Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'm very proud to report strong performance numbers for 2025.

As a result, we are upgrading our 2026 target for profitability and confirming all other CMD targets as well. 2025 was a defining year.

We set new records for revenues with €27.3 billion and for group net income, which reached the €6 billion mark. This successful transformation sets the stage for us to sustain long-term profitable growth.

Significant improvement in our financial results in 2025 cuts across all metrics, outperforming the targets we upgraded in Q2 2025. Our revenues were up by almost 7% excluding asset disposals.

That's more than double our target of more than 3%. Even more remarkable is that all our businesses contributed to the strong performance.

As our commitment to reduce our cost base, both structurally and significantly, is absolute. The proof point here is the 2% decrease in costs excluding asset disposals over the past year.

That's 2%—that 2% is far better than what we targeted, which was a decrease of at least 1%. It translates into a cost-to-income ratio of 63.6% in 2025, an improvement of more than 5 percentage points over the last year.

Keep in mind this is also better than the 2025 target we set of a cost-to-income below 65%. Cost of risk is within our guidance at 26 basis points, reflecting the strength of our asset quality and our capacity to effectively manage risks across the cycle.

All of this has significantly boosted our profitability, with a ROTE reaching 10.2% for the year and 9.6% excluding capital gains on disposals. This is above our 2025 target of around 9%.

These earnings allowed us to further strengthen our capital by 20 basis points. CET1 ratio now stands at 13.5% after Basel IV regulatory impact and after the extraordinary distribution of €2 billion through two additional share buybacks.

As a result, the board has decided to propose a total ordinary distribution of €2.7 billion, up 54% compared to 2024, including a dividend per share of €1.61 and a share buyback of €1,462 million. Let me put all this into perspective.

These results underscore the priorities we established 2.5 years ago and have consistently executed on ever since. Our first decisive step is significantly to strengthen the bank's capital, ensuring us both ample capital buffers as well as means to support our growth.

Today, with a CET1 ratio of 13.5%, the group is fully dedicated to fostering a sustainable long-term growth and consistently creating value for shareholders. Our second strategic priority: to enhance efficiency.

The decrease in our cost-to-income ratio of more than 10 percentage points versus 2023 is a significant accomplishment. We still have a lot more work to do, and we will do everything to make sure this positive trend continues.

Third, to significantly improve profitability. In 2025, we achieved exactly that.

Our ROTE is now more than 4 percentage points higher compared to the 2018-2022 average. The result, sustainable value creation, is now a reality with a total shareholder return of 237% over the past 3 years.

As I mentioned a moment ago, all our businesses contributed to the strong performance. First, French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance recorded strong revenue growth of 4.2% versus 2024 restated for asset disposals and the impact of short-term hedges.

It was driven by a pickup in the net interest income and, also, by record high assets under management, both in life insurance and private banking activities. BoursoBank gained 1.9 million new clients, and that brings its total close to 9 million.

It is leading the market as a fully fledged bank whose average client maintains a balance of around €9,000 in assets under administration. It remained profitable for a third year in a row, proving the strength and sustainability of its business model.

GIBIS had a record year in terms of revenues, delivering another excellent performance with a high ROTE of 16.7% under Basel IV. As a result of our strategy, Global Markets continued to deliver recurring and predictable revenues, reaching in 2025 a 16-year high and with a high ROTE above 20%.

F&A increased substantially its origination volumes at a high marginal rate of return thanks to increased capital velocity. The business also benefits from its strong positioning on key sectors like energy and infrastructure.

In International Retail, KB and BRD consistently demonstrated solid commercial performance with the successful optimization and continued digitalization of their respective distribution networks. Last, our teams at Ayvens have done an outstanding job managing all the challenges that come with a complex integration.

That integration is progressing as planned, and our decision to focus on profitability and risk management has resulted in a steady margin improvement throughout the year, but also allowed Ayvens to maintain a sound position while reaching its 2025 financial targets. In light of this performance, the total distribution for 2025 will amount to €4,679 million, a growth of 169% versus last year.

On ordinary distribution for 2025, we are proposing a dividend per share of €1.61, of which 61 cents were already paid in October 2025 through the introduction of our first interim dividend. As a result, the final dividend of €1 per share will be paid in June 2026 subject to the AGM approval.

All in all, the total dividend per share represents an increase of 48% versus last year. Our ordinary distribution also includes a share buyback of €1,462 million, up 68% versus last year.

We have already obtained the ECB approval for this program. There is no change in our ordinary distribution policy with a 50% payout ratio, an interim dividend, and a balanced mix between cash dividends and share buybacks.

In terms of extraordinary distribution, as in 2025, the group launched two extraordinary share buybacks for a total amount of €2 billion. Please note here that in the resolutions authorizing share buybacks, it is mandatory to include a maximum purchase price.

In the resolution voted during the last AGM, when the share was around €40, the maximum purchase price authorized was €75. Therefore, as the share price reached the maximum purchase price authorized by shareholders, we had to pause the buyback launched in November 2025 to remain compliant.

This does not change our capital return strategy, and obviously, we will submit a new resolution to the next AGM to increase this limit substantially. Going forward, distribution of excess capital will continue to depend on our capital allocation decisions.

As stated last year, in the best interest of shareholders, we are proactively managing our capital above a 13% CET1 ratio. This may include both extraordinary distributions and disciplined profitable growth.

We will address potential extraordinary distribution once a year during the release of the Q2 results. At the same time, we will continue to apply strict capital allocation criteria towards the most profitable businesses.

Given our current capital position, we are increasing our RWA growth target for the businesses, and in 2026, we expect an organic RWA growth of around 2%. Now, our 2026 targets reflect our continued focus on value creation through growth, operating leverage, and sound risk management.

Execution of our roadmap to date leads us to upgrade our ROTE target versus the one set at the CMD in 2023. For 2026, we expect an NBI growth above 2% versus 2025 on a reported basis, a net cost decrease of around 3% versus 2025 on a reported basis, cost-to-income ratio below 60%, cost of risk within the 25-30 basis points range, and finally, a ROTE above 10%.

In 2026, we will continue to deliver solid revenue growth plus strict cost discipline. We expect revenues to grow by more than 2% driven by strong commercial momentum across all businesses.

We will support that growth by allocating higher levels of capital to the most profitable businesses. Revenue growth will also benefit from a strong decrease in BoursoBank's client acquisition costs as we target a net profit above €300 million in 2026 at BoursoBank.

Global Markets revenues are expected to be above the top end of the guidance range between €5.1 and €5.7 billion. This new range is in line with our former guidance, actually, as we fully consolidate Bernstein US starting January the 1st.

Of course, cost control remains a top priority for the group. We are confident in our ability to further reduce operating expenses by around 3% in 2026.

What makes this possible is our ongoing group-wide transformation process. Now, at the business level, all of our 2026 financial targets are confirmed.

As mentioned before, the Global Markets target is adjusted for the consolidation of Bernstein US and is now between €5.1 and €5.7 billion. Also consistent is our resolve to pursue these goals with precision, determination, and a strong sense of discipline.

I will now turn things over to Leo who will review our Q4 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. Let's now dive deeper into the details of Q4 '25 performance.

The group's net income stands at €1.4 billion, up 36% versus Q4 '24, resulting in a ROTE of 9.5% versus 6.6% in the same period the previous year. These solid results are supported by the continuation of the strong commercial momentum in all businesses, as well as by a tight discipline over costs.

Looking more closely, revenues are up 6.8% versus Q4 '24 excluding disposals, well above our natural target of above 3%. Meanwhile, costs fall further in absolute terms, down by -1.4% excluding asset disposals, and confirming, therefore, our constant cost control.

As a result, our operational leverage improves further. The cost-to-income of 64.6% in Q4 '25 down from 69.4% in Q4 '24.

Asset quality wise, the cost of risk remains contained at 29 basis points, within our annual guidance of 25 to 30 basis points. Let's move now to slide 12 to further explain the main revenue and cost drivers in Q4.

Group revenues increased by 6.8% in Q4 compared with the previous year when removing, for comparison purposes, around €325 million of revenues related to completed disposals. In French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, revenues grew by 7.9% in Q4 excluding disposals.

The increase is mainly driven by NII, which is up by 8.5% excluding asset disposals. In Global Banking and Investor Solutions, revenues eased by 2.3% compared to a very strong Q4 '24.

It was the best quarter ever in Global Markets. Revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services were up by 8.6% versus Q4 '24 excluding disposals.

Finally, revenues at the Corporate Centre grew by €157 million, supported by efficient management of our liquidity position. Regarding costs, operating expenses excluding disposals declined further by 1.4% this quarter.

Group reports a structural cost reduction of €89 million, which more than offsets the €26 million of higher CTA. Moving on to cost of risk on slide 13.

Cost of risk stands at 29 basis points in Q4 '25 and 26 basis points for the whole year '25. This is in the lower range of our through-the-cycle guidance.

Cost of risk this quarter mainly comprises stage 3 provisions, which account for €435 million and remained broadly stable versus Q3 '25. In stage 1 and stage 2 provisions, we had a limited net reversal of €26 million, which conceals our prudent approach.

As a result, total outstanding stage 1 and stage 2 provisions remain high at €2.9 billion and stable from last quarter. Asset quality remained solid as illustrated by the NPL at 2.8% in Q4, broadly stable when compared with last year and last quarter.

Finally, the net coverage ratio remains high at 82% in Q4 '25 and stable versus Q3 '25. Let's now turn to slide 14, where we can see the evolution of our strong capital position.

The CET1 ratio closed at Q4 at 13.5%, which is 320 basis points above MDA. The ratio also reflects the -27 basis point impact from new additional share buyback of €1 billion, which we announced and started executing in November.

Before adjusting the additional buyback, the CET1 ratio increases by 9 basis points from Q3 '25, reflecting the following impacts shown from left to right in this slide: retained earnings contributed with 16 basis points after accruing a 50% payout; RWA valuation represents an impact of -1 basis point; we had minor regulatory adjustment that had an impact of 5 basis points; and finally, other impacts account for 1 basis point. In addition, as you can see in the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On slide 15, liquidity reserves remain high at €318 billion in Q4 '25 with a relatively balanced mix between cash and securities. The liquidity profile of the group remains strong with strong, sound liquidity ratios.

The LCR ratio was 144% this quarter, and the NSFR ratio was 116%, both well ahead of regulatory requirements and in line with our steering targets. 45% of the 2026 long-term funding program has already been completed.

We maintain good access to liquidity in all currencies on the back of strong long-term ratings from all agencies. The deposit base remains strong, granular, and highly diversified.

Overall, the loan-to-deposit ratio remains at 77% at group level. In slide 16, we show a summary of the P&L for the group for Q4 '25, which we will cover in more detail in the following slides.

Let's move now to the individual businesses on slide 18, starting with SG Network, Private Banking and Insurance. In Q4 '25, loans outstanding increased by 1% compared to last year, or by 2% if we exclude state-guaranteed loans, this is PGEs.

Corporate loans production was sound and increased 19% versus Q3 '25. Outstanding deposits fell 3% versus Q4 '24, but increased 2% versus Q3 '25 in a context of continued strong growth of retail savings and investment products.

These off-balance sheet products contribute to the continued strong momentum in overall asset gathering. On one side, AUM in private banking increased by 9% versus Q4 '24 with asset disposals, and reached €137 billion at the end of December '25.

This is €2 billion higher than at the end of September '25. On the other side, life insurance outstandings reached €158 billion, increasing by 8% versus Q4 '24 or by €5 billion versus Q3 '25 thanks to continued strong net inflows.

Moving on to BoursoBank. In Q4, BoursoBank acquired a record number of 575,000 new clients.

Since Q4 '24, it represents an increase of 1.9 million new clients or 22%, with a consistently low churn rate, which remains below 4%. Assets under administration continued to grow steadily, reaching €70 billion at the end of December, or around €9,000 per client.

This represents an 18% increase versus Q4 '24 thanks, in particular, to the continued strong increase in deposits of 15% versus Q4 '24. Similarly, life insurance outstandings increased by 13% versus Q4 '24.

BoursoBank also saw record high openings of brokerage accounts, which grew by 25% compared to the previous year. On the lending side, total loans outstanding are up 9% versus Q4 '24.

Looking now at the whole pillar on slide 20. Retail banking, private banking, and insurance posted a solid increase in revenues of 4.2% versus 2024 when we exclude disposals and the impact of short-term hedges.

This included a sound 3.1% growth in NII. At the same time, operating expenses fell by 3.9% from '24 excluding disposals.

As a result of both, the jaws widened significantly, and therefore, the cost-to-income ratio, it stood at 61.1% in 2025. It represents a substantial improvement of 10 percentage points from 76.4% in 2024.

All in all, net income lands at €1,815 million for the year, or up 80% versus 2024, with a ROTE above 10% under Basel IV versus a 6% last year under the previous Basel III standards. Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on slide 21.

Global Markets consolidated a fairly strong year in 2025 with revenues reaching a record since 2009 of €5.98 billion, while growing 2.7% versus 2024 in constant currency. In Q4 '25, revenues eased by 8% versus Q4 '24.

Equities posted 5% lower revenues, affected by a high base in Q4 '24 and currency headwinds. Performance also reflected the lower commercial activity in Europe and Asia, as well as our geographic mix, where Europe and Asia represent around 3/4 of 2025's total revenues.

However, if we focus on the Americas, where market conditions were more conducive, we posted a very strong performance with revenues up by 24% versus Q4 '24. In Fixed Income and Currencies, revenues fell by 13% from an also very strong Q4 '24 and affected by negative currency impacts.

Performance reflects, as well, the more challenging commercial dynamics in rates products, notably in Europe. Lastly, Securities Services revenues grew by 3% versus Q4 '24 on the back of sound activity levels and the continuation of a strong commercial momentum in all the main markets.

Let's turn to slide 22 on the evolution of Financing and Advisory. Again, it maintained a very strong performance with revenues growing by 5.1% versus Q4 '24.

This strong momentum is even more visible when focusing on Global Banking and Advisory, where revenues grew by 8.6% versus Q4 '24, accelerating from last quarter. It represents our best quarter ever, driven by the solid performance in financing activities combined with the continuation of good momentum in both originated and distributed volumes.

In addition, our DCM and ECM franchise delivered one more quarter of sound revenue growth. Lastly, in Transaction Banking and Payment Services, revenues declined by 5% versus Q4 '24 due to negative interest rates and currency impacts.

That, however, shadows a good underlying commercial momentum and the continued growth in deposits. For the whole of 2025, GTPS total revenues eased marginally by 1.2% versus 2024.

Moving now to slide 23 for the overall view of GBIS pillar. We can see that GBIS recorded record revenues this year at €10.4 billion, growing by 2.6% versus 2024.

That combines the 1% growth in Global Markets and Investor Services with a 5% growth in Financing and Advisory. Moreover, we managed to grow our revenue base while maintaining our strict cost discipline, showed by reduction of operating expenses by -1% versus 2024.

As a result, jaws widened, and the cost-to-income ratio improved 2.3 percentage points from 64.4 in '24 to 62.1 in '25. At the same time, cost of risk remained moderate at 18 basis points in '25.

All in all, GBIS posted a net income of €2.9 billion in '25, up by 3.7% versus '24, which translates into a high ROTE of 16.7% under Basel IV. Let's now focus on International Retail Banking in slide 24.

Overall, revenues improved by 2.7% versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. Europe posted a solid commercial momentum in both countries, with an 8% increase in loans outstanding and a 7% in deposits versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

Revenues were slightly down 1% at constant perimeter and exchange rates, with lower fees in the Czech Republic compared to an exceptionally high Q4 '24 level. The situation is different in Africa.

Outstanding loans and deposits were broadly stable versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, while revenues increased strongly by 9% in the same period, driven by strong fee income growth. On Mobility and Financial Services in slide 25, the revenues increased by 11.7% in Q4 at constant perimeter, this is excluding SGEF.

Ayvens revenues grew by 15% versus Q4 '24 on a reported basis, while when adjusted for depreciations and non-recurring items, they fall by 8%. This evolution reflects the continued normalization of used car sales results, as anticipated.

In Q4 '25, the results per unit sold was €702 compared to €1,267 in Q4 '24. On the other hand, the margin increases to 567 basis points in Q4 '25, or 26 basis points higher than in Q4 '24.

This highlights the continued ramp-up in synergies and the strategic focus on profitability and asset risk. In 2025, Ayvens successfully reached all its financial targets, delivering total synergies by €360 million, while the average UCS results for the full year '25 stand at €1,075 per unit.

This is at the high end of the €700 to €1,100 guidance. The cost-to-income ratio was finally 56.1%, better than the guidance range of 57% to 59%.

Regarding consumer finance, the business delivered a solid revenue growth of 5.9% thanks to better margins. In slide 26, focusing on the whole MIFS pillar, we can see that revenues increased by 6.1% in '25 excluding disposals and FX impacts, notably driven by Ayvens.

Costs in '25 fell by 3.3% versus '24, excluding also disposals and FX impacts. This strong positive jaws evolution drove a substantial improvement in the cost-to-income ratio from 59.6% in '24 to 54.2% in '25, highlighting the strict cost discipline across the pillar, despite the high inflation in certain geographies and the additional banking tax in Romania.

Cost of risk improved from 42 basis points in '24 to 33 basis points in '25. All this led to a net income of €1.5 billion in '25, increasing by 28% after disposals and FX adjustments.

This translates into a robust ROTE of 13.9% in '25, up versus an 11% in 2024. To conclude with the quarterly results, let's move on to slide 27 with the Corporate Centre.

In 2025, revenues increased by more than €160 million thanks to continued efficient liquidity management and improved funding conditions. Operating expenses in '25 include €100 million related to the global employee share ownership program recorded in Q2 this year, which compared to only €3 million in '24.

In addition, the accounting impacts for the various asset disposals closed this year, mostly SG Equipment Finance, private banking in Switzerland and the UK, generated a positive impact accounted in net profits or losses from other assets of around €300 million. On a quarterly basis, revenues increased by more than €150 million for the same reasons I just mentioned for the full year, while costs are up by around €50 million compared to a very low base in Q4 '24 and more in line with the quarterly historical average.

I now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. 2025 has been a year of accomplishments for the group in ESG as well.

We are maintaining our pace and continuing to deliver on the commitments that we have set, both in the decarbonization of our portfolios and in the opportunities we see to support our clients with sustainable finance. Emerging leaders of the energy transition see us as a partner of choice.

We are now deploying the €1 billion investment envelope established at the CMD to support innovation in this sector. We have joined forces with partners like the EIB or the IFC to help design the best solutions to address the challenges of the environmental transition.

Our scientific advisory council helps us stay ahead in this world of rapid change. All these efforts have been recognized by external stakeholders.

We have been upgraded to AAA by MSCI, making us one of only two major European banks to have received this top ESG rating. In conclusion, 2025 was a defining year for us.

With strong improvement in our performance, we still have a lot more work to do to realize our ambitions. Our objectives are clear, our progress is consistent, and we remain focused on delivering on the upgraded 2026 targets.

We will give you more details on the next phase of our plan during our CMD on September the 21st. Thank you very much, and let's now start the Q&A with our usual polite request to stick to two questions per person.

The floor is yours.

Yes, thank you. Good morning.

The first question I wanted to ask you is specifically on on BoursoBank, because I think you said in the presentation that this is your third year in a row of being profitable, if I if I caught it right on Bourso. Could you give us a number, because you you give us the net profit target for next year, I mean this year, '26, of €300 million?

We have an idea of how big a swing this could be for the profit in French Retail and at group level. The next question is a broader question.

I don't want to preempt, obviously, the September CMD, but I can't ignore either, that you're now training at 1 time the tangible book, and you have this ROTE that is upgraded for this year, but still at 10% plus. We need to start to have a better understanding, on where it could go into the next 2 to 3 years.

Can you maybe anything you can tell us there, what you think is plausible over the next 2 to 3 years, what can get you there would be helpful.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. On BoursoBank, the short answer is no.

We're not providing this number, but I'm, of course, going to try and give you a little bit of color. We had said -100 at the CMD, -€150 million of GOI to support the growth ambition.

It has actually been positive. Think about it as with 1.9 million additional new clients this year, you can see or feel that it can't be a big number because the level of our investment in client acquisition was very high.

1.9 is, if not the best ever in terms of growth, close to it, right? Basically it's been positive, huge improvement over the -€150 million GOI that was initially our thinking.

Obviously at the annual level, not something that is very significant at this point. The €300 million improvement in terms of net income is the important number here, and it's a very strong commitment that we have for 2026.

In terms of the CMD, so as mentioned in the presentation, or in the past, we have basically close to doubled our reported ROTE performance if we compare the current performance versus the average of 2018 to 2022, for instance. First spoiler alert, we're not going to double in the next phase of the plan.

That's one thing. Equally, you should take comfort in what we've done so far and in the way we try to speak about ourselves.

When we say that we do firmly intend to close progressively yet decisively the gap with our most comparable peers, you should build your reasoning around that, right? We are committed in terms of the means to continue, and I know it's clear in the numbers, to continue reducing our cost base regularly through deep transformational change in the way we operate the business, in efficiency, right, in terms of sustainable cost savings because they are based on seeking out efficiency gains first that result in cost reductions.

While growing, and remember growing not like in the phase we're in right now or finishing right now, meaning with a lot of fixing to do from a capital perspective, a lot of constraints, self-imposed constraints on, for instance, organic growth, right? These things, because of our capital position right now, are behind us, and so we will be able, in a very controlled way, very mindful of risk management strategy and commitments from this perspective, but we will have means to sustain healthy levels of organic capital allocation to the most profitable business, right?

The combination of all this, an absolute commitment in terms of costs and efficiency with an ability to support and sustain basically higher level of profitable growth will be the main ingredients of the next plan.

Understood. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning.

A couple of questions on my side as well, please. First on costs, just checking on the previous question.

I don't want to go all the way to the plan, which I understand that costs will be a pillar, a cornerstone of your strategy. Looking at '27, you say '26 costs will be down, but there's still some effect of 3% effect of disposals.

'27 would be a cleaner year from that aspect of scope effect. Should we still expect costs to go down in '27 versus '26?

You've talked in your introductory remarks about continuing trend and relentless effort to pursue that. Can you give us indication on '27?

On capital return, you took decision to do it once a year in Q2. Your competitor yesterday brought up FRTB as a kind of a still a question mark similar to what you've been doing last year, actually, same time.

Are you also factoring into your buffer as potentially still a possibility that it will be a headwind? If not, doing the math as usual, you will be at 13.67% in Q2, keeping small buffer, that is still a €2 billion headroom of buyback.

You've asked for 1.5 billion for the full-year ordinary buyback. Is €2 billion not too much to ask ECB in one go?

I will leave it there. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, and hi, Tarik.

I have to dissent. The cost number for '26 is a pretty clean one, because actually it is on reported obviously, as everything we do, right?

Everything is on a reported basis, and we will not have major differences because most of the disposals were closed early last year. The 3% cost reduction in 2026 is actually a pretty clean number and doesn't benefit substantially from perimeter changes.

That's one. Second, on 2027, well, let me put it this way, right?

It obviously depends also on the growth and the other opportunities that we will have, but certainly what you should take away from these conversations is that we are committed to operating leverage, right? Imagine a 2027 which is very buoyant in terms of growth, obviously maybe the cost base doesn't go down in absolute terms, but definitely, we are deeply committed, should we experience higher levels of growth, to a significant value creation through operating leverage.

Now, if everything continues as it was in the last 2 years, yeah, further cost reductions are likely. It remains the bedrock of the improvement that we will continue to execute on in terms of transforming the group.

As far as capital distribution is concerned, first, you should think about this Q2 decision, right, to discuss this at Q2 as the reflection of the fact that, and I want to say this very clearly, this is a strategic decision for us, right? Last year, we had to make it a couple times because we were getting out of a phase which was, as completely different, one of saving capital, one of restricting distribution, etc., etc.

Because of all the progress we had made, we were able to shift quite rapidly from one let's say regime to a different one. It is always a strategic decision, like I said in the past, between organic growth, return to shareholders, or inorganic growth opportunities.

From this perspective, we believe that this, let's say, once-a-year communication on the topic fits the idea that this is a strategic decision. It's not an accounting decision that we make during closing.

Oh, we have this excess capital, let's just dispose of it immediately right now. I think the pace for strategic decisions is the one we're setting here.

It's not about some logistics in terms of approval. At the end of the day, obviously we have a very deep, permanent dialogue with the supervisors who have insights into long-term capital projections and understand our trajectory at a very deep level.

It's not about logistics of approval, it's really about this idea that, frankly from a logistics perspective, we haven't even completely finished the share buyback from November. We're having an ordinary one coming our way right now, the dividend payment, etc.

The strategic decision on exceptional distribution in Q2, and so on and so forth. That's how you should think about this.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have two. If I look at your targets for '26, first of all, taking a step back, you beat '25, where you had already upgraded the target.

So '26 doesn't seem particularly difficult to beat, especially on the cost side. Can you give us some color on how comfortable are you with these targets, any initiatives, especially on the cost side, that gives us conviction that you can do -3% or even more?

Then secondly, F&A was quite high in the quarter. You talk about financing activities led by infrastructure, transportation, and fund financing.

As when we forecast looking forward, is there any seasonality we should keep in mind? Was this an exceptional catch-up booking of some deals you had in the pipeline?

Or, yeah, is it basically your growth strategy in this business coming through, and we should expect more of the same going forward? Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Listen, on whether the -3% target is easy or difficult, well, I'll leave that obviously with everybody on the call to make their on mind, but I'm going to still share my view. We're talking about 3% absolute decrease on a reported basis, and as I said earlier, without major perimeter changes.

From where we are, it's a fairly ambitious target, let me put it this way. Now, you do have our track record.

Do we have the habit of giving you stretched targets that we're not going to meet? No, right?

On a base case scenario, we do definitely intend to meet the target. If we can do better, we will.

Again, right, I think it is an ambitious target from where we sit. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we will deliver on this in normal circumstances.

On the cost side, normal circumstances are the rule. How?

It's everything we've already been doing, but as we go, right, be it technology, efficiency of the technology spend, be it organizational changes that allow us to operate the same process better, actually, in the interest of everybody, both internally and externally in the interest of clients, getting a smoother client experience, working on efficiency and deepening the work on efficiency across the entire group through new programs, new ideas, etc., as you may have seen in the press recently. It's really the continuation and the deepening of the work group-wide that we have been doing on efficiency throughout the group, right?

This will continue to deliver not only actually in 2026, but is going to be a process which we intend to make basically permanent to make sure that the company operates as close as possible to its highest potential in terms of efficiency, right? That's the spirit here.

Then, some technicalities. You will have lower CTA expenses because for the program that we had during the CMD, we've spent most of the CTA already.

There's a marginal spend to come in 2026. That's also supports the trajectory.

Fundamentally, it's all the work we're doing. As you may have seen in the latest project of adjustment that we announced and filed with the unions in France, we are also very careful to optimize execution, right?

For instance, this leg of our efficiency plan comes with no CTA, right? It's important to also recognize that pattern, which is not only are we working hard, but also trying to make sure that overall, right, overall, the expense stays under control and is optimized even in terms of the CTA itself.

For the F&A question, you should think about this as, no, there's no particular accumulation of closings or things like that. It's a genuine, pretty wide momentum within this business, which, as of course, has been historically a growth engine of GBIS and with a very good risk-return profile.

It will continue as such with a very controlled approach in terms of risk, still, but yes, it is an investment spot, a natural and very efficient investment spot for organic RWA growth, and it yields substantial marginal rates of return.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

My first one is on your comments around '26, the 2% increase in RWAs, which is clearly a little bit of an acceleration. It looks like volumes are still somewhat very moderate in France, and fleet volumes at Ayvens also are sort of still going down.

Just wondering kind of if you could give us a bit of color where that's coming from and where do you intend to step up a little bit growth. My second question is on Global Markets.

Just trying to understand, if you take a step back, why, compared to not just US peers, but for some of the French peers, the trends have been a little bit weaker this year. Is that sort of less risk-taking from your side or any color on how we should think about the trends going forward as well?

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi.

On the 2% RWA increase on an organic basis allocated to to businesses, yes, it is an acceleration, like I said earlier. One of the means that we have now is this one, to support our growth in a very reasonable way.

I agree with you, the the loan growth in France, especially on the retail side, should remain positive, but but not not very dynamic in 2026. In terms of the Ayvens opportunities, I would point to a slightly different statement, which is what we have done these past 2.5 years was to focus on a very significant merger, which we discussed in the past, but also on making sure that the business adjust itself to both some, rate environments and margin compression trends and working a lot on the margin, on striking the right contracts, on on making sure that we do the right thing from this perspective, that we protect the value basically from a margins perspective, and you've seen the results of that.

The second piece is obviously risk management in a world with which, in this businesses was potentially challenged by by some of the shifts in residual value or or or in all the electric vehicles topics, right? We've been very conservative from this perspective, precisely to come to, let's say, the new phase, both done with the restructuring, done with the integration, which will more or less be achieved during 2026, but also at the same time, have a very healthy base to resume growth, right?

While it shouldn't be an extremely high pace, let's say, in 2026, Ayvens is clearly well-positioned today to be also an investment spot from this perspective. Now, moving on, clearly, International Retail has the capacity to deploy capital in in a good way, in an efficient and profitable way.

Finally, GBIS starting with F&A, Financing and Advisory, but also within the cash management business as well as well, can do can do better and will be one of the preferred spots for investments and again providing high high marginal returns. That's the story on the organic growth.

Your second question on Global Markets, it's really, if you take a step back, it's it's a mix of, if you look at the entire year, we're talking about the very good performance, which is, the best the best revenue generation in 16 years, one. Two, and consolidating a 2025 which was a which was a high point, and we're now close to 6 billion as you as you have seen.

That's one. Two, we've discussed this in the past, there is a perimeter a business mix difference between us and a lot of our a lot of our peers in the following way, right?

One, we have exited commodities way back. Commodities were a driver of of performance this quarter.

Two, fixed income in our house is weighted towards rates and towards Europe more than the other jurisdictions. Three, we have prime brokerage businesses which are smaller or substantially smaller than some of our peers.

Whenever the market dynamic is one which is particularly favorable to this business, you will always see us basically slightly different from this perspective. We are investing there, we are progressing, but in a very controlled way.

Today, if you take a snapshot, it's a much smaller business at our shop than in some of the some of the others. Finally, our share in the business mix in terms of the US business is also smaller obviously than American peers, but also our competitors, more more accurately, but also when you compare to some of our European competitors.

When you combine all of this, you have most of the difference of Q4. Again, within a year, which has been which has been good.

I'm not going to go through some technical aspects. There is still some of that day-one.

We were actually very dynamic in producing some of the some of the the solutions that carry negative day-one accounting as they are originated when the origination is is more dynamic stronger, right? This is like a couple percentage points, let's say, of difference since we're at -8 and the others are basically +5 in Europe.

It's the rest of the gap is almost entirely explained by by business and geographical mix differences. Two last comments on this topic.

One, our US business has grown in dollars in dollars, remember also that we're reporting in euros, has grown 39%, which is actually well above the market average even in the US. Just showing you how we operate there successfully, but it's a 20-25% share of our of our Global Markets business.

That's that's one. The last comment is going to your risk consideration and capital consumption consideration.

Yes, in the last 5 years, we have dramatically turned the the way of doing this business, and while reducing by a 20-30% our market risk RWA, we discussed that in the past, even much more so stress test consumption, we have been able to grow this business at a controlled pace with much lower capital allocation and a high ROTE of 20%. I gave it all so that you have all the facts.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. My first question is just continuing on the Global Markets discussion, if we could.

The guidance is unchanged at a level that's lower than both the 2025 run rate and the consensus. Is that just maintaining the existing target, it's conservative, it doesn't mean much, you could well be better again, or is there any kind of directional significance in that number that you're maintaining?

Then a different question on Ayvens. The UCS results are normalizing down, and both from your comments and from their comments this morning, the indication is it could continue to go lower in 2026.

I just wondered, is that taken into account in your own guidance, including the 2% revenue growth? Thank you.

Hello. First topic on the Global Markets target.

Yes, we don't want to touch this at this point, we simply adjusted for the perimeter change, if you will. This is how we're ending up with that 5.7 top of the range.

We're also saying that in our base case, we should be above the top of the range in 2026. That's what we're saying, right?

The indication that you should, my view, take from these statements is that we recognize, and facts support this recognition, that this is a target range which has been conservative in a world which was, again, to say the least, unusual if you compare the last 2 years versus let's say the previous decade. Today, we think that, again, right, while maintaining this range, adjusting it for the perimeter change, we're also giving you the color that we believe that in a base case scenario, we should be above the top of the range in 2026.

In terms of the UCS, it's exactly what you said, right? It is decreasing substantially and we do forecast at this point that it will continue, and yes, this is taken into account in the projections, including in the growth projections and every other aggregate.

That's really helpful. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Good morning, everybody.

I guess a couple of questions from me, a little bit of a follow-up on the markets. I think, Slawomir, it's great explanation as to how the footprint differs.

I just wanted to take it forward a level. Do you feel any need to further address that sort of footprint imbalance versus the industry more broadly, aside from what you've already done in Bernstein, i.e., you want to grow faster in the US, put more balance sheet to work, expand the product offering in FIC, or should we just sort of assume that you're comfortable with the footprint and the plans you already have in place, and the reality is some quarters that'll be a bit of a headwind versus peers and other quarters that will be a bit of a tailwind?

That's the first question. Then second, it seems as though there is a bit of a sort of growing tech spend arms race across the industry, and you mentioned your real focus on transformational change in the way that you operate and how you become more efficient by design, I guess.

With that in mind, there were some press headlines recently suggesting you've decided to focus your in-house AI infrastructure around Copilot. Just can you help us understand what the relative financial and non-financial advantages are of pivoting to a completely off-the-shelf solution versus the alternative?

Thank you. On the first question on markets, I think it's a very important question, thank you.

One, yes, and it's a unreserved yes, we are continuing to work on the footprint, and you have some anecdotal at least, if not more, evidence of that through some of the hires we've made in fixed income, for instance, through some of the investments we're making, through what I said earlier about continuing investments in our prime brokerage business, through also historically a real push to grow our business in the Americas, and obviously in the Americas in particular and mostly in the US. Yes, we are, and Bernstein is the other example that you gave, of course.

Yes, we are continuing to work on all these fronts to balance the business more from a mix perspective and in order, yes, to make it, well, both bigger over time, but also even more diversified, basically. Far, it is exactly what you described, and actually if you look at the patterns over the last few quarters and years, these were sometimes headwinds, like in Q4 2025, but sometimes significant tailwinds when we were in some of the years of more significant trend and moves on the rate markets and in particular in Europe.

It's exactly what you described, but we are working on making it different. Just one, for instance, example is the US business is now double the size it was 10 years ago in a very diversified, in a very sound way, which points to my last comment on the topic, right?

Nothing will be done in terms of investment and execution on these investments in a hasty or oversized way. I'm explaining myself.

In the past, we've tried that, right? We've tried that that let's have this very big program to increase very substantially the FIC size, and we're going to be competing with everybody across all the sub-asset classes, etc., never worked, right?

What we're doing right now, it's very controlled, slow progress, both to make sure, right, that we don't destroy profitability as we invest, that's one, but two, that the investments are successful, right? I don't believe in big moves, except when we had the opportunity to buy Bernstein, we did it.

I don't believe in, let's say, huge accelerations, revolutionary accelerations, in organic investments in the market. That's not working usually, and when we're trying to do something right now, we're trying to make sure that this is going to work.

That's for the markets. In terms of the AI question and internal, off-the-shelf, etc., it's the idea, more accurately, that you need to use the best tools available.

At the moment in time where this whole AI opportunity and potentially threat, etc., is still partially unclear, right? Today, what works is effective summary and translation of text, effects of extraction of data from large pools of more or less structured data, and where it really works is indeed in IT services and coding, etc.

These are the three areas where this new technology is actually able to perform at scale at a high level of reliability. I remind you that in our business, the level of expectations from supervisors on, for instance, model validation is extremely high, right?

Building on that, clearly, we prefer to use something which has a proven capacity to enhance the adoption, the understanding, and the work on these topics in the somewhat still infancy stage of this technology. From this perspective, we felt that it was much more efficient to use again an outside, proven, reliable tool at this point in time.

Now, as you may know, if you're interested in the topic, may have read, we have also created a specific structure dedicated to, let's say, the research on these topics and to the selection of the biggest, at-scale opportunities in terms of efficiency or cost reductions, etc., to make sure that all this, let's say, bottom-up interest and activity is channeled towards value creation, right, and that we have a level of control on the underlying costs that obviously this whole revolution potentially carries with itself. It's a combination of we have our own internal approach to look at the use cases and at the opportunities, etc., but yes, trying to use the best of the breed in terms of technology.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Good morning. I guess first I have a follow-up on Global Markets.

You mentioned in answer to Jeremy's question that the 5.1 to €5.7 billion range is purely because you left it unchanged, but your base case is that you expect to be above that range. With that in mind, can you just confirm the sub-65% cost-income ratio target for Global Banking and Investor Solutions, is that predicated on the 5.1 to €5.7 billion, or is it predicated on your base case that you'll be above that range?

That's the first question. Second question, France net interest income, another big improvement in the net interest margin Q-on-Q.

Perhaps you can just elaborate on if there's anything one-off in that NII result, and also how you expect the net interest margin to trend going forward into 2026. Thank you.

On your first question, so, again, maybe a precision, the range is what it is, it's proven to be on the conservative end in the last few years, again in markets which were in the end particularly conducive for this business overall, for the industry and for us. The idea that today we're saying that we in a base case scenario expect to be above that range, it's a little more than just a target discussion, it's a sense of what we think will be the market conditions and our ability to navigate them in 2026.

It's an indication of where we think we will be in 2026. Now, in terms of the relationship between this target and the cost-to-income target of GBIS, it is predicated on, in the end, to keep it simple, on our budget, right?

On what we see as being our operational target and on the basis of which we communicate the annual targets for the group. That's the underlying process, right?

You should take away that it's, yeah, based on this range, but it's not based on the low end of that range, it's based on the budget. Since I also gave you a sense of what the vision we have for the year, I think you have all the pieces to make your judgment.

That's that. In terms of the NII in Q4, you have a few things.

There's no one-off. It's the full effect of the Livret A repricing down, which happened in August.

You have that. You have a good momentum in deposit gathering, and the deposits are up 1.5% versus Q3 '25 in the French Retail pillar.

You have the continued process of repricing of the back book, right? The combination of all these things, and, in a loan growth dynamic which was fairly stable, but with a slight price effect which was positive because you have basically commercial loans marginally down, individual loans marginally up, overall stable, but from a pricing perspective a slight tailwind.

You have the pieces that explain the Q4 dynamic, which is indeed positive. Going forward, what we expect is basically a continuation of a moderate growth trend because now there is no more perimeter effect, right, because in 2025, we still have a perimeter effect linked to private banking, which is within that pillar.

We no longer will have that in 2026. You have no more hedges, of course, no more perimeter impact, and something which would normally be a continuation of this trend, which is moderate tailwinds supporting moderate growth, which will also obviously depend on the macrodynamics in France, which at this point in time, we forecast to be in terms of loan growth typically a slight increase during the year.

Next?

Hi. Good morning.

Thank you for taking my question. One question on the assumptions behind the greater than 10% return on tangible equity.

If I look at the range that you have for markets revenues, if we assume the 10% return on tangible is the floor, does that assume, for instance, that the floor on market revenues is at the bottom end of your range? In other words, if you were to print greater than the €5.7 billion, we could assume a return on tangible above that?

I'm just trying to calibrate the bottom end of your ROE range, which let's say is 10%, versus the bottom end of your markets range, if the two can be compared. That's question number one.

Then question number two is on how you define your balanced payout between DPS and share buyback, because if we look this year, it was 45/55 in favor of buybacks. Then I think last year it was 50/50.

Could it be 40 divvy and 60 buyback next year? I guess how do we think about calibrating that going forward?

Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

On the first question, once again, our targets overall, the targets that we, disclose here and commit to for the year are based on what we target operationally. The process that underpins this is obviously the process of of of budgeting.

The 10% ROTE target, above 10% ROTE target, is not based on the bottom range of the market's target. It is based on the target that we have for the year, and I commented upon that earlier saying that right now, we believe that it's going to be, at the slightly above top of the range.

That's how you should think about this, right? Now, slightly above top of the range, it's still less than than what we've done this year, just to make sure that this is clear.

If we were to have a year better than 2025, it would support, obviously mechanically, the performance from a group ROTE perspective. That's how you should think about this.

Targets targets are are our best view of what we're going to achieve next year. That's that's for the first question.

The second one, sorry, I'm blanking out. The distribution.

So 50 55/45, first, the balanced mix between dividend and share buybacks was we were clear in the past about this, was always something which meant that we had leeway between basically 40 and 60 indeed to fine-tune the decision when it is made by the board at the end of the year. Indeed, right, balanced means it's between 60/40, 50/50 as a base case scenario, but between 60/40 both ways, if you will.

This year, the the the calibration, was simply you have a few inputs into the decision. One is the growth rate of the dividend.

Two is the buyback opportunity, in the context of a certain price-to-book. The choice was made that with a 48% increase in in dividend and the share where where they traded, this seemed within the policy that I just referred to, the right choice.

Yes, good morning. One question regarding BoursoBank.

I was wondering if you think that maybe you have to revise your future plan regarding investments, and particularly marketing investment, considering the strong competition, particularly from one of your peer, which is targeting 10 million clients, I think, in 2027. I was wondering if, at the end of the day, your target of €300 million in 2026 will remain at this level for the coming years because of this investment to counterattack this type of competition.

My second question regards protection and P&C revenues, which are quite stagnant this year compared to last year, while when we look at our competitors, they are rather in good shape on this area. I was wondering why it's not so good for you, and are you trying to hide, I don't know, but something like a bad combined ratio, for instance?

Can you give us a few numbers regarding undiscounted combined ratio in these two businesses, protection and P&C? Thank you.

Thank you. On the first question of basically the decision, the arbitration between growth and profitability, from a strategic standpoint, this is a growth asset.

I was always very clear about this. This is why we took the decision at a time where we had lots of challenges, but we still took the decision in 2023 to continue investing substantial amount of money, energy, and support to grow this asset.

Now, the growth of BoursoBank is not only about the number of clients, right? We've been also very consistent providing some color about the assets under administration, which has simply nothing to do with most of our peers, and certainly the one that you have in mind.

We have spend a lot of time and efforts also deepening the product offer, making sure that as a full-fledged bank, it can support customers in every single area of their banking needs and be able to do it at the highest level of client satisfaction. For the nth year in a row, BoursoBank remains the leading bank in France in terms of client feedback, which also is reflected in a very low churn, which again, despite the very dynamic acquisition of clients, almost doubling in the last few years, you have a churn rate which is substantially below 4%.

The point I'm making here is what we care about is that this bank, right, this full-fledged bank with a complete product offer and a very high culture in terms of client satisfaction, continues to deliver the service. The number of customers is a headline number which, in the end, doesn't mean anything, right?

Because what you really want to do is to provide the right service and generate the long-term profitability that you can extract from that particular business. We're focused on this.

Now, is there going to be a slowdown in expenses in 2026 in particular? Yes.

That doesn't mean that there's going to be a mechanical effect, 1 for 1 mechanical effect in terms of growth, because obviously we're not also static in the way we think about client acquisition and in the way we think about managing, let's say, this cycle of growth, which is going to continue way past 2026. I hope that gives you some color.

On the protection side, let's say, in the end, you have choices to make, right? There are a lot of products in a bank that are offered to the customers, and you're focusing on this particular one, which has been basically stable.

The premia are basically stable year-on-year. You could point to the other piece of the insurance business, which is the investment piece, life insurance, where, for a second year in a row, our pace of asset gathering is twice our market share, right?

We're leading the market from this perspective in a very substantial and meaningful way. This is how you should look at this, right?

That we make choices, including from a commercial standpoint, across all the businesses, and in French Retail in particular, has nothing to do with combined ratio, which is more than comfortable.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. A couple of questions, please.

Firstly, on the fee revenues in the French Retail banking business. I think you've just described that the acquisition cost part of that's going to be coming down next year.

If we set that aside, does the 2% organic growth that you reported this year, is that a kind of good run rate for you, or are there tailwinds or headwinds to that, again, if we set aside the BoursoBank acquisition cost aspect? Then other question is on the transaction banking business in Financing and Advisory.

Is the lower rate impact now digested there, and just your thoughts in terms of the outlook here? You had a very strong period of growth, but seems to be slipping a bit more recently.

Thank you.

Thank you. On your first question, you got it right.

I think the base case scenario is the stability around the numbers that you have in mind. That's the base case scenario for the fee income with a substantial, if you dig into the details, a substantial increase, as you would imagine, in terms of financial fees, more than compensating slight decrease in service fees, completely aligned with what I said earlier, and to your point, setting BoursoBank aside, the underlying trend should be this one.

In terms of the transaction banking, yes, most, if not all, of the effect of the rates, obviously reducing and decreasing, and thus impacting the NII generated in that business. That trend is mostly behind us for 2026.

Remember on the flip side, it's a business which we have been investing in for the last now I would say 8 years, and we absolutely are determined to continue to invest in this business, both commercially and in terms of the technology that is used there. Like everything else we do, in a controlled way, and making sure that there's both an ability to self-finance, to speak, this growth, but also that the returns remain meaningful.

From a rates perspective, the headwind that it was, in particular in '25, is mostly behind us.

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much for taking my questions. The first is just on the CET1 ratio at the year-end 2026.

Can you just talk about your thinking why is now specified at above 13% versus the 13% before? Then when you come to the second quarter and assess your potential extra distribution, what factors would you take into account?

Should we look at the base last year, the €1 or €2 billion as a base basically? Then maybe just lastly, a cheeky one, I guess you have the Capital Markets Day only in September, but is capital distribution another area that could be a topic?

Thank you very much.

If I forget something, please remind me, right? First was CET1, the fact that we added a little sign, don't read too much into this, right?

It's just think about above 13 as 13.00001 is above 13, right? Just to be clear.

It was just a way of confirming that we do not intend, in normal circumstances as a general rule, to ever go below 13%, but it absolutely doesn't mean that there's any kind of accumulation above 13 as a matter of strategic intent. Second question is I'll take the last one first, because I remember it.

Would distribution and capital policy be a topic for the CMD? Yes, of course, right?

There should not be a major surprises from an intent, right, from a general strategic approach, which is above 13%, we consider we have excess capital that we intend to use, either in organic growth or in exceptional distribution or in inorganic growth. Of course, you will get much more color on these topics and a perspective that will cover the entire plan, right?

I think there's going to be a lot of content, but again, with a strategic thinking framework which will remain unchanged. In terms of the 1 or €2 billion in Q2 basically, well, we'll discuss that in Q2, right?

Let me put it this way.

What factors will you be looking at? Basically just the capital ratio or— Oh,

the factors is always the same thing. Thank you.

No, listen, it's always the same story, right? It's always the same answer.

I want to come back to this and make sure that this part is really really heard. It's a strategic decision, right?

This is not some everyday housekeeping, right? I have something left on my table, I'm going to dispose of it, right, the fastest way I can.

It's a strategic decision about a strategic resource for the company, right? The factors, very simple, is the level of capital, the current performance, and the strategic opportunities between organic growth, distribution to shareholders as an exceptional distribution, or inorganic growth.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have two, please. The first one is on the tax rate.

What do you expect for the tax rate for next year, also taking to account the changes in French law? Secondly, on the cost of risk on the French Retail, what is the outlook there, please?

Thank you.

Thank you. On the tax rate, I'll leave that with Leo.

He's going to give you some color. Just one comment on the French context, which is that, as we've said in the past, because of the international nature of our business and the way it is operating mostly locally outside of France, and the structure of the head office in France, etc., we are not experimenting a massive impact of some of the tax decisions in France.

The impacts are rather marginal. On the details, I'll let Leo answer in a second.

In terms of the NPL for the retail in France, what you have is something which is fairly stable, as you see in the numbers, and that has a small increase on the SME side, very consistent, very granular, nothing specific, and consistent with the increase in bankruptcies that we've seen throughout the year for the SMEs, a trend which is, by the way, decelerating recently, right? Right now, our vision for 2026 is fairly constructive.

You have growth, albeit sluggish and small, but still you have growth, and you have resilience in the system. Very consistent with the market trends at a granular level, nothing specific neither from a specific file perspective or specific sector to report at this point.

Leo, on the tax rate, some more color?

Sure. Good morning, Alberto.

Basically in 2025, we've had a tax rate which has been lower than the one that we had in 2024. That's basically been driven by the fact that we've had quite a few capital gains through the P&L, and those have a relatively lower tax rate.

They had an impact on the mix, no? Now, going forward for 2026, I think we're going to have a tax rate which is going to be higher than 2024 because of the reasons mentioned.

This year, we're not going to have so many capital gains coming through the P&L, and therefore, we'll not have that mixed impact, if you wish, no? It will be higher than 2025, most likely will be perhaps lower than the one that we had in 2024 because the mix of our revenues from outside of France are still quite high.

We don't expect any big impact coming from the potential tax changes within France for the overall tax rate. Basically, higher than 2025, but lower than 2024.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have two. Hope I'm audible.

I hear your previous criteria for inorganic growth, but hypothetically speaking, should the relative valuation between SocGen and Ayvens share turn more favorable for you, would you still be hesitant to buying out Ayvens' minorities? In other words, is the IE residual value risk, considering the fast-evolving automotive market, a constraint in your thought process?

That is the first one. The second is a small follow-up on the equities question.

Can you provide the revenue mix between the various products, i.e., cash equities, derivatives, prime, and also by geography? Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Hi. On the inorganic growth question and specifically pointing to the, let's say theoretical opportunity of buying minority stakes in Ayvens to increase our ownership there.

Across any topic of using excess capital, first cornerstone statement, it has to make sense from a financial perspective. It's a decision that we will always take rationally.

Is the opportunity good for the company and for the shareholders? If we're talking about growth, whether organic or inorganic, the question is going to always be, what is the expected marginal return and what is the risk attached to this investment, be it again organic or inorganic.

In that framework, it's clear that, especially as, at least from a theoretical standpoint, the obvious return of SBB hopefully will continue to decrease, you will have opportunities, theoretically like the one that you're referring to in Ayvens, that would, in an Excel spreadsheet, look potentially more and more attractive. That for sure.

Now, the second comment I've made in the past and today I want to point you to is decisions we intend to make there need to be strategic, right? Today, the thinking is, right, we have control of this great asset, and we can continue to both improve its efficiency, improve its performance, and position it for further growth, without making, from a strategic standpoint, any further investments, right?

I'm not saying never, because you never should say never, but today, there's no strategic intent to do this because we believe that between the zero execution risk share buyback opportunity and organic growth, that we are able to do things that are strategically more meaningful for the group and for the shareholders at a level of risk which we believe is acceptable. That's how we think about this.

In terms of the mix, we do not disclose the overall mix, but I gave you a few ideas in terms of the geographic split. The US overall, here I'm not talking about the markets only, but the US overall, it's roughly 27-30%, let's say 25% to 30% of the overall GBIS business.

In terms of the market, it's more or less the same, 25% to 30% US from a geographical perspective. Then you can imagine, a pretty significant weight of Europe and a more marginal representation in Asia, but it's still meaningful, but smaller than the other two regions.

In terms of the businesses, what we do disclose is that you have basically a 60/40, more or less, split between equities and fixed income. In fixed income, you need to think about the mix as, versus the average market basically less commodities, because there's none, obviously less commodities, and a credit business which is smaller and more focused on securitization and private credit than let's say on traditional marketable securities credit.

That's the color on fixed income. From a geographical standpoint there, heavy weighting towards Europe and Asia versus the US.

In terms of the equity, you know that historically our business has a big focus on the investment solutions, right? It remains true, even if, as intended and explained 5 years ago when we spoke at the Investor Day for GBIS when I took over, we did grow substantially the flow businesses, both on the equity derivatives side as well, and linear businesses, as we call them, and as well, notably through the acquisition of Bernstein, the cash equity piece.

We don't disclose further percentages. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you for joining us this morning, and sharing your valuable time with us.

I thank you very for your questions, and I wish you a nice day, a nice weekend, and I'll talk to you during the next release for Q1. Thank you very much.

Take care. Thank you.

Bye-bye.