposals to a vote at this meeting if that means that the articles of association need to be amended in certain respects. Thank you. I think first Mr. Von Low and then Mr. Hammers would like to add something. Yes, this works. A question from Mr. From the boss. As auditors, our primary responsibility is to audit the financial statements not for rate setting processes. There are many perhaps dozens all over the world that ING participates in as well. In some cases, we receive an additional commission to review a specific process. And of course, we have quarterly reviews, talk with management and keep tabs on any investigations by regulators or central banks. Thank you. Mr. Hamers, we'll continue. Yes, I just had a moment to review all the questions. I see a few that I'm supposed to answer. Very specifically about ICT outsourcing, not necessarily. We look for uniform solutions for the foundation of ICT and we also look to preserve our own culture in front of the service to customers. As for the low interest rates, Mr. Joanna, that's true. It's not merely about the low interest rates. There's a very flat yield curve and that makes it difficult for a bank to operate. And our savings customers are very welcome. We cherish them at the ING, because technically savings funds may cost a bit more than what you could obtain on the market. But in the recession, we've also seen what markets can do in terms of diverting funding and savings are with us for longer. And we also welcome savings customers as potential full scale customers. So any customer that approaches us is a delight because that's another customer. As per lending to SMEs. That's a little more complicated, not for lack of availability by the banks, because it was always available from the ING, both in terms of capital and funding. But quite honestly, the Dutch economy did poorly. It did worse than many other economies in Europe and that surfaces especially in non performing loans in corporate industry in the Netherlands and that exceeded 8% in Q1. In the past, it was always between 7.5% and 8%. So those are high rates and the bank needs to be able to assess how they can help customers or help new customers and which losses they expect to suffer. And that's what we base our decisions on. We do see favorable developments in Q1. The decline in our lending portfolio has stopped. So it matches repayments and that's good because in recent years in the Netherlands, we noticed that lending had declined because of the recession. That's standard during a recession. But we do expect that we've passed the worst of it. As for ECB, they've been working since early November. After the ADR stress test, we had a restart and the initial response is from a highly professional party that has to gain the confidence not only from the banks, which it did in part from the AQR stress test, but also needs to earn confidence from the different governments and decentral regulators to serve their purpose, which is equivalent supervision of any bank in Europe regardless of where the head office is. We're seeing the first signs of openness to and receptiveness to liquidity transfers. And this relates more to savings funds between legal entities than between subsidiaries. Thank you. I see a gentleman waiting at microphone 1, but I'm going to follow the procedure I announced. So you'll get your turn. I'll start in the right quadrant. Are there any more questions there? Okay. You had a turn. So I think that others should get a turn first. Okay. I guess you're going to check that very well. Now at the left rear, the person at the extreme left area. You first and then the other gentleman, no not Mr. Feiga. And then we'll go to microphone 1 and that will take us I think to the end of round 2. But you all get your turn. Please be brief. Mr. Sponier? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a few brief questions about this item. May I ask you a question about the introduction Mr. Vandervier? If you can be brief that's fine. At a certain point, Mr. Hammers said that in Spain 40% of the people they meet want to use the ING. How many of that of those 40% actually started being customers for ING? Because my question follows up on that. The next question is the G word. What are the consequences of the possibility that Greece perhaps not tomorrow, but next week or the week after, get lost if we throw Greece out? What would the financial consequences be? And my third question, you mentioned ICT. You say that you're so far ahead and that may sound nice, but it isn't. Because why didn't you say anything about the ICT program underlying the Bitcoin? Because if at 5 the computers are switched off at the Dutch Central Bank on the Fredericks Plain then the other banks can't do anything either because they connect the ING to the ABN AMRO Bank and vice versa. And the Bitcoin system can circumvent that. Why don't you cover that? And my next question is why don't you convene an EGM disclosing your evaluation of the certification? Those items are important. Why do we have to wait 12 months? Why can't we convene an EGM? Well, thank you. I think that was a bit more than a couple of questions. Now you have the floor over there. Microphone 2. And then that gentleman at microphone 1, who has been waiting for a very long time. And then those other 2 there. You first. I'm Mr. Taafirnat and I'm representing the Association of Investors for Sustainable Development, the VBDO and ING is a member is a very appreciated member of that association too. I'll start with the good news. My other points are good news as well. First, I greatly appreciate your publishing the 1st integrated annual report. We very much welcome that and see the way ING has done this as exemplary to firms in the Netherlands and elsewhere. I have one suggestion on behalf of the BDO, which is that there's still a difference between the financial and the non financial data. The financial data include a statement of unqualified approval by the auditor and the other statements have a negative statement from the auditor, which means that there's no proof that the sustainability information is incorrect. Perhaps we can get some improvement there. 2nd, as for Empower People, that's amply visible on your report, a remark or rather. A question about that is that if you want to help your customers head toward a sustainable economy, the major challenge for individuals is to improve their energy use. They emerge from the sustainability agenda in the energy agreement of the Dutch government and other social organizations. Now my question is, we don't see the ING as the financial party in the Netherlands to enable these changes. Other banks figure more prominently in that respect. Could you say a bit more about your ambitions as a bank to support both retail and industry customers to achieve that? And perhaps you could state some targets because we didn't see those. Next, you indicate that the environment and social governance risk process the environment and social risk processes you apply on part of your industry portfolio I. E. 30%. Should they be restructured to be applied across the board throughout your portfolio? My question is, could you extend that 30% subject to ESR assessments? When will that 30% be increased to 100%? What targets would you need to meet for that? Next I have a specific question about alone in Australia that involves the ING and that concerns the Gladstone Harbour project, where ING is involved to the tune of AUD 147 1,000,000 That Harbour is an important coal transit point from Australian mines to the rest of the world. We think that this investment is at odds with your statement of wanting to abandon the fossil fuel business. When are you going to do that? My other question is why are you involved at all and when will you disentangle yourself? Finally, one more question that concerns concealed costs, also known as externalities. As you know, every economic activity or investment has a social and environmental impact. There's some methods Dutch large companies are involved in factoring in those costs that do not appear on the balance sheet. There are major projects underway. What is the role of ING? And if ING wants to support those changes? We're talking about the social environmental profit and loss account. Thank you very much. I'm going to give the floor to you over there. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the Board. I want to thank you first for indulging me to speak in my own language and second, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. Please, please start with your name because we have to know that for the minute. My name is Paul Corbett Brown and I come here to speak to you today from an organization in the United States called Keeper of the Mountains Foundation. This foundation is located in West Virginia. West Virginia is well known throughout the United States as the Mountain State and the reason for that is because we are in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains. These gentle mountains are precious for more than just their magic beauty. Biologists actually call them a Noah's Ark of biological diversity, one of the richest ecosystems in North America with thousands of types of animals and plants, some of which are found nowhere else in the world. Unfortunately, Appalachia is also the place of an ecological nightmare called mountaintop removal. Because this extreme form of coal mining is forbidden in Europe, I've brought you some pictures to help you understand. This form of mining uses massive explosives to remove the entire top of the mountain to get to the coal beneath. The remains of this explosion are mindlessly thrown into the nearby valleys. This is called a valley fill And it chokes the birthplace of our streams and rivers. In only a few years, more than 500 mountains have been destroyed in Appalachia by mountaintop removal mining and over 3,200 kilometers of our streams have been buried forever under the debris. Valley fills in the process of washing the coal before it goes to market allow extremely dangerous amounts of selenium, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, lead and many other heavy metals to enter our water supplies. Now more than 28 peer reviewed scientific studies have been published, which document how mountaintop removal brings illness and death to our communities. They estimate more than 4,000 excess deaths in Appalachia annually as a result of exposure to these environmental pollutions by coal mining. People in these mining communities are far more likely to suffer from heart, liver, lung and kidney disease and they are far more likely to have children with birth defects. Nevertheless, the coal companies won't stop poisoning our air, our water and our soil. Our politicians refuse to acknowledge or act on these scientific studies. But the words on your website suggest you're a very forward thinking bank that truly cares about environmental as well as human rights. ING mentions in its last annual report that the Board approved a new ESR policy on coal fired power and coal mining in 2014. This policy covers both specific purpose and corporate lending facilities and helps support your clients' transition to a lower carbon footprint. New restrictions on financing the controversial practice of mountaintop removal in the U. S. Have also been introduced. It's good to hear that ING has adopted a new policy on MTR last year, yet this policy is still unfortunately not available publicly. I'd like to ask your Board, what exactly does this policy say? Does it focus only on corporate lending or does it exclude underwriting for companies involved in mountaintop removal as well? I am now told that your policy will only be applied to companies with an annual production of over 1,000,000 tons of coal for mountaintop removal. While I'm grateful to you for taking that first step, I want to point out that the environmental and social damage brought by mountaintop removal does not begin at 1,000,000 tons. It begins at the 1st ton. Even small MTR operations create tremendous and permanent damage to our water, our air and our health. There are only about 20 companies that practice this type of mining. Surely a bank the size of ING can exclude financial dealings with all of them. These may be merely issues of policies and procedures to you, but for my people they are matters of life or death. I beg you to dare to do that which is in line with justice and compassion and make the exclusion of all companies practicing mountaintop removal part of your bottom line. The future of our mountains, our communities, our health and our basic human rights are in your hands. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. There was somebody else close to microphone 1 I had promised. Then you come and I still move to Reike and then you at mic 5 and then I close it, yes? Chairman, my name is Alex Reinders. And I have 2 and a half question or comment rather. This is the first time I'm attending this AGM. I've been a shareholder for 10 years. But in my entire ING history, well, I would say it encompasses 65 years. I started with the Zilverflo account, which everybody is familiar with. Let me start to be concise with a comment on sustainability report. For the sake of brevity, I will just summarize it. I think it's sufficiently substantial, but you're making a nice attempt and I would summarize it with a text that I had painted on my deux chevaux car, Tames Sainte L'ot undam Tames, but the will is to be appreciated. Right. Now customers, this is my micro comment. I believe that Internet Banking is running very smoothly. Fine? Excellent. As far as savings are concerned, well, I fail to understand that interest rate is now 1%. I mean, there are all these market considerations. But I would say that there should be an absolute minimum, a psychological minimum, say 1.2%, which is the return that the tax department applies in the 3rd category. Otherwise, we'd be deprived even further. Well, for the rest, I have 200 shares that I've had for 10 years. So I would say the yield is wonderful, unrealized yield of 80%. And perhaps when I get home tonight, it might be 85% who knows? My specific question now about this micro issue is that I completely think that this ratio is skewed. My macro subject, let me zoom into the essence. I feel but then again, I would like to look back on the past 15 years that now that the Postbank after the Postbank's demise, we can say that this merger led to another merger that led to lots of problems. To put it bluntly, somehow we're back to square 1. Thing is that ING has become much bigger. I also believe Mr. Reinis could you please be concise? Well, I will be closing and I will do this with an impossible question to you. Don't you think, don't you agree that nonetheless there was a historic mistake? People now I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the body as such. I think retrospectively, we can conclude that a lot of damages have been caused. I don't really see that you realize that. And I would also like to ask you that quite apart from shareholders' value that there also be a number of other interests that should be taken into account that are not always well in balance. And I agree with what the Chairman of the Works Council said. Thank you. Please. Mr. Chairman, my name is Heinemann. I'm a private shareholder and I reside in The Hague. I would like to congratulate your body with the fact that ING finally is climbing out of the all time low situation, but we still have a long way to go. 2,08 in the Lehman crisis, the share was at 24 percent and now it's 14 percent. ING, I believe, should express its appreciation for those shareholders that throughout the years have continued to have faith in the share. But Nationale Nederland is now being divested. I don't know about the crisis. I'm sure they had to be bailed out as well. But the bank crisis to a great extent was caused by the banks themselves because they were megalomaniacs and they developed all sorts of crazy things such as the profit, triple multiplier, interest swaps and so on and so forth. Erik Stahl of Vestia is a marvelous example in a negative sense. He burnt €2,000,000,000 and at the end, he said that he was a financial genius. These are things that we need to prevent in the future. IT is a big danger in this respect because you can come up with all sorts of complicated calculations and computations as long as the economic development doesn't turn against us things will be okay. But with all these complicated algorithms and formula, put us at risk because with the smallest change, all of a sudden everything can collapse. The European Bank Union, everybody thinks that's an ideal situation that it would be wonderful very weak countries and unstable countries. Greece for instance, Balkans for instance and the European Union wants to open up to each and every country. Now there is an example that the banks be made accountable for the financial measures taken in other European countries. And now there's talk of a bank tax. Now shareholders don't want that. Finally, I have a question for Mr. Fink. This is an old hobbyhorse of mine. This is the penalty that was imposed by Ms. Cruz at the time because ING was being helped. A patient that is being taken care of in a hospital ordinarily doesn't have to pay a penalty. At the time, I advised Jan Hummers to take legal steps against this penalty. There was a procedure before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and ING 1, €1,300,000,000 was the amount involved. And as Mr. Ioannis says that's not peanuts And the European Union apparently never repaid this amount. And I never got any reason from your body as to why this money was not repaid. And as a consequence of this improper penalty, the shareholders have also been shortchanged in my opinion. And I'm wondering how you as ING want to compensate the shareholders. What wouldn't you think of Wirtz for instance long term options? They wouldn't cost too much money for the company. And these shareholders, well, you could thank them for their loyalty. You could compensate them and you could do that with shareholders and also with staff members. Those are my questions. Three questions, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Heinemann. Mr. Fricker? Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Robert Freaker. We connect you Public Affairs and Investor Relations. We're back on track and we have the Golden Boys ready to act. ING, well you have Unilever and Shell. Those are the largest Dutch companies, but the Anglo Dutch ING is the largest Dutch company. Wolframers is the CEO of these Dutch companies. And I think that should Mr. Ralf Hammers have traveled to Brussels or should he have negotiated with Wouter Bosch that the results would have been a lot better. In these in these new times. So as largest Dutch company, we're in the top 2,000 of Forbes, number 92 profitability 170. And in terms of image branding, the 250th position. Now the great thing is that Mr. Hammes has another 4 years to push ING in this ranking. That is important for the Netherlands and it's important for ING. If we look at the bankers, we rank 26. Mr. Hammers with all his wonderful ideas can do a really good job here. And that's very important because he is a lot more positive than his fellow entrepreneurs and CEOs in the Netherlands because he hardly mentioned the word crisis. I'd like to draw your attention to Apple and Google Bank. How does Mr. Hammers feel about that? And what about cybercrime? Lots of people have access to €50,000 with their mobile phone. The cybercrime specialists also have this access. Now I want to secure this. So if they snatch my iPhone, I don't want them to be able to transfer €50,000 in 5 minutes' time. I think that's very important for all your customers. It's a matter of good carbs, bad carbs. According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs ranking, we at INGE are ranked 15 and so there's room for improvement. The Executive Board of Randstad and KPM, all the members of the Executive Board have a Tesla car and ING is running behind with BMW i3 solar panels on your buildings. Wouldn't it be great if you could work with cooperatives? They could rent your roofs and put their solar panels on it. It wouldn't be interesting for ING, but it would be for the cooperatives. Now there was a gentleman from Virginia. With the upfront shower, you can save a lot of gas and electricity. An average family in the Netherlands can save 40% in gas costs if they buy such a shower. And then the jobless economy. Mr. Polmont says that one of our biggest threats is the jobless economy. You see all these tiny little jobs. Dick Bohr, CEO of Ahold, is creating all these tiny little jobs. He's great at that. And then we're losing middle management. And the top, of course, is paid a lot better and ING is an exception to the rule. That's quite strange because we're in a great position here because Mr. Hammes has only paid €1,000,000 to €2,000,000 and his colleague from Boxmere gets €10,000,000 Mr. Paulman has also paid €10,000,000 Now I'm not in favor that Mr. From Voxmere should be paid €10,000,000 but if he makes €10,000,000 it's quite extraordinary and quite remarkable for Mr. Hammers not to make that kind of money because he has got to boost things in the Netherlands not Heineken but ING. He's got to get things moving. Yes, of course, I would like to close. Thank you very much. And a big challenge for Mr. Hammes is that ING is always portrayed in a negative way in the Volkskranz newspaper not so much in the Telekranz. Now wouldn't it be great to have a very positive article in the Volkskranz Ground Newspaper? Wouldn't that be a great challenge? And for the rest, I thought it was great that the Chairman of the Works Council, so to speak actually took the floor here at the AGM. It would be wonderful if you would take the floor not only about this subject, but also many other subjects that are an important issue in this company. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Freico. Now I would like to close the questions here at this stage because, we're running late. You can see that on the agenda. And again, we're heading for a closing time of after 6 unless it's extremely urgent and really very, very brief. Otherwise, I would have to stop you. First the gentleman behind you and you as well very, very briefly pleased because otherwise we'll get even more criticism in terms of the length of this meeting. My name is Vibe. I'm a private shareholder in Amsterdam. I have a couple of questions and a couple of remarks. I'm quoting Mr. Hammers. We are a simple bank and we get savings and we spend it in or we offer it to the market in terms of loans. Now you need pages and pages to explain that. And then you say a few words about the environment. But there's also a reference to a competitor of National and Nederland in terms of insurance that they have a very straightforward report for shareholders with core figures. You don't think do you that I'm going to read an annual report of 400 pages. I'm a private shareholder. I'm not going to read it from back to back. I mean this is too much. Why can't I get this annual report? There was no annual report available. So that was not a good thing. You were going to be concise. Mr. Van de Veer, I'm talking to you now. I've said this before and of course you can say that it's very complicated, but the annual report is meant to provide information and to be held accountable. Now if you look at the profit and loss account, I look at that as a simple investor. There are too many subjective elements, but look at the cash flow statement. Let me just highlight 2 items and I hope you're not going to say that I shouldn't look at things this way. This is the way I look at it. Operative cash flow, I see 2 items with big differences and I'd like to hear your comment on that. First, that is trading assets and you are no longer trading on your own account. That may have something to do with it. So there's a minus in front of it. So that's a cash out flow. And the next one is trading liabilities which is €23,000,000,000 There's a plus in front of it. So I'm sure it's a cash inflow. Now you must provide information. I have this in front of me and I'd like to hear your explanation. Those are my questions. Well, that will be for the CFO in a moment. You're the last to be given the floor and then I'm going to close the session of questions. My name is Kees Bruhring, The usurpary or the unit tied insurances, Does ING still have these insurances or just the insurance companies? I skipped you. Very unfair. Very briefly please microphone number 1. So you have the last and this is the very last. Mr. Chairman, we never received any documents prior to the meeting. No explanation. So I haven't been able to form an opinion on the state of play of the company. Mr. Chairman, just as last year or previous years, I'm going to speak regarding the annual report and your views for the future of ING. Not only meant as appreciative, but also critical. And I am looking back, looking back at the past. The slow recovery of the economy will have a positive effect on the organization. But this positive influence hasn't reached all the groups in our society because of redundancies and IT. Lots of people have lost their jobs and they're not the lucky ones who are able to make a decent living. The government is also restructuring reorganizing cutting costs and costs are increasing in very many respects. Social conditions are insufficient for many people and have a negative impact on society at large particularly the group of older people, people older than 55 years. For those people who have been saving the interest rates are not helping and are not offering any form of perspective. But the group that has securities in ING for years years have not been able to get any revenues on their invested equity, let alone the decline of value that we've seen in the course of the year for many people it was part of their pension. You need not be an economist to say that the policy of ING at the time was far from solid and that too many risks were taken and that the bailout by the Dutch government was necessary. Now this has been very profitable for the government, but the shareholders is footing the bill at the end of the day. And this to me is a very unfair situation. At previous meetings, I have pointed this out to you. The unacceptable situation for the shareholders can only be redressed with sufficient compensation being offered to those shareholders and this should be given the utmost priority. I fail to understand that many policy decisions in the past didn't were not scrutinized by the regulators and that the regulators approved these policy decisions. And of course the shareholders' faith has been tested. In the past, the media have taken a close look at the financial industry and has stated and confirmed that there were morality issues. The feelings of dissatisfaction in the public at large are great and there will be consequences regarding financial services. It's not for nothing that many people are considering changing banks. This is a clear signal that you should take to heart. Could you please clear? Two more lines ago. Contradictions and unreasonable compensation within the organization is unacceptable and the new generation will simply not accept this. The unions will also increase their salary claims. This is unacceptable. It's not possible. And it is a responsibility that the executive board has and the supervisory board must also take this into account without dividend. My position is that shareholders have been suffering from the situation for a long time have not received dividend and are now entitled to compensation. So that would be good. That would benefit your organization and that would give faith back and foster faith with the shareholders. On behalf of all shareholders, I hope you take note of what I have said. Thank you. Thank you very much for your statement. So now I confirm that the question round is closed. And now the answers will be given in the other order. Mr. Nager, Mr. Fink, Mr. Flynn and then our CEO will conclude this round of questions and answers. As a response to your questions on Gladstone Harbor, in Rausch's presentation, you've been able to see that we actively support sustainability. You've been able to see that the share of sustainable funding in our funding is increasing. We're talking about a percentage of 43 right now. At this point in time, of course, in the world, there's insufficient sustainable energy in order to comply with the demand and to satisfy demand. And so it's unavoidable that there still has to be energy. We still have to satisfy demand with unsustainable energy. And so we cannot rule out our involvement in funding regarding coal. You saw a percentage of 13% after a declining line in our portfolio. The energy or electricity plants where we have strict requirements in terms of CO2 emissions and the vulnerability of Gladstone Harbour in our opinion was slightly different in the sense that the harbor is located in the Great Barrier Reef UNESCO area and so subject to sharper restrictions than any other operations. We checked whether this expansion complies with all the requirements of UNESCO, which is the case. And in view of that, we decided that it was responsible to proceed with it. Thank you. Janmaren? Here, Heinemann offered the I'll take the question from Mr. Heinemann about the European Commission's restructuring plan. Initially, we had agreed on a plan in 2,009 with the European Commission, where we would have until the end of 2013 to carry out the divestiture of the insurance operations. Later on, we negotiated with the commission for additional time and flexibility in carrying out those divestitures that led to an amendment of the restructuring plan in 2012. That was very important to us because it gave us the time we needed to implement the VAST operation, which involves selling an entire insurance company. And we've now made quite a bit of progress, but still have to get rid of the last section in 2015. So we did need that extra time. So I think that a very important decision was reached with the European Central Bank. Part of that agreement included wrapping up a lawsuit pending at the European Court of Justice, but there would be no consequences for the EC or ourselves. They wanted to continue that procedure simply to know how to deal with such matters in the future. We respected that and that's why the case was carried on, but will have no positive or negative consequences for us. So basically, you can say that we bought out the risk of that lawsuit. Well, you can say that we won in one respect, which has nothing to do with the old A portfolio or the additional 1.3 $1,000,000,000 we had to pay. That was an agreement dating back to 2,009. That part of the procedure concerned whether repaying that core Tier 1 would justify additional government support or not. That was an entirely different kettle of fish. We think that the agreements reached in 2012 resulted in a balanced agreement with the European Commission that enabled us to divest according to the plan that we had drafted in advance. As for the second question about the usury policy risk, the claims filed against insurance companies concern purported flaws in the product and insurance companies are being held accountable for those. These products were launched on the market in some cases by the actual insurers directly in many cases by brokers and banks and banks have a duty of care toward their customers. So depending on the circumstances, banks could be held accountable for their duty of care toward the customers they're selling these products to whether they're insurance or banking products that doesn't matter. So the bank is at risk irrespective of the nature of the product. Patrick? Okay. On the cash flow statement with respect to trading assets, you can see a breakdown of those trading assets on page 130. There are 4 main components: equities, debt, derivatives and loans and receivables. You'll also see that the bulk of the increase is in derivatives. These are derivatives which we provide to our corporate clients for the risk management hedging processes, typically currency and interest rate exposures. The increase in value over the prior year is in part due to more customer business, but also impacted by the fall in interest rates, which increases the market value of those transactions that are accounted for on a market value basis. You'll also notice that the other side of the balance sheet on traded liabilities goes up by a similar amount. So there's a net impact is negligible. This is almost self funding. So you have the same increase in assets as you do with liabilities accentuated by the low rate environment. So it's a self funding position. Yes. I'll run to Mark. Okay. I'll answer the round of questions. Mr. Bus, you had a certain position on Capital 1. We dealt into our memory. We sold that on 5 September 2012 including the last component. Okay. There we were active only as a business bank. Now in Spain increasingly people want to become our customer. We are drawing in about 400 new customers a day. We're delighted. As for the Bitcoin that you mentioned, we don't want to imitate the Bitcoin. But we want to understand the knowledge behind the bit coin, why it's so much cheaper and easier to make payments all over the world. We call that blockchain technology. And we've already indicated that we're hard at work on that. I don't see Mr. Sponier in the audit room. I see him there he is. Great. That's the answer. As for Greece, we estimate the likelihood of 5% to 6 percent that there will be a political deal. And if there isn't, for now, the €3,500,000,000 from the IMF will not cause a default immediately. We won't know for certain until 26 July, because that's when part of the debt will have to be paid back to Europe. Even then, they may not have to abandon the euro. It's an option for Greece. So there are all kinds of technical and political scenarios. So it's difficult to elaborate on what the risk is. Our direct exposure to Greece is extremely limited. We have slightly over €600,000,000 in issue concerning companies that are based in Greece, but operate outside Greece. And the risk for Greece specifically concerns far more the danger of contamination that so if they did leave the euro, other countries might follow. And we don't think that that's a very serious risk because most of the other countries were eligible a few years ago have introduced severe cutbacks. And they believe that Greece should be treated the same way including Spain because they had to make major cuts and they're reaping the benefits. So all kinds of things could happen. It's more of a second order risk than a first order risk for the ING. If we're talking about the sustainability questions, there are a few. This is our 1st integrated annual report. We thought that was a very important one. And couldn't we get an unqualified statement from the auditor? We make we progress as we go. We'll see where we get as for empowering people, because it was stated that perhaps ING is not the 1st bank that's eligible for supporting companies in this respect. Our present industry book is 19,500,000,000. Euros as far as transactions and transition are concerned. So sustainable transactions, I don't think many other banks can say that, but there's always room for improvement and we'll see how we can improve on that. As for retail, we have some options via the Green Bank for savings at favorable tax rates and we also issue loans that need to be environmentally friendly. And we offer an awful lot of funds and certainly advise our customers that have their assets under management here. We certainly urge them to invest in sustainable funds or funds in sustain invest in sustainable companies, because the returns are higher and it supports a good cost. But ultimately, the customers are the ones who decide. And we certainly recommend that and that book has expanded to $1,500,000,000 So in those rather large areas, we're also making headway. As for the social environment profit and loss, we've launched a pilot for carbon emissions and we're trying to see how we can expand that. So that's also on the horizon with us. We're trying to see how we can progress there. As for the 30% ESR, ESR on 30% of our portfolio, that's our industry portfolio. As for the retail portfolio, attributing a sustainability rating like that, if we're talking ESR's environmental and social risk rating, we don't think that's opportune for our retail portfolio. This is just the answer to your question. We're reviewing it and trying to see in what measure the experience we have with large companies that account for 30% of our portfolio to what extent we can share those experience with smaller business. And we think that's more effective than simply aiming for 100% of our assets, because as said, most of our assets are in retail and we don't think that the impact will be a substantial. So we're trying to see how we can extend our experiences to small and medium enterprises. As for mountaintop removal? Thanks for that. As you already mentioned, we did release a policy on this if it comes to mountaintop removal, where we have indicated that we don't provide any form of financing to support operations that use this mountaintop environment. In fact, if we put a threshold there is that basically it has to do with clients or companies that are directly involved in this. Clearly, we also have corporate facilities for companies that are in technology. And if a piece of that technology happens to be used there, we don't necessarily want to exclude it from the beginning. So therefore, we have a threshold there. Also, there is a new policy that we have released. We think we make a good step in that direction. Let me then go through the next, Mene Reinhardenofra. Mr. Reiners started by talking about the silver fleet savings account and where that took us. I think you should be very happy because that Silver Fleet and the post bank or the old post check-in Jiro service, the entire concept of home banking is we don't really do that by telephone anymore. We do it by mobile apps with it's activated by touch instead of by voice and that's made headlines. It makes us keep thinking about how we can simplify and facilitate things for our average customers. And that is part of how we now have nearly 33,000,000 customers. So I would say the Postbank is one of the components of the ING and certainly helped us out because we've exported elements of that culture. Now Mr. Vareca, Apple and Google Bank. I think I've already responded to that. They're trying to break into payment transactions to analyze conduct by customers and make certain offers about that. We compete with them because we already knee deep in payment transactions and are examining the technologies used and to what extent that they'll benefit us and we can leverage on them. As for insurances, you should ask our counterparts at NN. We can't talk about that anymore. As for your idea about solar panels on rooftops. I think that's a good idea or Teslas or whatever. But the question is, what are the best ideas to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% in 2020? And if those ideas were good, we'll certainly consider them if they achieve an impact. As for machine learning that we used to have to do the work and increasingly it's based on thinking. We see that and the entire reorganization we're introducing in banking relates to ongoing automation of our processes. So people are progressively less involved. Everything has to happen very quickly. Customers want their information very fast and they want immediate responses. And we can we hardly have the manpower to handle it anymore. That's why it's becoming machine learning. Those machines sees algorithms and use them. And finally, I heard a few times, I think this is very important to say a bit about, especially considering this circle's shareholders. And I think I said this last year as well. We're deeply grateful to shareholders for their loyalty not only in the past 10 or 15 years among some of you, also the past 5 to 8 years, if only the past year without shareholders, we can't continue as we thought it was important. If we could pay a dividend sooner, we'd do that if the buffer is permitted. So last year, we already indicated that as a repaying the state with the condition for paying a dividend and the condition for repaying the state was to sell or at least launch the NN on the stock exchange and pass the AQR test by the ECB. That's basically what happened. As a consequence of all this, we were able to announce a dividend for Q4 rather than waiting until 2015. And we certainly hoped that this would reveal how much we appreciate your support and confidence. You know our dividend policy that's at least 40% on the group's net profit. And at the end of the year, we'll see whether it would be a good idea to pay more depending on the regulatory framework, the financial circumstances and the growth we've experienced. We'll certainly take a look at this to show our appreciation. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have any more questions that we forgot to answer or did not answer properly, I've closed the Q and A session. And after the meeting, which will end before half past 6, we'll still be available and you can contact us directly outside the meeting. Now I'm going to project the capital represented in the auditorium that should be broadcast on the screen. If by request, yes, we have it. You'll be able to read all of this for yourself. I think that was clear. Once again, we're using the AFO voting platform and nearly all registration and instructions were received via the EVO platform nearly 97% of the registered capital. Now I'm going to open the vote for the agenda item concerning the financial statements for 2014. Jan Willem will walk you through it. First, we'll do this slowly, then we'll accelerate with your voting handsets. Jan Willem, over to you. First, I'll walk you through the voting procedure in case you're not familiar with it yet. You've all received a voting handset and a voting pass. You'll need to insert your pass into the voting handset. If you want to vote, please insert it with the gold colored ship facing you and then you should receive a welcome message and see your name on the screen. If you don't, please let us know and somebody will be there to assist you. Once we open the vote, you'll see 3 options on the screen. So 1, 2 or 3. And if you want to vote in favor, press 1 press 2 to vote against and press 3 to abstain. If your pass has not been inserted properly, you'll receive a warning message on the screen. Please raise your hand and somebody come help you. After you voted, you'll see confirmation of your selection on the screen. As long as the vote is still open, you can modify your selection from 1, 2 or 3. And once you've changed that vote, the final choice will be the one that counts. I propose that we open the vote on agenda item 2F the financial statements for 2014. I now open the vote. Please cast your vote. If you've all voted, I will now close the vote. And we'll await the outcome on agenda item 2F. The proposal has been adopted. Thank you. That takes us to the reservation and dividend policy that our CEO started telling about. Just to elaborate, as described in our ambition targets for the ING in 2015, we will be distributing to our shareholders based on a sustainable dividend policy. As of 2015, the ING intends to distribute at least 40% of the annual net profit of the ING Group comprising an interim and a final dividend. Afterwards, at the end of each financial year, the Board will make a proposal as to whether additional capital may be paid out to the shareholders. This decision will be based in part on the expected future capital requirements growth opportunities for the group, the net return of the group and if applicable approval from regulatory institutions. Now let me see. Should anybody like the floor about that? Please be brief because we're really running behind schedule. Yes, I had a small question that takes me back to my pet peeve, which is the loyalty dividend. Last year and in previous years, this was addressed as well and your predecessor, Mr. Elferding, active at DSM, you know why I want a loyalty dividend. I'm also referring to the agenda or the minutes from last year when a question was asked about the same subject and Mr. Fink answered that time. And you'll find that on page 18. It concerns the ministers. So I mean the House of Representatives were also considered the loyalty dividend. Now my question is, what was the outcome of these talks in the past year? And you also propose amending corporate governance next year. And I'd like to recommend to you that as for to this loyalty dividend because you mentioned loyal shareholders for the past 10 to 15 years. I'm a depository receipt holder and a shareholder in your bank. So I wear 2 hats, but I urge you to incorporate this in corporate governance in your articles of association. Thank you. I'm Bolivin, are you considering distributing an interim dividend for 2015? Are you considering that? We'll get back to you on that. One more. Mr. Stephens, please be brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mr. Stephens from the SEB SRB. We'd like an optional dividend. And then depending on the financial circumstances, you'll be able to distribute more in shares or less in shares. And that would be more prudent policy. First, Mr. Fink. Now as far as the loyalty dividend is concerned, in the second half of twenty twelve, the council ministers responded to proposals from the Divit Commission about inter alia, the loyalty dividend and the reaction was negative. The main reason was that the long term effects of such a loyalty dividend were insufficiently clear. Concerns had arisen concerning liquidity because if you allocate a loyalty dividend, would that reduce the liquidity of the share? And the canceled minister was also concerned about the use of power by major shareholders, because major shareholders have shares in a portfolio for longer periods of time and would therefore obtain a far greater say in shareholders' meetings. And there were a lot of technical questions about circumventing the provision, because it's fairly easy to sell your share economically through derivatives or other structures. So it seems like you're still a shareholder and you're receiving a loyalty dividend even though economically speaking you're no longer shareholder. So there were quite a few problems identified and that was why the council ministers rejected this proposal in 2012. So I'd be happy to add this to her to do list for recalibrating corporate governance, but I think it's exceedingly unlikely that we'll be able to honor that request. Thank you. As for interim dividends, we certainly intend to do that. For 6 months, 40% of the net underlying result from the bank, because it's difficult to assess the result of sales and profits, but the bank is our operating environment. As for optional dividend, Few shareholders are asking for this to be perfectly truthful. You're asking, but not too many do. Well, I would suggest that you continue that debate after the meeting. That was what I had to say about dividend policy that was FYI. Personally, I think this is very good news, especially for the loyal shareholders. Now I'm going to address the dividend proposal for 2014. As you know, in 2014, the net profit was €1,200,000,000 and a little bit addition to the reserves, €781,000,000 and we now let's it reads incorrectly here in my script, says the speaker. Available to the general meeting, therefore, €470,000,000 The proposal is to distribute a dividend amounting to €0.12 per ordinary share, which would be issuing cash as a final dividend while retaining dividend taxes. The Supervisory Board advises that you accept this proposal. This is what we're going to vote on. Please activate the voting system. Okay. We're going to vote on the dividend for 2014. Please cast your vote. If you all voted, I'll close the vote. And in a few seconds, we'll see the results on the screen. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. Thank you. That takes me to agenda item 4, which is granting a discharge from liability to the Executive Board. So if you discharge them from their duties as described in the financial statements, the report from the Executive Board and the Corporate Governance chapter as well as Article 404 in the Sarbanes Oxley Act and the announcements during the general meeting as we just made. Ladies and gentlemen, may I open the vote? Please cast your vote. On agenda item 4A, discharge of the members of the Executive Board in respect of their duties performed during the year 2014. The proposal has been adopted. Thank you. And the same text that I just read out also concerns discharge from liability of the members of the Supervisory Board. May I open the vote? Please cast your vote. On Item 4B, the discharge of the members of the Supervisory Board. I'm closing the vote and we will await the outcome. The proposal has been adopted. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that takes me to agenda item 5A, amendment of the existing remuneration policy for members of the Executive Board. Please see the annual report pages 9394. And besides, we'll start by hearing some details from Henk Broking, the Chairman of the Remuneration Committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The remuneration policy should enable the ING to attract Board members with expertise and experience necessary to run an international bank such as the ING. So the ING has a sustainable and responsible policy intended to strengthen and create long term values through deferred payments, review of whether things are reasonable and a reclaim mechanism. As a consequence of full repayment of state support, the remuneration policy as approved by the shareholders in 2018 once again applies. In the Netherlands, the WBFO was introduced. And based on this new law, there's a maximum of the payment of Board members with the maximum the bonus 20% of the base salary. Applying this act in 2015 would mean that the total remuneration level of the Executive Board would decrease by about 35%, I. E. 35% below the level approved by the shareholders. As known, the ING has a remuneration policy that is below the median of the eurostoxx50. To avoid further deterioration of the ING's position in this international benchmark. It has been decided to adjust the fixed salaries of executive board members as of 1 January 2015. The fixed salary of the CEO has been increased to 1,630,000 and the fixed salary of the CFO and the CRO to 1,180,000. These adjustments compensate in part the reduction in the variable remuneration because even though the fixed salary has been increased, the total remuneration will be about 20% lower than had been agreed. The difference between the ING and comparable companies will remain considerable and even increase after the proposed adjustments. In taking this decision, the Supervisory Board, please note, has considered the interests of all stakeholders, our customers, our staff members, society and our shareholders. In recent weeks, our stakeholders in the Netherlands have expressed their opinions about this. We are well aware that this subject is very sensitive, especially on our Dutch domestic market. And a few years ago excuse me, a few hours ago, you heard the statement from the Chairman of the Works Council. And I'm grateful for that statement as well. At the same time, the ING is not exclusively Dutch, but more than anything an international company with 33,000,000 customers in 40 countries. The different opinions that we've heard reflect the debate conducted within the Supervisory Board in which we try to strike a balance between what is socially acceptable and the responsibilities of the ING to its capital providers. As indicated previously, the introduction of the WBFO impacts the amount of the maximum variable pay, which is 20% as of September, 2015 to align the remuneration policy at the ING with the WBFO, the Supervisory Board suggests reducing the at target percentage to 80% of the allowed maximum of 20%, resulting in an at target percentage of 16%, 80% of 20%. In addition, the supervisory board proposes allocating the entire variable paying shares of the ING Group to the executive board members. Thanks to this adjustment, the executive board members accrue an interest in the ING in part because of the 5 year retention period and ING is safeguarding the long term objectives of the ING and its stakeholders. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to start on this side. Are there any questions? Thank you. Now looking to the I'm sorry you were over there. No, you're picking up your paper. Now you Mr. Vreke and then Mr. Verembach and then Mr. Hasvekar, I can see you as well. And after that, I'd like to close. Mr. Finkelsen? Yes. My name is Finkelsen from Epp. Well, last year, I commented on this subject as well, because in my opinion as a shareholder and a holder of depository receipts, I think there is insufficient support for this proposal. And as a shareholder, holder of depository receipts, I can simply not defend this item of the agenda as proposed. I cannot defend it to my friends and family. So yes, well, there are many, many objections. I mean, I don't mean this personally, but the arguments that you mentioned, you want to have good directors in the bank. Well, I've been a shareholder perhaps for 25 years. And we've always had excellent directors in the past. As we can see here, there are so many shareholders that are disappointed actually in the way this bank has failed to create shareholders' value. Well, of course, we can't blame the directors. I mean, it's not their fault that no value has been created. But why do you keep coming up with all these reasons to hire these directors and remunerate them substantially? And why are you increasing this remuneration time and time again? You're raising the bar time and time again whereas I think the economic situation is such that it would really impact the results of the bank. It's not because of the directors. I really just don't know how to deal with this. Mr. Flaker, no I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, perhaps first Mr. Flaker. Good afternoon, Chairman. The Volkssturant National Newspaper published a list. Number 1 is Ben von Boder. He's going to make €400,000,000 24,000,000 Erik Engstrom, Read Elsevier, something along the lines of €20,000,000 Nancy McKinsey, euros 12,000,000 is what she's going to make. Paul Polman, euros 9,500,000 Mr. Von Brucksmear, Heineken, euros 8,000,000 Mr. Vennink, ASML is going to make €5,000,000 Mr. Plaut Gemalto €5,000,000 Mr. Wehrnans, Aegon €4,000,000 I can go on and on. Then ranking 18th just below DSM Randstad, Schag Van den Broek Randstad, €1,800,000 and then Rolf Hammers, €1,500,000 If you are the most profitable company in the Netherlands. And I'm sure Mr. Hammers doesn't need this, but it is important that you remunerate your staff according to international levels. And so it has been explained, yes, it's great that everybody get a higher salary, but now you see you're ranking 18th. So that's about 7% of what Mr. Ben van Berde is making, less even. So I think you should look at the benchmark and look at what someone's worth. And I assume I know that Mr. Hammers, I mean there's a big difference in CEOs. It's very difficult to find a good CEO with excellent communication skills. Now that's far from straightforward. I'm certain that this should be compensated financially. Okay. Let me just continue on the left hand side. Mr. Espana, please be brief. And a couple is 2. Okay, fine. But are you done with the left hand side? Mr. Espana, please speak in the microphone. Can I is it my turn? Yes. Great. Well, I have a question. ING on the 8th November has been living in the state hospital. The state hospital is called is the state. And up to the 8th November, it wasn't allowed to grant additional remuneration. In 2013, Mr. Hambers let me see made €900,000,000 no €772,000 At some point in time after that, he was given 476 €1,000 for working 53 days which is a lot of money. I mean, because when he was discharged from the state hospital all of a sudden he was given an additional €476,000 the same applied to Mr. Wilfried Martens. He also stayed in the state hospital and at some point he was also paid €22,000 for 53 days. And then Mr. Flynn, well, that's even worse. He after he was discharged from hospital, he didn't spend so much time in the hospital. But as from 8th November, he was given €150,000 No, no, no, no, Mr. No. No, there was one that was given €150,000 additionally for 53 days. No. Well, you know exactly what happened to ABN. Well, we're all against that. We have staff and if the staff says, okay, we're going to walk away and do something different, I mean, everything will go down the train. But if all of a sudden in 10 minutes' time we decide to sell all our shares, you will be in gigantic trouble. You should withdraw this. You should withdraw this proposal. And the taxpayer that has gone to the store to buy a Phillips razor or something else. I mean we should avoid this. You should simply withdraw this whether we have good directors with 750,000 I'm sure that he can pay for a sandwich and a bit of cheese. So why doesn't he just go show us for a couple of years that things are okay and then we'll talk again? The 1st 5 years, the taxpayer even the taxpayer out there on the street, the taxpayer has made sure that ING could survive. Otherwise, we'd been pushing up daisies years ago. And now why For Mr. Hammes it's 1,270,000 and I'm sure it will be 1,600,000 in a couple of minutes. And then next year, it will be 2 point something. I mean, that's not going to help us. It's all negative. And the unions are going to go on strike. The unions want 3% salary increase or €20,000 per person. I mean, it's not going to help us. I mean, this is a downward spiral. You should simply withdraw this proposal. And I'm sure the unions will stop putting forward their claims. They will understand what's going on. This simply has to be withdrawn. Mr. Espana, thank you very much. Let me proceed. First over here Mr. Fierenbach, then Mr. Jona and then over there and then Mr. Haselink, who I promised him and then the other gentleman over there. And then I'd like to close Mr. Federer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me highlight that our we aim for a moderate remuneration policy in all the companies that we invest in. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the ING has appropriately explained its adjustment of remuneration in the light of the law. And they're not using the you're not using the at target percentage. And we have pointed out to ING that we're not in favor of full payment in shares and this payment has to gradually take place gradually after a number of years and based on very challenging targets. Now the proposal that at hand complies with our requirements and our wishes in this respect. So we expect very challenging performance targets for variable pay up to a maximum of 20%. My question is can you confirm this? We expect that the shares that will be received by the members of the Executive Board if and when they get variable remuneration will be maintained and held by these directors until the end of their employment. Now we assume that this is also common that it will be up to the end of their employment. Could you perhaps explain how you deal with this law, the law of remuneration policy of financial undertakings with regards to all the other ING employees. Are you applying this law uniformly for members of the Executive Board and the rest of the staff? And which other measures does ING use in fixed and variable remuneration in order to achieve the desired behavior financial, non financial incentives, personal satisfaction things along those lines. I think there should also be attention you should pay attention to other mechanisms of remuneration and not only the financial ones. Thank you, Mr. Jona. Thank you, Jona VEB. Chairman, we understand the emotions connected with remuneration. And we do agree in a certain sense, but not in every sense. And Mr. Berthing's explanation is clear. Mr. Espana the ING people ask everybody whether they would be prepared to give back 20% of their salary as a consequence of measures of the government. And of course, unions would say, no never. And this Chairman has agreed to that unfortunately because we also agree that he should be able to measure up to his colleagues, his fellow CEOs in the same industry. And I don't think it is appropriate to keep bashing the remuneration. And we are against increasing, but then again there are not so many other possibilities of increasing fixed salary because with the fixed salary you get the you link it to target short term and long term remuneration. And with that you get an upward spiral. And this is why we feel that the base salary should be as low as possible, good performance, good high variable remuneration, but that does fit within the overall context. Thank you. I believe it was you first and then the gentleman at microphone number 3 and then Mr. Hauserwindkel. Mr. Brooking, your explanation was clear. Mr. Hammers, I have a question to you. When you were called away from Belgium, let me put it that way, And when you joined ING because of the bailout, there were a number of things you had to give in with. Are you being compensated for that? Well, if you are, I don't think that's a problem. But for the other members of the Executive Board, once again, the explanation of Mr. Broking, if an increase of remuneration is at an acceptable level and I mean at a socially acceptable level. I mean that it's not excessive. If that's the case, I don't have a problem with it. But let us not compare with American companies and other peer groups, peer groups, Apple groups or whatever group you may have. I mean, it's not going to help us. It's not going to get us anywhere. We see this with other companies and we also see this at Shell £24,000,000 I mean, it's absurd. You can never spend that money. Even if you have a wife with a golden credit card, you can never spend that money, not in your lifetime. So what do you get? You turn up at ING and you start saving. And ING will get a surplus in savings, will be facing yet another problem. But joking apart, I mean, as long as it's reasonable and there are a number of Dutch companies that and we have Supervisory Director former Supervisory Director Mr. Elvedink was at that company. And these are companies that are not spending that much money on remuneration. I hope that ING will follow suit. My name is not Mr. 3. My name is Mr. Erp. But just tying in with the comments of Mr. Jorna, who actually covered what I wanted to discuss, so I would like to issue a positive voting advice for this item on the agenda. The cash component is changed in should be changed into a share or depository receipt share. And that will increase loyalty and involvement engagement in the long term. So I wonder whether the members of the supervisory board would be prepared to purchase shares in due course? Thank you. Mr. Haswinkel? Yes, Mr. Chairman, Herman Haswinkel on behalf of Foundation ING Shares, we're going to proceed to vote on this subject. And as a Foundation ING shares, we would like to say a few words about this subject. This is a subject that was explicitly discussed in our Board. Our interpretation of this item of the agenda by the way is such that the way we understand it, we would be voting on the at target remuneration, the percentage for the variable remuneration and that we are talking about the details of the variable, remuneration that we're not voting on the fixed salary component. In our opinion, the test or the check that we would have to do is whether the change of the variable remuneration fits within the mandate of the Supervisory Board as granted in 2010 when we adopted the remuneration policy. If we take that as a reference, if we then take a look at the process that took place and how prudent it was, we understand from an interview that took place last week that the stakeholders were consulted prior to the recommendation. And taking that into account, our conclusion is that as a foundation we will support this proposal. I'd just like to add to that that since we receive a lot of voting voting instructions from shareholders and that won't be visible later on that from the voting advice and voting instructions, we have seen a lot of support for this policy. Thank you, Ms. Gerhard Svenkol. Closing the round of questions on the subject And we're going to let me see proceed with the vote. So I'm asking the operator to switch on the system. I'm sorry. Yes, of course, we need answers to the questions. Mr. Broking is ready to go. Mr. Broking, ladies and gentlemen, my apologies, Mr. Broking will be answering the different questions that have been raised. I'll do my best. By way of introductory remark, I think that the fact that there's so many different opinions that that in Huazhuinko. Yes, we and I myself had 16 telephone conversations with the major shareholders in general. And actually what they said was quite contrary to what you hear in the Dutch context like I mean how come that you are paying these the members of the Executive Board at such a noncompetitive level. So let me see. I'm just going to try to answer questions in the proper order. Is there support? Is there not any support? Well, in certain groups in society, particularly in the Netherlands, there may not be that much support. And we understand that. And as a remuneration committee but also throughout the Supervisory Board, we discussed the matter extensively and in great detail. And we said to ourselves, okay, do we think we can explain this step? Do we feel it's responsible? Given the measures that ING is taking in the Netherlands? And lots of people are simply simply don't know whether they will continue to have a job at ING. So it's very important that the employer in this case ING, take care of its employees and do so properly and that there be a good social plan for this group of people that they be helped that etcetera. In other words, this is the duty of management here in the Netherlands. And there are other stakeholders that are approaching us from different perspectives, such as for instance the major shareholders. I just mentioned the nature shareholders. And so we do realize and I'm trying to answer your first questions. We realized from the very beginning that there was never going to be full support for this decision. On the other hand, it was up to us as a remuneration committee 1st and foremost and the full fledged Supervisory Board to make these considerations and this is precisely what we have done. Is it then impossible to find good directors within the bank? Why do you need to increase the salary time and time again? Why do you need to raise the bar? These are just some of the comments that I heard. Of course, it shouldn't be more and higher. I'm sure you read in the press that the word wasn't mentioned here. It's like a leapfrog. I mean, I'm sure that you heard this time and time again that these companies that deliberately want to remunerate their people in the 1st quartile, they are deliberately taking part in this leapfrog process. And we have chosen to pursue a policy adopted by yourselves to remunerate at a level below the median. In other words, we have decided not to take part in this race of increasing remuneration. And we would like to add to that that we're below the median and are about 35% to 40% away from that. I mean, it's needless to say and I heard this, this afternoon. And of course, some people were saying, what are you doing? And things are evolving much too rapidly. We believe that we have a moderate policy remuneration policy that we're not engaging in this race to increase salaries not the leapfrog game. Specific questions. The does the law apply to all employees? Excellent question. The remuneration policy financial undertaking. So we're working on this right now to it is a matter of study applying this law to all employees and we will be giving more clarity to this effect. And then there was this comment someone who said the increase of the fixed salary that's not a good thing. Well, I think I'm speaking somewhat on personal title, but I'm sure some of my colleagues agree with me. No, perhaps that may not be the way we wanted to proceed. In an ideal world, and this is a comment that we received from many shareholders you would want a larger part of the remuneration package to include an incentive and preferably non financial incentives and preferably focused on the long term as the math committee recommended at the time. But fact of the matter is that with the only European country in which this variable remuneration has been capped at 20%. And so there's nothing else you can do than increase fixed remuneration. Peer group question. I think that it's clear and that we answered it clearly. But nonetheless, I will explain it once again. We explicitly decided not to compare ourselves with only the financial sector. We explicitly decided to only compare ourselves with a peer group within the European context and to have a peer group consisting of companies in Europe where ING indeed is a peer company. And in this peer group, we are at the lower level in fact. In our preparatory work within the remuneration committee, we looked at all sorts of other peer groups. And of course, we also looked at financial companies and we also looked at financial companies without the Swiss and the British. I mean, just to exclude the highest paid directors. And then obviously, we also looked at the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, the AEX. And you may remember the list or the ranking in the Volkswagen newspaper. You refer to that. Yes. Thank you very much. And indeed, if we take out Shell and Unilever, ING is the largest company in ING, but is on ranks 18th in terms of remuneration. Well, that being the fact, it's very difficult to insist that this would not be moderate remuneration policy. But let me put it positively. In that, you can infer the reflection of the fact that we actually try to take into account the public opinion in this respect in the Netherlands. And as far as shares are concerned, the policy is that the shares must be held for at least a period of 5 years. Mr. Espana, your numbers, I mean, I was somewhat confused. What we don't want to do in any case is to just zoom in on one element of remuneration, just fixed remuneration or just the variable remuneration. I mean all the consultants that we use have always insisted throughout the process that the first way to look at this is to look at fixed and variable together and then see how this remuneration package compares to our peer group. And for us, this was reason to propose the increase that we proposed. So and your last question, what is it exactly that we're voting on? It is correct if your question was that, is this still within the policy that we formulated at the time and that we are specifically voting on the fact that we're changing the target percentage from 80% to 20% the maximum that is and that the variable component is not paid in cash, but now in the form of depository receipts of shares. That's correct. These are the 2 items that are put to vote. I think in any case, I hope that I've been able to answer your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. We can now proceed to the vote on this item. You may cast your vote on agenda item 5a, amendment of the existing remuneration policy of members of the Executive Board. The vote is open. If everybody has cast their vote, I can proceed to close the vote and we'll just have to wait for the outcome of the vote. There we go. As you can see the proposal has been approved. And I now proceed to agenda item 5B. This is the capping of variable remuneration for select global staff. Now I want you to forget about the previous item on the agenda. That was about the executive board, but this concerns staff somewhere in the bank, somewhere in the world. I'd like to refer to the annual report pages 94, 95. And once again, Mr. Broking will provide a brief explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to European regulations, financial companies may for individual employees cap or sorry increase the maximum variable remuneration component from 100% to 200% of the fixed remuneration component. Pursuant to European rules and regulations, this would apply to identified staff. As per February 7, 2015, this would apply based on our national rules and regulations. This is the law that we just referred to for all employees of financial companies worldwide. For this increase, this increase requires the prior approval of the shareholders meeting of the financial institution involved. In the case of ING that would be the shareholders' meeting of its subsidiaries. But the European Banking Authority has published a consultation document, which recommends that in such a case ING Group, so that's us as the parent company, can put its intentions to its own AGM. Now in connection with the aforementioned, we are requesting you to approve that ING Group as the ultimate shareholder of its subsidiaries for performance years 2014, 2015 2016 in individual cases can cooperate towards the increase of the maximum variable remuneration component to maximum of 200% of the fixed remuneration component. But ING will be very restrictive in applying this approval and will only use it for a select group of employees working within Commercial Banking and Bank Treasury and won't apply it to more than 1% of all ING Group staff. In performance year 2014, this will concern 65 cases and it is expected that for performance year 2015, this will apply to 120 cases. But this increase is a consequence of the introduction of our law on remuneration policies or financial undertakings and that it would only wouldn't only concern identified staff, but employees of all financial institutions. Thank you. I'll give the floor to Mr. Fierenbach, Mr. Swinkos, but please be brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As indicated at previous items, we aim for moderate remuneration policy. And in our view, one of the principles of the CRD IV regulation is for the variable pay not to exceed 100 percent of the fixed salary. The envisage is intended to avert negative impacts of variable pay and to discourage excessive risks taking excessive risks. The shareholders meeting may allow a maximum of 200 percent of the fixed salary, but we see no cause to leverage this exception, not even now that the permission is being requested for identified staff worldwide for performance in 2014 or in limited measure for staff in 2015 2016 concerning staff outside the European Economic Area. That's why we will be voting against this proposal. For your information, we have adopted this position not only for the ING. We're doing this for all peers in Europe. This CRD IV means that we would like to stick to the maximum ceiling of 100%. Perhaps superfluous, we are still not entirely clear as to how you will be dealing with the CRDA IV guideline or the draft guideline that you mentioned from the banking authorities. We are not sure to what extent this applies to the ING. So can you indicate in what measure the guideline of the European Banking Authorities will be applicable to the ING? And if you believe that there are some minimum requirements concerning elaboration on this agenda item according to this provision, then we believe that your elaboration is insufficient at this agenda item. Our standard policy is that if there's insufficient information to adopt a position, we won't support the proposal that was regarding the EPR consultation document. Mr. Finkels? I agree with the previous speaker, but my question is in fact, you're asking us to authorize this for 2015 2016. We just approved a maximum variable remuneration for the Executive Board of 20%. And I think that as a shareholder and depository receipt holder, I can agree with aligning this with the other eligible members that the same conduct should be carried over to Board members and officers reporting to the executive board. Now my question is, you're going to open the vote on this and you're required to submit this to a vote. I would imagine that you could withdraw the proposal, but you also have this option for 2016. Or are we indeed going to determine that the variable pay arrangement will apply for 2 years? Or will this be a discussion item at the General Shareholders Meeting next year as well? Because as a shareholder, I'd like to see a reduction of that 200% toward 20%. Mr. Heng, please be brief. We're running behind schedule. I'll be brief. I do see some complications here because there's a vast difference in salaries worldwide. I'm not sure whether the ING operates in India or Bangladesh where the salaries are 5% or 10% of what they are here in the Netherlands whereas they're nearly double the rate here in Switzerland. And if the Swiss receive a 200% increase, that's a vast amount. But in India or Bangladesh, you can say, well, that's well deserved. Couldn't we differentiate this globally? That's my question. Thank you. I'm now concluding the round of questions. Mr. Frederica, could we move on? Okay. Please be very brief. Ladies and gentlemen, we're really running behind, so I have to be strict. I will be very brief. Memphis De Pye is leaving for England for €30,000,000 even though Mr. Hammers for 1% of that amount is serving the most profitable institution in the Netherlands, and we're talking about €4,000,000,000 to €5,000,000,000 And that would double next year. What I'd like to know is what banking industry staff earn and how many staff are transferring to other banks because those ING staff are an excellent deal in other countries. That's what I'd like to know about. Mr. Hammers does a better job scoring. Mr. Broking? Now let's start with the facts because I think there's some confusion. CRD4 already existed and that CRD4 measure allows up to 100% variable pay exclusively for a specifically identified group of staff. And there's a carefully circumscribed definition of such people. They considerably influence the company's risk profile and so on and so forth. I won't be too verbose here. That's not new. I think somebody thought that CRD IV was new. But what is new is that licensed institutions have to request permission from the shareholders to exceed the cap of 100% variable pay, including 100%. That's what we're talking about here. And our reason for putting this on the agenda is because we want to reflect the spirit of the EBA, but Mr. Fahrenbach that doesn't apply to the group because the ING group is not a licensed institution. Or ultimately after the final document, the EBA is a consultation document. What will become clear from the final document as to the role of the ING group, I cannot predict, but it certainly doesn't apply at this time. I heard some concerns that we would all go back to 100% or 200%. You don't need to worry about that. 1st, because of the rigid definition concerning the CRD-four people who are subject to the 100% regime. And second, because we're telling you in advance that the percentage of the people eligible for the maximum of 200% will be extremely limited and the departments will be specifically stated and will not exceed 1% of our staff. So we don't expect that danger for those reasons. The third question I heard concerning differentiation. I think that more generally differentiation applies universally. At all sites where ING operates and at all levels where it operates, the ING tries to pay according to market rates. That means that if in a certain country salaries are lower and capable management will be available for appointment at a rate 30% lower than elsewhere. If that's the context, then that's also the context for the remuneration. That's also why we are trying to define peer groups as accurately as possible, so that we can remunerate people according to all possible contexts, including the geographic context. I think that answers the question. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to open the vote on this item. We're opening the vote on agenda item 5 which is variable remuneration cap for select global staff. Please cast your vote. Has everybody voted? If you have cast your vote, I will now close the vote and we will await the outcome. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. Thank you. Now on to agenda item 6, which is the appointment of the order. It is proposed to appoint KPMG Accountants as the auditor of the company for financial years 20 16 to 2019 as described in the convocation notice for this meeting. I'm going to hand you over to Mr. Lamberti, the Chairman of our Audit Committee. Thanks, Jim. I'd like to give you some details on the KPMG selection process. Under Dutch legislation, ING Group is required to change its auditor as of January 2016. This means that ING has to change its current audit firm Ernst and Young. ING Group proposes the AGM to appoint KPMG as its auditor for the financial years 2016, 2017, 2018 2019. The audit of the ING 2015 annual accounts will still be conducted by Ernst and Young. The nomination of KPMG is the result of a forward tender process that was overseen by the Audit Committee and was executed in accordance with the ING policy on auditors' independence. I will give you now a summary of the firm selection process. In the summer of 2013, ING started the audit firm selection process. ING decided to start relatively early as it aimed to get a team with very experienced banking auditors and prevent that such a team was already engaged at other accounts. 3 of the big four firms were invited to tender for the audit of ING. Obviously, our current auditors Ernst and Young was not invited as it could not be reappointed according to Dutch law. Key criteria included the who, like the quality of the firm, the proposed lead partners the Dutch and International Banking Audit teams the what, like the independence and the high quality of the audit as well as the fairness of the fee and the how, like for instance, the innovative audit approach and obviously, which was very important to us, the smooth transition between the two firms. The tender process resulted in the selection of KPMG and the proposal to appoint KPMG to the AGM for 4 consecutive years. KPMG has submitted an audit proposal, which has been assessed also by means of a number of interviews with the KPMG lead partners and key team members. ING's Board and members of ING's Audit Committee had a prominent role in this assessment. The decision to propose to the AGM to appoint KPMG as our new auditor from 2016 onwards was made during the Supervisory Board meeting held in November 2014 and was based on KPMG's ability to meet our key criteria, which I mentioned before. We proposed the AGM to appoint KPMG as our audit firm for a period of 4 years, starting with 2016. Thank you, and I hand back to the Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lamberti. Any questions? Can we direct overhand to stemming? Or can we proceed to the vote immediately? Would you please be brief? Mr. Vandebosz. Mr. Vandebosz, what I don't hear overall is that I thought there would be an evaluation every 2 years. That's the case now. Audit firms are appointed for 4 years or reappointed, but usually there's an evaluation after 2 years. Is that missing Or isn't that done? Herman? No. I don't think there's a formal evaluation process required according to the law. Obviously, that's under discretion of the Supervisory Board and help the assistance of the Audit Committee. And obviously, that also depends on how satisfied we are with the audit works. But right now, I thought we saw no reason to believe that any appointment of the new audit firm less than 4 years would be advisable, particularly when you think about the steep ramp up of a very large team across the globe and the very heavy transition work, which has to be mastered by the new audit teams. Therefore, I think it is advisable to look for the 4 year period and remember also that we try to achieve a balance between getting the good order device, the good professional teams on board, while at the same time achieving good commercial terms. Mr. Espana, please be brief. Well, it's all possible that this is according to the law, but do you want to would you please introduce an evaluation every 2 years? And second, the new audit firm, do we have representatives from them in this auditorium from the new audit team? We're not sure we understood the question, but I'll leave it to Mr. Flynn or Mr. Lamberti. I'll be happy to repeat my question. No problem. No, there's no represent I'm disappointed that there's no representative. And we're not going to introduce your review after 2 years. If we're extremely unhappy with the way the work is being done, that's a different matter. But as Mr. Lamberti explained, we're a large company. We're operating in 40 countries. By the time the auditors have been properly trained that will take time. And we believe that 4 years is a satisfactory time frame. Yes, but at other companies, we have the same issue and they always had 2 firms present, 2 audit firms. Why don't we have that here? It's very strange. Thank you for your remark. Thank you. I'm going to conclude the remarks in Q and A and I'm going to proceed to the vote. Please take your voting handsets and vote on agenda item 6, which is the appointment of the auditor. Please cast your vote. I'm looking around the auditorium to see whether you've cast your vote. I'm waiting for the go ahead from the voting office. The vote is now closed and we're waiting for the outcome of the vote on agenda item 6. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. Now I'm going to move on to agenda item 7, the composition of the Supervisory Board. I will start with the appointment of Mrs. Hayorffett to the Supervisory Board per the end of this general meeting and the reappointment of Mr. Kaubraubring. Also as per the end of this meeting, Mrs. Feoref, would you please rise again as you did at the beginning of this meeting so that we can all see you? The Supervisory Board recommends appointing Mrs. Georga to the Supervisory Board. And in a few moments, the same recommendation for Messrs. Kauper and Vrudink to elaborate. If you like, the candidates are willing to lead the auditorium. Also for your information, the proposed appointments derive from a profile that was drafted. Mrs. Feorefik has an extended track record in running large listed firms and is knowledgeable about the financial industry and international trade and industry. Mr. Kuiper the proposal to reappoint Mr. Kuiper is based on his extensive experience in Dutch finance and the way during his present term, he performed his duties as Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board and Chairman of the Audit Committee. He also chaired the remuneration committee and was a member of the nominations committee. The reappointment of Mr. Brauking is based on his extensive international experience in both finance and staff matters and the way during his present term he performed his duties as member of the Supervisory Board and Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee and member of the nominations committee and recently Chairman of the Remuneration Committee as well. In a moment, I'll open these votes individually, but first I'd like to know whether anybody would like to make a remark. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Bruning. Supervisory boards are very important. That's why I don't think you can simply run through the formalities. I'd like each of the 3 candidates, especially the candidate with the complicated Romanian name to tell me why they want this position and how they're going to do this. Could you please translate that into decent Romanian? I understand your request, but I'm not going to accommodate that. There are quite a few companies where the candidate supervisory board members are not even present at the meeting, we have provided you with the information and it's up to you to cast your vote accordingly. Please be brief as well. What you just said does not hold true at all. Companies, there are some supervisory board members that do explain why they want to serve in that position as that's for the new one. As for the 2 reappointments, I'm happy that this boring old banker is eligible for reappointment as well as the weathered member who is smiling there. I'm glad that he's running as well. Now on to the vote. Oh, I missed somebody. I apologize. I didn't see you, madam. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jose van Haasrift. I'm a private shareholder. I was allowed to make a remark about these appointments and I'm happy to. First, I'd like to express my appreciation that the expansion of the Supervisory Board will reflect diversity both in gender and origin. We missed the previous broad global representation on the old Supervisory Board. And also, I believe that input from a country such as Romania is most welcome, if only because of our long standing the long standing connections with other countries and cultures. And I deeply hope that Mrs. Fiori will have great input in other fields as well, especially areas that are still under exploration. Thank you very much. I'm going to open the votes. So we're going to have 3 votes for your information. First, we're going to vote about Mrs. Feore. Okay, we're going to open the vote. And Mrs. Fioricher for appointment to the Supervisory Board, please cast your vote. Could somebody take a look at the voting handset to my right? Let's wait a moment until this problem has been resolved. Can you help, madam? Is it for Lukaeng or is it Okrolost? It's been solved. It's been solved. I understand, yes. We're going to close the vote on agenda item 7A now and wait for the results. This is Georgi, congratulations. Now the second one, Mr. Kuiper. Reappointment of Mr. Kuiper as a member of the Supervisory Board, Agenda Item 7B. Once again, please cast your vote. I understand your excitement. You're clapping before we know the outcome. Perhaps you're prescient. I'm going to close the vote on Agenda Item 7B despite the clapping we heard we'll wait for the official outcome. No call. Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Kaper. Now we're going to vote about Mr. Brogink. Once again, the vote is open for the reappointment of Mr. Brogink. Please cast your vote. I will now close the vote and wait for the outcome. Congratulations, Mr. Ladies and gentlemen, on to agenda item 8. The following agenda items are the same as last year. It's a long story and I'll try to like in previous years that is, I'll try to pick up my pace. First, the issue of ordinary shares and granting rights to subscribe to such shares and restricting or excluding preference rights from ordinary shareholders. Please see the proposal and the explanatory notes in the convocation notice. This authorization is for a maximum nominal amount of shares exceeding 92,000,000 that's 10% of the issued share capital for a period of 18 months unless the general meeting extends this and the authorization serves general financing purposes including issuing capital mergers and acquisitions as well as performance shares, the Supervisory Board has approved the proposal. This authorization will replace the authorization granted by the previous general meeting. I'd like to open the vote on this proposal. Going to vote on 8A authorization to issue ordinary shares with or without preemptive rights. I am now closing the vote and we will await the outcome of the vote on Agenda Item 8A. At Forstel is Anherenom. The proposal has been adopted. Thank you. Now agenda item 8B, authorization to issue ordinary shares with or without preemptive rights in connection with a merger to take over of the business or a company or if necessary in the opinion of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board for the safeguarding or conservation of the company's asset position. I read all this out. Please see the explanatory notes on pages 56 of the convening notice. This authorization applies for over €92,000,000 or 10% of the issued capital and may be extended by the general meeting. The meeting may be exercised separately from the authorization under 8A. So it's a separate item in the event of a merger or acquisition of a business or a company or if necessary for safeguarding or conserving the capital position of INJ. This concerns except for shares of the Tier 1 group that may be issued under the current financial supervision legislation. The Supervisory Board has approved the proposal and this will replace the proposal from the previous shareholders meeting. I am now opening the vote on this proposal. Please vote on Agenda Item 8B. You may now cast your vote. The vote is now closed and we will await the outcome. For agenda item 8B. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. Item 9 of the agenda. So instead of issue now, we're talking about withdrawal. I am addressing the authorization to acquire ordinary shares or depository receipts of ordinary shares in the company's own capital. So I'm talking about shares and deposit receipt of ING. I'd like to refer to the notice page 6 and the explanatory note. The authorization is for a maximum of 10% of issued capital and applies for a period of 18 months and the acquisition price the acquisition price must at least be €1 not be in excess of the highest price of which the depository receipts of shares are traded at the Euronext stock exchange in Amsterdam at the date in which the agreement to acquire shares is entered into or the day prior to which the stock exchange is opened. And the authorization will be used for purposes of trading and investment in the context of ordinary exercise of banking and insurance operations. These authorizations, we repeat this year in, year out. And every year, you sort of push this through. I mean, it's a vote, but I'm just wondering why? What's the use? I just really don't understand. Is this really necessary? Is it legislation? What is the reason? Because we waste a lot of time year in year out on votes for these authorizations. I understand your question. In fact, it is in order to have a certain degree of flexibility should unforeseen circumstances arise. If not, you have all these periods of notice that you have to comply with in order to convene meetings. Now we've arranged things in such a way that we have to ask you for this authorization every year. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to proceed to the vote. You can cast your vote regarding 9A authorization to acquire ordinary shares of depository receipts for ordinary shares in the company's own capital. Looking around, that is closed. And let us just wait for the results for 9a. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. And I'm proceeding to 9b. This is the authorization to acquire ordinary shares or depository receipts for ordinary shares in the company's own capital in connection with a major capital restructuring. So this is an authorization of the Executive Board. I'd like to refer to the explanatory note on page 7. And here I would like to explain that this authorization applies to a maximum of 20% of issued capital consisting of a maximum of the authorization pursuant to Agenda Item 9A, which is 10%. So this is another 10% for a period of 18 months. And the acquisition price must at least amount to €1 may not be higher than the highest price at which the depository receipts of ordinary shares are traded at Euronext Amsterdam at the date in which the agreement is entered into or the preceding date in which the stock exchange opened. And now the purpose of the authorization is to allow the company in connection with an important restructuring of its capital to purchase ordinary shares. We can proceed to vote on this proposal. 9b, authorization to acquire ordinary shares or depository receipts of ordinary shares in the company in the company's own capital in connection with the major capital restructuring. I'm just looking around. And if everybody has cast their votes, I can now proceed to close the vote on 9b and we'll wait for a second until we get the results. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal has been adopted. This brings me to any other business enclosure. But before I proceed to any other business, first there are a number of closing remarks that I have for you. 1st of all, concerning the minutes, holders of shares and deposit receipts can receive a copy of the minutes and we have forms to that request and they'll be available when you leave the room. I'm sure they'll also have a password for you as well. The final results of the votes will be posted on the website within a couple of days. 3, we'll be serving drinks in the central lobby area of this building. I'm sure you'll see that when you leave the room. Questions or complaints regarding ING service or products of ING? Well, you can leave those complaints at the desk. And please hand back your voting handsets and the chip cards and the survey. So now I'd like to give you the opportunity to raise your last questions. First Mr. Heinemann and then you please be brief because we would all perhaps prefer to enjoy a drink. Mr. Chairman, I have an extremely short question and that concerns dividend. 2014 ING is granting a very low dividend only in cash. But I would like to hear a commitment from you that in the following years, if you do proceed to pay out dividend, that it be an optional dividend. I assume that ING would very much like internationally operating company. Then these foreign shareholders always have an issue with the Dutch dividend tax. You always have to you want to claim it back. I always have issues for my shareholdings in foreign companies. In France, you have to do it in the computer, you have to do it in French, I can have the bank do it. But then the cost will increase even further because the cost would exceed the dividend tax. So that's really not an option for me. We get your question. Thank you. Mr. Jorna and then Mr. Stephens, Ms. Haskrecht and then I can't see it in the dark. And then I suggest we stop. Very brief, Chairman, innovative. And actually what ING is doing is asking customers to brainstorm with it. But as a private investor, I cannot invest in mortgages. Now I'm sure you have enough mortgages. Why don't you look for a way in which institutional investors can invest in mortgages, but private investors can't do that. It might be a good idea. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Mr. Stephens? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Stavans is my name SRB. Yes. Well, I have a question on your financial calendar. It doesn't go any further than November 4, 2015. And I've been insisting on the matter for a number of years. But it seems to me that for a company of a certain standing such as ING, I would think would be important to extend this calendar. I don't understand 4th November 2015 and then what? That's as far as your financial calendar goes. And we would prefer to have a calendar with all the important events up till and including next year, 1 year after the AGM. I mean this is nothing new. BMW does it lots of other companies. Now your schedule for stepping down 3 in 2016, 2017, 5 out of 8. 2018, 1 will be stepping down. So we would like you to review the schedule of in which our supervisory directors are stepping down. 5 out of 9 stepping down in 2017, which is more than 50%. Thank you, Ms. Van Haastricht. And then Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, but I'll be brief. And I shall try to be very clear my questions. First of all, I would like to ask you what the word engagement or experience means. I keep hearing this word in Dutch, this word experience. I think it's vague. I mean, when I read words such as we are creating, I'm thinking, what are we talking about? Are we talking about the creator? I mean, my question is the Executive Board. I mean, what is the position of the specifically? My next question to you is, in which measure and I heard at this meeting that since 2011 you've been working very hard, But this is a question that may not have been asked at the past few AGMs. To which extent has ING been involved in the funding of weapons? Will it be involved in funding of weapons in the future? And subsequently, my last question to you. This is rather an observation. I agree with what Mr. Volt has said on behalf of the employees of ING that they are suffering the consequences of the fact that they are not being that the bank isn't expressing properly what it is it's doing. But then again, it's not only their opinion, it's also my opinion, because bank is raking in the money here in the Netherlands. And where is it raking in the money? From all these old people in the Netherlands, the elderly people have been playing a very important role in the Netherlands, have a lot of experience. And their opinions are quite different from the opinions of the younger people and also the opinions of institutional shareholders and people who have moved to other countries such as the U. K. And the U. S. Mr. Van der Bos? Mr. Van den Scheer. You have shown us a new meeting technique. You've also done that at Phillips, the Royal Philips. I don't think it's a good way of chairing a meeting. I prefer the interactive meetings of questions and answers. Simply asking a question you get an answer and then you can comment on that. That was really the point that I wanted to raise. I mean this meeting method or technique is something I would abolish immediately. Well, the only thing I would like to say is that it's a quarter to 6 now, but then again we never know what's in store for me. Well, this meeting stayed within the limits. Last year, we talked about shares and deposit receipts for NN. I talked to Mr. Hammers about this. At Phillips, the meeting extended a long, long time. Good afternoon. My name is Van Vira and I'm a private shareholder. I have one comment and one question. And the question is of a practical nature. Mr. Hammers has talked to us about customer experience, and he says that 1,000 new customers is a wonderful thing a day. But couldn't we increase this number if we can transfer to another bank with our own bank account number? Now how far are you in this process? And would banks agree to go along with this transfer of bank account numbers to a new bank? And my comment, I'd like to refer to the speech of the Chairman of the Works Council and the Chairman of the Works Council and the bank asking us to help you think about possibilities for the future. I mean, I don't really get the impression that you stand here among your staff. It's as if you are at a different level. And now what Mr. Broking said, do we really have someone in all the branch offices of ING across the world to explain what it is that we're doing here with remuneration? All of a sudden, I realized what was going on that it would make a big difference if people at the branch office got an Well, Lots of words of advice Mr. Espana. I wanted to proceed to conclude the meeting. Mr. Espana please, please be brief. I still haven't got an answer to my question. My question is, can we have an EGM? You're going to look at corporate governance. You're going to review whether or not there should be shares important issues. Can't you make a commitment that you will address these issues and the review in an EGM in the second half of this year? Why must we wait another 12 months to get information on this important subject? I hope you'll make that commitment. No, we're not going to organize an EGM just like that. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to close the meeting. I'm sorry, I haven't seen you. Please go ahead. I believe I was the first one at the microphone. And now I'm the last to speak. My name is Reika and I'm a private shareholder. Reiner, you know how to write my name. That will be easy, won't be any problem for the past 2 years. No, let me correct myself. The last 2 years, I've had an issue with the call center in Leovada. One was about an inheritance. It was controversial with many problems and a payment request was made in order to have an essential payment carried out and you get your payment request sent back but then torn in 2. I don't think that's a polite thing to do. And the response that I got was worthless. And when I go to the ING desk, I'm faced with someone that doesn't understand the issue. There's no manager. I asked for a manager. They're just looking and staring at you and don't know what to do. So I'm fed up with this. This is the first problem I have. The second problem is that I was a representative of an informal account, and all of a sudden, I was no longer the representative of this account without having signed anything. I don't understand that that can happen. All of a sudden you're entitled to an account and then you're not. And this is just an improper action. Thank you. I wanted to conclude the meeting. You will be the very last. Yes, but I want an answer. It's not only an observation I want an answer. No, we have agreed on the system. You will be given an answer. First of all, we gather all the questions. Mr. Chairman? With one of the previous I agree with one of the previous speakers. Just as I, he said that you are clustering all these questions now it's hopeless. I mean you're here at a meeting and Mr. Hammers is speaking and speaks for half an hour, discusses all sorts of subjects, answers all sorts of questions. You can't see the wood for the trees. I think it's a terrible situation. And of course, last year after the meeting, I said to you that a 4 hour meeting would require a break. I thought that was the solution to have a break, But this is it's hopeless. Another question. Why can't we before the meeting starts, why doesn't ING send us the annual report so that we can read the information prior to the meeting? We I was given annual report here, but it wasn't sent to my home. Thank you. Okay. I'm closing the any other business. Before giving Mr. Hammers the floor, in any other business, a number of statements were made or words of advice were given. Perhaps Mr. Hammers will comment on that or somewhere else. Regarding the meeting model, this is something we're going to evaluate. I heard 2 opinions. We're also going to ask other people how they feel about it. Now the goal is it's very simple. We're not saying this is any better or any worse. But the whole idea is to shorten our meetings. And we'll have to see how we can achieve this. That will take a bit of experimenting. And we very much appreciate your feedback. So this was a serious attempt, I must say, for this afternoon. And we'll have to wait and see what we do next year. Mr. Hammers, please. Well, there were some words of advice. We'll take that on board. A couple of questions. Transferring account number to another bank that requires investments. What we do have is an excellent transfer service. Almost all banks in the Netherlands have such a transfer service. If you want to transfer from one bank to the next, that is a process that runs rather smoothly. And automatically the account change is passed on to the new bank. So this service works rather well. So if you so wish, you can use this service. As I said, it works rather well. And then optional dividend. Once again, we have engaged in discussions with major shareholders on several occasions. 94% of our shareholders are non Dutch nationals. So it's not that we're looking for even more foreign shareholders. It's not an issue for us. Optional dividend, well, it's a bit more complicated. It's less straightforward than you would think. I'll take that on board, but I can't promise anything. Investing in mortgages, we'll have to take a look at that. Well, if it would be that easy, then well, then financing weapons. I'm just looking at Mr. Nagos, but I think that he would be the person to explain what it is that we've been doing over the past few years. Yes, the subject of weapons is very broad. What we do is we distinguish between controversial transactions and controversial weapons. Controversial transactions would entail anything that is supplied regardless of weapons concerned to countries that fall within sanctions or exports that are not provided with a license of the United Nations EU or U. S. On the other hand there are as I said controversial weapons, cluster ammunition, APVs, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons. And actually what we do is well, we actually, in principle, never do that, but we do look at companies that deal with that type of weapon. So depending on the type of weapon, we either say, well, we don't want anything to do with such a company or we say if it's less than a certain percentage of the operations, while in general corporate fundings we would be prepared to do something but not specific transactions. So we have very detailed rules and regulations internally at ING and our desk looks at each and every individual transaction. Thank you for that. And I'd like to conclude with your question. Thank you very much for raising this question. I understand the emotions and particularly if it involves an inheritance. And these are very often very complicated situations, technical situations that have to be dealt with separately. In any case, this is always a situation that involves emotions. So my apologies, I don't know exactly what went wrong. But we do have people outside here that can take these complaints on board, see what we can do about that. And the same applies to any other complaints you may have. So I'd like to say thank you very much for raising this complaint. We're taking it very seriously, particularly in terms of these subjects because inheritances involve emotional periods of time. We know that these are complicated situations. Nonetheless, we have to make sure that these procedures are carried out as smoothly as possible. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the end of the meeting. First of all, thank you very much for your support, your comments, your observations, even when they're critical. That is why we have these meetings. I realized that I was trying to aid you on, but the whole idea was to be able to have a drink. And now since you've been so helpful, we will have time to walk around and enjoy a drink with you. Thank you very much and have a safe trip.