Société Générale Stock

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us for this second session in the first day.

So 2 years ago, you stood on the stage and promised investors less, not more. It wasn't a crowd pleaser, but it was the right call. I think we can all agree on this. The scar tissue from that plan was earned the hard way. You cut distractions, fix the capital, stop overpromising and start over delivering, which what makes this week's plan the more interesting one. I think for the first time, Société is guiding to an ROTE that's credible and cover its cost of equity. And the shares still trading at a discounted multiple.

So I would like to spend the next 40 minutes on the fun part. So what's in the plan what's deliberately not in plan and how much you're keeping in reserve. Slavomir, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Tarik. I do remember it was the next day after the CMD last time, there was some energy in the air. So I hope we can kind of go back to the energy but more positive. So -- but very glad to be here.

Right. So let's start maybe with the strategy. And so the road map looks more self-help driven than growth-driven, was it a conscious decision to avoid relying on optimistic revenue assumptions and instead build the plan around cost, capital and execution?

Yes. Well, so clearly, it was a conscious decision for a number of reasons. One, you're better off. If you think about the future, if you focus on what you can do and of course, plan for the opportunities of growth, but in a measured disciplined way, but really focus on what you can achieve. And here, I think in cost management, while we have done a lot, as you know, when adjusted for perimeter changes, et cetera, we are down 17% in terms of total cost versus 2022, which is pretty remarkable.

It is true that we still have room to do better, right? Efficiency is a journey, but we were coming from a point where we were really off the benchmarks, right? Let's say it clearly and why we have achieved a lot, there is still room to grow. So you have an opportunity, right? It's realistic to go after this inefficiencies on the one hand. Two, it's something that you can actually manage and control much better than market environment and market conditions. And again, the growth that we're planning to do, and we're investing 2% CAGR in terms of RWA, and we plan to reach a 3% CAGR in terms of growth.

This growth is going to come to a lower cost base higher operating leverage and higher resilience to market conditions. So yes, definitely, it was a conscious decision to focus where we can do the most value creation ourselves not depending on anything else.

Perfect. So the '29 plan feels, in my view, at least deliberately conservative. So how should investors think about the 13%, 14% ROTE range. And as the destination for Soc Générale simply is it destination or simply the next step towards a structurally higher profitability beyond that guidance?

So 2 questions really. I mean first, investors should -- I mean they think whatever they want to think, of course, but the target is the result of very deep and serious work about, again, the opportunity in terms of lower costs and the opportunity in terms of growth. And so the reason we like the ranges is because in banking, you do have a number of factors influencing your trajectory. And I think it's simply a fair assessment of where we can land by 2029.

So is it conservative? I mean it's certainly not overly optimistic, let me put it this way. But it's not like we look at the spreadsheet and then, I don't know, 18% shows up there, and we put 5 percentage points into a vault. So we have room to buffer everything. It's absolutely not the case. But it's true that you can imagine scenarios where we outperform for sure, right? You can have exceptionally conducive market conditions. So we have a big market business that's doing well. This could be an upside. You could achieve something faster, right? I mean last time the big topic was capital. We ended up achieving that much faster. It was a big upside in terms of also investor perception.

You could imagine scenarios, but again, this range covers the most scenarios in our view. So this is our target. But to your second question, it is clearly not the end of the horizon for us. And we do expect continuing to increase this ROTE afterwards. And hence, the reason why we also put the target for 2030 and beyond at 15% because the continuation of our work, so continued focus on costs, continued focus on disciplined growth. We have capital. We have highly accretive businesses where we can invest in terms of marginal ROE at high rates. So we would continue to this. If you put that index spreadsheet, you'll see that the sheer continuation of this trend allows for the ROTE to pick up, especially since we're maintaining the cost down.

But then a very big topic for us is -- we expect the steady state of the transformation of the French retail, the new vision that we talked about yesterday to start kicking bigger volumes of value creation, if you will, towards that kind of time mark, right? So this is why it's going to be another step. You said it, an important step because we target something above the cost of our equity. But it's not the end of the story, we will continue to do better.

Perfect. Let's then dig into a bit more detail on -- starting with the revenues and growth. So your guidance of 3% CAGR, '26, '29, looks achievable but arguably not demanding. So maybe you can go through the key business line and she where the greatest potential upside or maybe a risk of execution there.

So it's -- I mean, the characterization, demanding, not demanding, I think it's about what is the central scenario, again, this notion of central scenario. In terms of execution capacity, but also market conditions the way they look today, and I think we would all agree that they look at least blurred, and that's also an important factor. But it's, again, very important to think about the pace of execution of the growth.

I'm going to explain what I mean by that. The idea is when you invest too fast, be it in terms of capital or cost, you tend to generate on a marginal level, much more inefficiency. To some extent -- to some extent, there were plenty of other reasons. But if you look at our history, growth or excessive growth was never the problem, right? I mean, we had all kinds of ups and downs, but the company is one where growing, once resources are kind of freely flowing through the company was never an issue.

But the problem is if you don't control growth, you'll end up piling up new inefficiencies, both in terms of capital allocation, capital returns at a very granular level in terms of clients, sub businesses, product segments, geographies and so on and so forth and cost as well. So part of the reason we keep this under control is the efficiency of the investment in growth.

One could say, we do want to gain the same level of credibility with growth as the one I believe we get on cost management today. In terms of the businesses, I mean, French retail, is going to be one of the contributors. Overall, it's going to be fairly balanced between the retail -- the French retail, the international business and mobility and the investment bank. Going to be fairly balanced. But in French retail, the opportunity is really twofold, is within this vision of one market, one business, one unified approach to the individual clients in France based on the unique combination of strength that we have.

We will expect growth to come both from the continued strong rate of acquisition and maturing of clients at BoursoBank. It's a key component. But at the same time, the progressive shift on the traditional retail to focus even more on the high-end segments from mass affluent to affluent and in the private banking where we do believe there is a singular opportunity in France and where we are already much better positioned versus, let's say, the average of our positioning, and we expect both of these engines to support growth in an otherwise subdued macro.

But again, think about this with very idiosyncratic ways to make our way across, I mean, navigating the subdued macro in France. In terms of the investment bank, it's really continued controlled growth in the markets business. where we are investing specifically in prime brokerage in the U.S. F&A, as you know, I've spoken about this many times in the past, a preferred area for investments, also one where our significant size and the reputation and the expertise that we have in these businesses from structured finance, infrastructure, natural resources, trade and across the entire world and all of these businesses.

So we have both the right size to be relevant virtually anywhere we're operating, and we've been doing this for 40 years, but also enough of room to still benefit from the idea that clients want to deconcentrate their providers, right? And we see that in our business in the U.S. wherever we invest meaningfully in areas where we do have the rights to compete, we do win because people want more providers that can do complicated things for us and not only rely on some of the biggest banks.

So that's an important opportunity. In international retail, I mean, it's much smaller in terms of how much capital this requires at the group level, but Czech Republic, Romania are investment spots as well.

And finally, Ayvens slightly different there because the curve should be more longer dated, if you will, because today, we still believe that the market is challenging. And that this is not the right time to be growing fast. But we do believe that with the strategy that we've followed so far of restoring margins being super conservative in terms of risk underwriting, et cetera, et cetera. We will continue to have a very healthy base to invest when the market is stabilized in terms of the EV values in terms of client behaviors and so on and so forth. In terms of the UCS which are still reducing and so on.

So you're growing revenues 3%, RWAs 2, which is actually, we can call it very way efficient way to manage your balance sheet. So what's the capital allocation will look like in the next few years? I mean I think it's an equation with the points you mentioned. But what tools are you doing to keep using to keep this RWA growth under control?

I mean it's, first of all, and back to my point about a right rate of growth. So that growth is controlled. So the first way to control this is really the allocation at inception, so to speak, at origination, both to the businesses that we believe and that's indeed in one of the slides of the presentation yesterday, we do have a whole range of businesses with high marginal ROEs well in excess of 20% and some of them were in excess of 40% on a marginal level. French retail wealth and savings and BoursoBank being one, F&A being another one, some of the businesses in the U.S. clearly match this kind of criteria.

So one is money goes there, right? In the past, we used to basically meet up, I'm talking about 10 years ago. There was x amount of RWA. We would throw the RWA at everybody basically based on their current allocation of capital. This is obviously not going to happen, and the money is going to go where the marginal returns are higher. So that's one way of supporting what you described. The second one is to continue to be challenging ourselves both at business level, product level, geography level, in terms of what are the new dynamics because things change, of course, right? Competition dynamics also change in given markets, et cetera. And so being able to reallocate within your existing business to, again, businesses that are the most performing at the time, that's very important.

And finally, clients. I mean when you run an important business size-wise and diversity-wise, you end up sometimes not optimizing allocation at the client level and basically running unprofitable relationships. So as you've seen in our numbers, and you know us very well, we've been doing a pretty decent job at that in the investment bank. And today, I think most of our return parameters are among the highest in the industry, right, 19% RONE for the CIB as a whole, which is again one of the best performance in the world for a EUR 10 billion-plus business, not a small one, above 20% in markets.

This is all linked to this super controlled allocation of RWA at origination, but also as the businesses function, right? But here, we do have still opportunities in some of the businesses. I'm going to name, for instance, the corporate business in France. The SME business in France, where the same logic because it was bigger and slightly more complicated to do it than in the CIB, I think we have room to grow.

So the 2% in terms of RWA, you should also think about this as the result of both new money but also recycling of money. So the growth, basically, capital allocation would be somehow higher because this will also be supported by reallocating resources where -- from where we pull them out from relationships or segments, et cetera, that are not profitable. And so that's the combined dynamic that's going to support the growth.

Last question on revenue on growth. In GBIS, and especially on markets, should the investors think about the EUR 6 billion, EUR 6.5 billion of [indiscernible] ex securities services, I mean -- which is now fixed market range as you see that through the cycle ambition or a level that could be sustainably exceeded if the market conditions are gathered.

So today, I mean, this has been a conversation with you and your colleagues for a while, this range in markets. And the reason we're increasing it from the previous one, which was EUR 5.1 billion to EUR 5.7 billion. So substantial increase is twofold one because, we do finally recognize that the range was a little bit conservative when considering where the business is right now in terms of footprint and ability to generate revenues, very stable revenues, the most stable revenues across the industry.

So that was one reason. And the second one, we are investing and we are investing, in particular, in cash prime brokerage. It's a product gap that we somehow had historically, essentially because we didn't have a powerful enough cash equity business and research business, right? And so having addressed that gap with the acquisition of Bernstein we started to invest in the systems, right, that are obviously necessary to run at scale cash prime brokerage. We've been doing synthetic prime brokerage forever. And so it's a very specific distinct opportunity in a market that really craves competition after all the consolidation that happened there.

And we do believe that there's a specific opportunity here for us, particularly in the U.S., but not only. Remember, we also have Newedge, which we had integrated way back now more than 10 years ago, which is a top clearer and a top FCM. So all these ingredients, right now are there, and we're combining this with the IT investments to be a relevant player there. So a combination of, yes, we run this business at higher rates, plus we are investing again in a controlled way. We believe that the range of EUR 6 billion to EUR 6.5 billion is a relevant one, right? Can we do better? Like I said earlier, I mean, in markets, you can imagine market circumstances where you get opportunities that take you above that. But I think now it's a very, very fair number.

And may I remind you that it's basically close to EUR 2 billion higher than the range that was given when I first start to run the CIB in 2021. So you see it's a real substant progression in terms of footprint of this business. While we reduced the risks by 70%, if you look, for instance, at global stress test usage. So I think it's pretty remarkable.

No, it's good to see that this is a clear message of disciplined investment in this business because one of the fears ahead of CMD is that you have some renewed ambitions to grow faster there. But especially in an environment where now the IB and market is seen has potentially being conducive for the many, many years to come.

So let's move now to BoursoBank and French retail. I think this is a center of investment strategy we presented yesterday. I think one of the most striking targets in French retail is BoursoBank, a number of clients, exceeding 14 million by '29. So at what point does investors' attention shift from client growth towards earning contribution and value per customer?

So first of all, I said I think for the first time here a few years back that we will have more than 20 million clients there, and we will be once the one at some point in time, the biggest bank in terms of penetration, in terms of clients in retail in France. And we're going there, right?

So next target, 14 million. Hopefully, we do better, but that's the best estimate at this point. And remember also 3 years ago, there was some skepticism about this decision to actually grow aggressively this business in an otherwise very conservative spending strategy and so on and so forth. I think that the circumstances prove us right. And it's absolutely key, right, and a real responsibility for management to grow the unique assets that you have in your portfolio and that are going to build not only profitability by 2029, but really, what's going to happen in this company in 2035 and how we'll be able to embrace the future at that point in time whenever it happens, right? And there's a lot of discussions about AI and so on and so forth.

And I am accustomed to say that I haven't heard yet, somebody telling us that they will divide by 12 the cost of a particular business in banking, thanks to AI. Well, we have a test case where with some AI, but not yet a lot. We do have a business which runs at 1/12 of the cost of running retail banking business in France otherwise. So I think from this perspective, in terms of its ability to grow, but its ability to maintain an extraordinary low cost to serve while reaching top rankings in terms of client satisfaction. It's a unique asset that we have, which will support our performance in this market.

Specifically on your question about investors, I think, first of all, it's a cycle, right? That focus on profitability was there already 3 years ago. Currently, I feel like the focus of investors is more in terms of how do you grow this faster. I think now that we have also fixed up some of the way we book the investment, right, in accordance with the accounting norms. It allows us to actually do both at the same time.

And why because the asset is mature because we have 15 years of history now in terms of how clients behave, how fast can we recover the investment costs and so on and so forth. And so right now, you will have basically a business which grows 2 million clients per year and which at all times, will be above 45% [ RONE ], which for a retail banking business in France, I guess, is a decent performance.

So you mentioned 2035. But in my previewing your CMD, I thought you will also give a longer-term number of clients than '29, which is usually you do in your CMD. So clearly, the ambition doesn't stop '29.

Absolutely not.

So then a follow-up on BoursoBank, I mean, I'm really keen to spend some minutes giving us your vision of the French retail with the as you call it, cross convergence or integration of the French traditional network or brick-and-mortar, If I can call it, so and BoursoBank how do you see that? And basically, the success of how you see the integration in few years how we can actually gauge that if it's -- the integration has been successful and what metrics should we watch.

Thank you. It's a very important topic for us strategically. So I think a few ideas here. First, historically, we've been running these assets in a separate way, right? And it's -- it was what it was, right? I mean, we had, remember, to different traditional networks, not so long ago, right? We had [ Crédit du Nord ] and Société Générale. So 2 entirely separate entities addressing the traditional retail market in France. So this was merged in the last 3 years, and so we have only one.

And BoursoBank was a challenger model, if you will, within the company, which was a brilliant idea. But too small, right, to really stand on its 2 feet, if you will, didn't have the right profitability potential and so on and so forth. So now things have changed, right? So we have only one traditional network. We do have private banking, which is doing very well. We have the insurance company, which caters to all of these assets at the same time. And we have a mature online business, which, again, is going to make EUR 300 million this year, 60% RONE in H1, and it's growing at the pace that you see.

So we can shift the our posture and our focus too, there's one market, the individual clients in France with all the segments that you have there and one business on our end, which is all the segments and various channels of distribution, which can then be tailored very accurately and very precisely to each segment. And so the philosophy is now BoursoBank addresses, of course, everybody who wants to be a client of a very successful online bank.

And the French traditional retail is going to continue to do its job, but under one management and trying to change in 2 ways: one, focusing more on the high net worth mass affluent, affluent clients in close relationship with the private banking, and this already works very well. We do have a penetration rate there, which is twice the penetration rate we have as a whole in this market. And this business is going to be run, again, under one management focused on the individual clients. Remember, traditional retail, it's 50% corporate, 50% individual. So now we're putting all the individual business under one roof and focus on mass affluent to affluent on the traditional side and extremely important on super segmented approach of the various segments of clients, depending on what the revenue opportunity per client is adjusting with all the things that we've learned at BoursoBank from a tech perspective, process perspective, et cetera, adjusting the cost to serve to the opportunity.

And if you follow me, you need to think about this as actually the major opportunity here to create value. Because today, in traditional retail in France, you have a mix in the bag of all the segments and all the strategic thinking is I have a physical network, how do I -- what do I do with that network. And that's not the right way to think. The right way to think is, I have clients that have very different profiles in terms of what they need and what they want from the bank and how much they're willing to pay. And what we need to do, and we'll do that by converging the strength of BoursoBank into the traditional network, we need to make sure that the clients are serviced based on the opportunity they represent.

And so really, it's mostly segmentation and convergence of cost to serve. And here, there's a substantial value to be created. And I think we are the unique player in France to be able to think this way because the others are either very relevant and strong competitors, don't get me wrong, on traditional retail, but not really benefiting from an online bank within their, let's say, a portfolio of businesses. And on the other hand, of course, you have powerful online competitors, but which don't have the opportunity in wealth and savings, right?

And France has a lot of challenges, but has a lot of assets as well and financial assets in France are EUR 7 trillion, and it's the second biggest pool of savings, 18% savings rate and so on and so forth. You know all this. So the opportunity is real and somehow not entirely correlated to the macro. So this is how we think about this, and we think it's a really exciting opportunity. Measures of success. I mean growth of BoursoBank on the other hand, and improvement in profitability on the other hand, for the entire retail business in France.

Very clear. I mean you clearly have an advantage versus the incumbents in France. And you have some head start versus the online ones. I think there's an obvious one. How do you see really -- how much really room as you have to grow without being catched up by that big competitor that's making France as a playground at the moment?

I think it's still today. But again, I think it was also here that I said last year that -- when you have strong competitors in your market, like the first attitude is to be humble about it, right? Because even if they are slightly different, right, and even when I said earlier, like that we have the unique set of businesses, yes, we have a unique set of businesses. But that's not enough, right? We need to operate them, continue to operate them at a high level of performance, et cetera, et cetera.

So it's a constant battle, especially on the retail market. And in France, it's an insanely competitive market whichever way you look at it, right? So going back to the competitor, we're not going to name here. But we have both the challenge but also the opportunity to continue differentiating ourselves by being a bank, right? You go to BoursoBank, you can do everything. You can have your credit card, and that's it and a current account for your everyday operational, let's say, expenses and so on and so forth. But you can also have sophisticated investment products in Luxembourg life insurance wrapper, you have one of the best brokers in Europe, where you can do whatever you want across a wide range of products, et cetera, et cetera. You're on a financial portal, which is the #1 in France by far, and so on and so forth.

So you can really use this to satisfy all the needs that you want to have. You have a retirement product, everything, right? So for our competitors, online competitors, not only the one you're referring to, I mean, to get there, is a long way because it's not only a matter of developing some applications, right?

Each and every product here has a regulatory dimension right, both at inception, but in the way you manage these products and so on and so forth. This is not, again, just some application. It's a banking business, highly regulated, highly supervised. So I'm not saying they're not going to get there. but it's a long road. Plus in banking, usually, you have to lend. And last time I read an article about this, I'm not sure that, that competitor is willing to lend anything to anyone.

Clear. So let's shift to costs, which is, again, was your priority for this plan, and you put it forward clearly as the main objective. So you cite EUR 500 million to EUR 600 million of AI opportunities, which -- with around EUR 350 million already embedded in your operations. So how confident are you that AI ultimately becomes bigger profitability lever than currently reflected in the plan.

I mean there are 2 layers in terms of answer here, like, first, how confident I am that it happens at some point in time, 100%. But I have no doubt that there is a horizon out there where some of our heavy-duty processes manual rework, legacy IT architecture issues, et cetera, are blown away by this technology and everything that comes with it, right? But my big question, and this is why you have noticed, I'm sure that I have been subdued somehow in drum rolling this opportunity I do believe that it's going to take time because, again, you need to -- I heard Sergio earlier and I actually absolutely share this view that trust in our industry is a value that is not going to go away, right?

Right now, we're all excited by the opportunity, and it's only fair. But -- as soon as we encounter as an industry, any type of trust issues about this technology, we will very quickly revert to focusing on trust and safety, right? And so starting with this, it is going to happen. Again, 100% conviction this is going to happen, but it will take time in terms of design strategy, implementation and then validation, right, authorization by regulators and supervisors, et cetera, so that you're 100% certain that the technology that you're using is 100% controlled, right?

And I always give this example of the credit models I know how you're familiar with this Saga in the European banking market in particular, right? But it took the industry 5 to 10 years depending on the actors to get more or less right, the documentation with the supervisors, the documentation of credit models. And believe me, right, the credit model is like -- I mean, the most simplest thing that you have in banking in the end. So when I see this, right, I think that documenting the AI models or the AI agents and what they do in the systems, I mean, it's going to take some time. So an incredible life-changing opportunity -- but I think a horizon, which is far more in the 5 to 10 years at least, than in the next 18 months.

So moving to another key pillar of your plan, which is the capital return and distribution I think this has been -- you've done already a lot of heavy lifting in the previous plan into rebuilding the capital to higher levels. So you come with EUR 21 billion of distribution over the -- by '29, how should we think about the balance between ordinary distribution and excess capital? And of course, I mean, you've been very clear about it, but if you can remind us a bit how you think.

So it's a fundamental question, right, because it's about the stewardship of our shareholders' capital. And indeed, it was a cornerstone of the previous plan. But we had there to go through the step of first cutting before we were able to go back or actually not back because we've never been where we are in terms of actual distribution. So because we had to build that capital up, right? So that's completely behind us. And today, we can function normally. And we -- based on the targets we've given yesterday, we expect the ordinary distribution to be in the range of EUR 13 billion over the next plan and the excess capital to be anywhere near EUR 8 billion.

So indeed, it's EUR 21 billion in total. That's the respective size of it. And we are 100% committed to be rational with excess capital, right? So we won't accumulate above 13%. We will be distributing excess capital unless and after funding growth, right, because these numbers are, of course, after funding the entire growth that is in the plan. And unless we have substantial opportunities to accelerate highly accretive organic growth but again, with the framework I gave you earlier, that's not the central scenario on the one hand.

And then on the other hand, in terms of inorganic M&A, it's not something that we say we won't do, but we do commit to something extremely strict in terms of strategic fit requirements. So within the business portfolio that we have, enhancing what we do already, doing it better, plugging their product gaps, potentially geography gaps, et cetera, but something within our fairway, so to speak, and then with very strict valuation and return criteria, accretion of EPS and so on and so forth.

So I mean, do you think that today we have lots of opportunities that would tick all the boxes here. No, but who knows. And so we're not closed for these opportunities. But let's say that today, if you ask me today, that's not the likely outcome. And so in the absence of other opportunities that would beat the return for shareholders of buybacks, we will be returning this capital to shareholders, and it would be equivalent to basically an effective distribution rate on our reported income of 80%.

So in terms of the split of the 50%, you referred to the same more than balance, I asked you already a question last time and you asked me to go to dictionary and see what balance means.

So I checked. Because I had checked because myself, I wasn't sure that was -- that's why I suggested that.

So it will still be dynamic to the margin versus your valuation and so on decided every year?

Yes, absolutely. I think we've been marginally above 50% last year. Yes, absolutely. That's the philosophy, yes.

So just maybe last question to close. So 2 years ago, the objective was to fix SocGén. We discussed this lengthily. Today's objective is to create value, again, discussed it. If we sit here again in '29, and I'm sure you'll see in between as well. What metrics do you want investors to say you fundamentally changed versus where SocGén stood in '23, profitability, valuation, earnings power or capital return. You have to pick one.

Well, I was going to say all the above, sir.. But -- well, I mean, all the above, also because in the end, and I think the plan we presented yesterday is actually a testament to this, which is you need to be at maturity and performing across all dimensions, right? I mean you can't, of course, right simply focus on cost because you're going to die at some point, right? And that's not the point. You need to be very controlled with growth because otherwise, you're going to throw to the waste years of efforts, years of thinking strategically about efficiency and so on and so forth.

You need to have earnings power because in the end, it's a competition, right? Every single day, the tens of thousands of people that are working in the front line at SocGén, are fighting for business is an extremely competitive market. So you do have to have the right businesses that can compete with the others. And in the end, with no profitability. There's no return to shareholders. There are no capacity to invest, no capacity to absorb shocks and so on and so forth, right? So we're clearly out there set to continue to enhance the bank across all of the dimensions that I just referred to. And again, be the leaders in our area that I think we should be and we can be and going back to some of the SocGén leadership from way back.

Perfect. Thank you very much, Slavomir. Thank you for the...

Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right. Good morning, everyone. I would like to extend my thanks and a warm welcome to our shareholders, bondholders and analysts joining us here in the room in person, but also online. We deeply appreciate and value your continued commitment and engagement with Societe Generale. Today is an important milestone for us. It's an opportunity to step back, assess our achievements, discuss where we are headed and more importantly, explain how we intend to keep creating value for our shareholders.

In 2022, the group was in a difficult position. Our organization was too complex. Our operating model was not efficient enough. Costs were too high, profitability was too low and a weak capital position hampered our ability to grow and to distribute value to shareholders. But it was also clear that the group had strong franchises and a clear potential, a potential, however, that was not translating consistently into financial performance. The average profitability languished at around 6% for the 2018-2022 period.

So in 2023, we set out to fix that. We established a strategic road map with clear priorities to build a stronger, simpler and more profitable group, a group with greater capital flexibility, tighter operational discipline and a sharper focus on a higher and more sustainable value creation. And this is exactly what we have done. And of course, there is still much more to do. What I want to share with you today are the next steps we will take to create the conditions for disciplined, profitable growth, reaching a ROTE between 13% and 14% in 2029 and above 15% in 2030 and beyond.

Well, we know that promises don't earn you credibility, results do. To give you a better sense of how we plan to achieve our future ambitions, let's revisit how we engineered this turnaround. Three years ago, to strengthen our foundation, we decided to increase our CET1 ratio target from 12% to 13% after Basel IV. It was an ambitious goal at the time designed to create a robust buffer above regulatory requirements, give greater flexibility to manage the group through different market conditions and to remove the perception of the dilution risk.

At the time, we combined this capital objective with a payout policy of 40% to 50% of the reported net income. And as we all know, you have to make money before you can spend it, and we had to earn the right to distribute more. But by Q1 '25, our CET1 ratio had already reached 13.4% after Basel IV above our 13% target. And that marked a fundamental change in our position. Instead of being a constraint, capital became a source of strategic flexibility. It also became the foundation for more predictable ordinary distributions as well as a lever for additional capital returns when our capital generation exceeded the needs of our business.

We have moved from rebuilding capital to actively managing it. Over the past 3 years, we have also fundamentally improved the operating performance of the group. We made difficult decisions. We simplified the organization. We reduced structural complexity. We increased accountability across the group, and we applied strict discipline in the allocation of every euro of expense. These actions are now producing tangible results, and we now have a cost base that is 8% lower than it was in 2022. And yet at the same time, we organically grew revenues by 8% and this despite stable organic RWA.

Those measures have improved our cost-to-income ratio, which by the end of this year will be below 60%, exactly what we committed 3 years ago. That 60% is also 11 percentage points below the 2018-2022 average level. As a result, profitability has increased to around 11%. That's 5 percentage points higher than the 2018-2022 average and above our initial target of between 9% and 10%. All this resulted in a higher distribution to our shareholders with the ordinary payout reaching 50% of reported income as early as 2025.

We were also able to return excess capital to shareholders beyond our ordinary distribution policy, and we've done this through 3 extraordinary share buybacks totaling EUR 3.5 billion. So by 2025, just 18 months after the cut, the total distribution to shareholders was almost 3x what it was in 2022. In total, we distributed around EUR 9.5 billion since 2023 and total distribution, combined with the increase of our share price represents a total shareholder return of 270%. This performance is among the best in our industry.

Greater profitability also strengthens our risk profile. In the past few years, our earnings have not only grown, but they are significantly more resilient. So first, we reduced the volatility of our revenues. We are now generating revenues that recur with greater predictability at lower levels of volatility across market cycles. And as the chart on the left shows, this is better than most of our peers. Second, the combination of stronger revenues, lower costs and greater operating efficiency has increased by 50% the pre-provision profit generated by the group compared to its 2018-2022 average.

And third, our cost of risk has remained low, has been consistently below 30 basis points every quarter since 2023. This reflects the quality of our loan portfolio, our disciplined origination standards and our prudent management of credit risk. We are now better equipped to absorb shocks, generate capital and deliver sustainable returns through the cycle. This is the risk profile we intend to maintain as we move into the next phase. One look at these results leads to a clear and simple conclusion, we have met or exceeded all of the targets from our previous plan.

And given how well this playbook has performed, we want to enhance it and build off our strengths. And our group is built around 3 powerful and complementary pillars: French Retail Banking, Global Banking & Investor Solutions and Mobility and International Retail Banking. Each pillar has its own strengths, sound client franchises and growth drivers. And together, they give us a diversified revenue base, a broad range of expertise and a distinctive capacity to serve our clients across their different banking needs.

Of course, the strategy is only as strong as the organization's culture and capacity to execute it. And Societe Generale is well known for its resilient, business-minded entrepreneurial and innovative culture as well as for a strong sense of belonging, which are unique assets. Our success is a testament to the performance of all our talented teams all over the world. And I want to take this opportunity to warmly thank them for their hard and consistent work, which delivered a particularly successful turnaround.

But we knew we could do better. So we also worked hard to reshape our culture around 4 principles: ownership, efficiency, cooperation and responsibility. We changed, and this is why we can look into the future with confidence. And those future next steps come straight from a familiar playbook. It's a strategic equation that has already proved successful for us. It doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be enhanced. We can take an even lower cost base, combine it with profitable growth, underpinned with disciplined risk management while continuously transforming our businesses to make them more competitive with higher level of sustainable performance.

So here are the targets for 2029: lower costs in absolute terms, standing at EUR 16.3 billion, down 2% versus 2026. Higher revenues growing at a CAGR of around 3% between 2026 and 2029, leading to a cost-to-income ratio below 55%, a low cost of risk between 25 basis points and 30 basis points and a ROTE between 13% and 14% with a CET1 ratio above 13% and a distribution payout ratio of 50%. Now here's what this strategy and those targets mean in terms of shareholder distributions. Our policy is built around 2 complementary components.

The first is an attractive and sustainable ordinary distribution with a payout ratio at 50% of our reported net income. This will grow along with the recurring earnings and organic capital generation of the group. And this ordinary distribution will continue to be balanced between dividends and share buybacks, and it will translate into a low to mid-teens DPS growth CAGR over the 2026-2029 period with an expected cumulative ordinary distribution above EUR 13 billion. The second is an extraordinary distribution, which allows us to return capital generated above our 13% target.

If no relevant and accretive M&A opportunities are identified, we will return to shareholders the entirety of this excess capital estimated at around EUR 8 billion. Therefore, the total return to our shareholders may reach EUR 21 billion for the period or 39% of our market capitalization. Think of it this way, we could distribute around 80% of our earnings each year after funding our businesses for profitable growth.

Now let me outline how we will lower costs, which has been and will remain at the heart of our strategy. Over the past few years, the steps we took to reduce our cost base and improve our efficiency have paid off. Our costs, as you know, have decreased by 8% compared to the 2022 level. That is a decrease of EUR 1.4 billion (sic) [ EUR 1 billion ] in absolute terms despite an average annual inflation rate of 2% to 3%. Restating from perimeter impact and inflation, our cost base has decreased by 17%, thanks to savings of EUR 2.6 billion. This is massive.

And we accomplished this because we worked on every component of our cost base through decisions, both large and small. We adjusted our workforce to reflect our strategic priorities and the changing needs of our business. As you can see, compared to the end of 2023, headcount is down 17% and 11% when adjusted for the disposals. We implement a strict control on hiring and on external spending. We simplified our organization and reduced management layers, creating clearer responsibilities and faster decision-making.

But creating a lasting efficiency culture takes more than that. So we conducted an exhaustive review of our processes and thousands of employees took part, generating thousands of ideas on how to be more efficient. In IT alone, we reduced cost by EUR 900 million between '22 and '26, in part by consolidating our supplier base from 600 providers -- 650 providers to just 4 key partners. This reduction in spending, however, did not come at the expense of operational resilience or security. On the contrary.

In fact, we improved the quality and stability of our IT production, bringing the number of incidents down by 80% versus 2022, and our composite IT efficiency index improved by 27% (sic) [ 18% ]. At the same time, we have continued to reinforce our prevention, detection and response capabilities in cyber risk. But even with all that, our cost base is still too high. Our organization remains too complex in some areas, and we still have too many systems, processes and activities that are duplicated across businesses and functions. The next phase, therefore, will go beyond the measures already implemented. In 2029, we expect our cost base to be at EUR 16.3 billion, representing a net decrease of 2% compared to 2026 levels.

We will continue to invest billions to support our businesses with an incremental EUR 600 million, bringing the total investment to over EUR 5 billion over the period. Our strategic approach is to spend less on what causes inefficiency and more where we can create lasting value. The savings generated will more than offset inflation and the investments required to deliver our strategy. And here's how we're going to do this. We have 3 main levers. The first one is technology and AI and more on that in a minute. The second one is our human capital. It is simple, really. Every recruitment decision is put to a clear test. Can the need be addressed internally either through reskilling our own people, automation or reallocation of resources? If it can't, we'll hire from outside.

We will also continue to improve spans of control and reduce unnecessary organizational layers. The goal is not simply to reduce resources, it is to use our talent more effectively. We'll also reduce costs through procurement. External spending represents a significant part of our cost base, and we see further potential to improve how we manage this through stronger control. And it starts with a simple shift in posture before being disciplined in spending, one has to be disciplined in his or her needs. This is how we will continue to decrease our cost base in absolute terms. And we're just getting started. Despite the significant progress we have already made, our IT intensity ratio, which stands at 15%, remains above that of our peers.

And it tells us that we have plenty of room for improvement. We are now targeting an IT intensity ratio of 12% by the end of the plan. We will achieve this again through 3 main levers. The first is the continued simplification of our application and technologies landscape. The second lever is to pursue the simplification of our IT operating model. And the third lever is AI, which will be an important accelerator for our transformation. By 2029, we will have reduced our IT costs by 30% since 2022, despite inflation and higher investments, all while substantially improving our IT KPIs and KRIs.

AI will, of course, support our journey, and we see 3 major opportunities here. First, lower costs, particularly in technology through more efficient coding, testing and maintenance and support. Second, higher productivity by streamlining low-touch processes, automating reporting and reducing repetitive administrative tasks. And third, it should free up our people to have more personalized interactions with our clients. In short, AI makes it possible to develop and operate technology at a lower cost and it makes our teams more productive.

We will scale use cases selectively based on measurable benefits and within a rigorous risk and governance framework as we are not just any business, but we are a bank. So right now, we see AI generating EUR 500 million to EUR 600 million of cost reductions with around EUR 350 million embedded so far in the trajectory. Last week, we signed a strategic collaboration with Anthropic that gives us access to its advanced capabilities and latest generation AI models. This collaboration will provide us with a highly scalable platform, enabling us to accelerate the deployment of AI use cases across the group, resulting in all the benefits I just mentioned. Their focus on enterprise AI applications will be key to supporting the deep strategic transformation of our IT environment and core systems and processes.

This is, in our view, an important step in our AI journey, allowing us to combine external technological capabilities with our own data, expertise and understanding of our clients. We addressed costs first for a simple reason because of operating leverage, growing off a lower cost base creates more value and more resilience. So now let's address growth. Three years ago, in this room, I told you we would grow differently in a more disciplined manner, and we've done that. With almost no organic RWA allocation, our businesses grew by 8% between 2022 and 2026. We did that by transforming our core businesses and playing to our strengths.

French retail grew by EUR 1.4 billion during that period. BoursoBank is now a real bank at scale and profitable with more than 9 million clients. It has around EUR 85 billion of assets and leads in the French online banking sector.

At SG, we're growing and building on our leadership in savings and wealth management, supported by record life insurance inflows. Global Markets are less volatile, delivering recurring and predictable earnings while achieving a record profitability of 20%.

In Financing and Advisory, we implemented a new model to make more efficient use of our balance sheet. And this increases our ability to originate financing solutions and distribute them to investors while supporting our clients even more effectively. With the integration of LeasePlan, Ayvens has reinforced its position as a global leader in fleet management with close to 3.2 million vehicles worldwide. And they do operate in a complex environment, but thanks to, again, our disciplined approach, we managed to increase margins and preserve profitability.

We expect group revenues to grow by an average of approximately 3% per year between '26 and '29, supported by a disciplined organic RWA growth of around 2% per year. This growth will be broad-based and balanced across our 3 businesses. It will not depend on any single franchise market environment or source of income. And just because we now have capital doesn't mean we're looking to grow all businesses all at once. First, we will accelerate growth in BoursoBank and in our wealth and savings franchise in France. Those businesses are capital-light and highly profitable.

They can build on existing platforms, expertise and client relationships to generate additional revenues with limited RWA consumption. This operating leverage argument, so to speak, also applies to Global Equities, Financing and Advisory to our retail banks in the CEE region and to Ayvens, where capital investments in RWA will bring accretive returns, thanks to scale and high marginal returns. Our U.S. platform represents a distinct growth opportunity. It's already a highly profitable, well-diversified business with a large and deep client base across financial institutions and corporates in a growing economy. We will increase our capital allocation to the region to take advantage of this compelling combination of opportunity and strength.

So by now, our objective should be clear to direct resources towards our most profitable growth opportunities and maximize the value created from the group's existing franchises. More broadly, our approach in terms of portfolio management remains consistent. Three years ago, we defined specific criteria, those principles still apply. What has changed, however, is our capital position. This means that we can be open to potential M&A opportunities, but let me be clear. We do not need acquisitions to deliver the financial targets we are presenting today. And any transaction would have to meet strict conditions. It would need to have a compelling strategic fit, reinforce one of our core franchises and be consistent with our risk appetite.

It would need to meet strict valuation criteria, demonstrate financial accretion and offer credible opportunities for synergies. We will, therefore, remain selective and disciplined, and we will only pursue an opportunity if it offers a more attractive use of capital than the alternatives available to us, including investments in organic growth or returning capital to shareholders. Let me also address our minority interests. From a strategic perspective, we already have control of these businesses through our majority ownership.

At the same time, we regularly assess the most appropriate ownership structure for each of them. This includes considering their strategic importance, growth potential, capital requirements, valuation and so on. And here, the technical benefits of reducing the minority interest frictions in our view, do not outweigh the strategic consideration nor the principles we apply to managing our excess capital. And at this point, we are satisfied with our current ownership of these assets. Our responsibility is always and will always be to maximize value for the group and its shareholders.

Good performance results from solid execution and risk management is, of course, vital to that execution. Our risk profile benefits first from the diversification of our business model. We operate across different geographies, client segments and economic sectors. We also combine complementary businesses across a wide range of markets. Our diversification is also reflected in our credit portfolio, where our exposures are well spread across industries and top 5 sectors represent less than 13% of our EAD with limited client concentration.

This diversification matters, of course, as it reduces our exposure to any single market, business or revenue and it provides greater stability and resilience to our overall earnings, as I showed you earlier. Now with regards to market risk, I implemented a significant shift in risk management, which has been in motion since 2021. We have significantly reduced the amount of market risk taken by the group. You can see that in the drastic reduction in our market stress test limit usage. At the same time, we improved commercial performance and grew our business substantially.

Our Global Markets activities have delivered record revenues, demonstrating the strength of the franchise and the quality of its client-driven model. We are, therefore, generating stronger revenues with significantly lower market risk intensity, operating with an improved risk return profile and with a better quality of earnings. Let me bring these elements together. Over the past few years, our cost of risk has remained low and well controlled. We have an S1/S2 provisions buffer in terms of cost of risk, which is effectively almost double that of our peers' weighted average.

At the same time, we have significantly increased our pre-provision profit, and this provides us with a much stronger hedge against any potential deterioration in the environment or in the credit environment. Looking ahead, we are targeting a cost of risk of 25 to 30 basis points over the 2026 to 2029 period, and the target reflects a prudent approach and incorporates a degree of normalization from the low levels observed in recent years. Let me now turn to the transformation of our businesses, which will be critical to unlocking further growth and higher profitability.

Of course, the transformation of any business is always impacted by the broader environment and how it's rapidly changing in both challenging and promising ways. We're no exception. The global economy is undergoing profound structural change. This environment will remain complex and volatile, but it is also creating significant opportunities for us because of our business portfolio, franchise strengths, well aligned to core secular trends, thanks to our global multi-local reach, and because of our willingness to embrace change.

Let's start with French retail. Over the past 3 years, we have delivered a significant transformation of this franchise. We have a strong and integrated platform that is unique in France. It serves more than 17 million clients, combining the #1 online bank in France, our traditional network in France, a leading private banking franchise, and strong capabilities in insurance and savings. Together, these franchises give us a particularly strong penetration with all individual and corporate clients in France and the ability to address the full range of their needs.

We now manage close to EUR 0.5 trillion in deposits and saving assets. Life insurance outstandings have reached EUR 170 billion, an increase of 27% since '22. Private Banking assets under management now exceed EUR 145 billion. That's up 30% over the same period. And BoursoBank has AUA of EUR 85 billion, an increase of more than 70% since 2022. These strong achievements have improved profitability, and we are well on track to achieve all our targets for 2026. Three years ago, when the cost-to-income ratio of this business stood at 73%, we set a target of below 60%.

It is fair to say that at the time, few considered that achievable. Today, we have not only delivered on that commitment, we have exceeded it. Our cost-to-income ratio reached 58% in the first half of 2026. This 15 percentage point improvement reflects a powerful combination of revenue recovery and cost reduction. At constant perimeter between '22 and '26 and consensus '26, revenue increased by 14%, while costs declined by 11%, 25 percentage points of positive jaws. This operating leverage has also translated into significantly stronger returns with RONE reaching 14.2% in the first half of '26 compared with an average of just above 10% between 2018 and 2022.

So 3 years ago, we were facing many challenges, and we had 2 unbalanced and somewhat unstabilized assets. On the one hand, we had significant opportunities to improve efficiency in traditional retail banking, both through cost reduction and better commercial performance. On the other hand, we had the massive opportunity to grow, to double really, the size of BoursoBank. We simply had to grab this unique opportunity to establish our leadership. And despite, as you know, an otherwise conservative approach to spending, we had to build our group's future. And we managed to do that.

Today, BoursoBank has 9 million clients and EUR 85 billion of AUA, EUR 300 million profit, and 60% RONE. And overall, our French retail banking pillar has a cost-to-income of 58% and a RONE above 14%. We now have a unique French retail banking setup, strong and profitable, stabilized and mature with critical size across all market segments and channels, and ready to embrace the future. And we will take this business step-by-step into that future by combining all our businesses into one integrated but differentiated franchise, one market, one business with several assets to address it under one management, dedicated to the individual retail banking business in France.

As you know, we announced the appointment of Benoit Grisoni as its leader starting October 1, and Benoit will be under the continued leadership of Lubomira Rochet and my supervision. From now on, all our individual clients will be served by one integrated franchise led by one management. BoursoBank will continue to serve digital clients across all levels of wealth and grow aggressively its footprint and its asset base in the French market. The traditional network will focus strategically on the mass-affluent and affluent clients.

This will be done in close cooperation with our private banking franchise, which will continue to operate its high-net-worth client business on the one hand and continue the existing and widely successful cooperation with the traditional network in addressing the upper band of the affluent segment. The product offer, the relationship model, the relationship channels will be highly differentiated by client segments using all our assets consistently from BoursoBank to private banking.

And importantly, the pricing and cost to serve will be highly segmented and differentiated across client segments with a clear objective of reaching consistent profitability across all client segments all the time. We will develop synergies across the businesses and seamless transitions for clients interested in moving from one channel and product offer to another as their needs and behaviors change. And finally, we will work to eliminate all duplication over time, whether that's product factories, digital tools and services, or process design.

This vision will be implemented step by step over time to protect the franchise and to execute the transformation in the most effective and responsible way. And that implementation starts now under these strict principles. Over time, this vision has the potential to disrupt the cost-to-serve equation in the French market while carrying a higher increase potential. Its benefits will flow through progressively for years to come. They will support the delivery of not only our 2029 targets, but also the further profitability increases we project for 2030 and beyond.

Building with this vision, we are setting out a clear road map through 2029. We're targeting a cost-to-income ratio below 55% by 2029. And first, we'll continue to grow BoursoBank aggressively as we capture growth and a meaningful contribution to the group's profitability. Second, we'll continue to improve the efficiency of the unified platform. We will adjust the number of branches in our network to better reflect continuously changing client behaviors.

We will streamline our central functions, simplify processes, and further reduce duplication, as I said, across the platform. We are currently removing one regional management layer. And finally, we will focus our efforts on a strong position among affluent clients and leading franchises across our traditional network, private banking, and life insurance in the French market. The step-by-step transformation of our entire business will unlock the unique potential of our French retail. The powerful platform of BoursoBank is built on 4 strengths.

First, client acquisition. BoursoBank combines a leading brand in online banking, brokerage, and financial information with a highly efficient acquisition model. Its client base has grown by 29% per year over the past 3 years, at the same time that acquisition costs have declined. Second, client loyalty. A comprehensive product range, a leading digital experience, and consistently high client satisfaction resulted in a churn rate below 4%. Third, client potential. BoursoBank's clients are young, financially attractive, if we may say so, and still early in their relationship with the bank.

As these relationships deepen, their value continues to grow with assets increasing 6x since 2016. And fourth, scalability. With around 1,000 employees and highly automated processes, the platform operates with a very low cost to serve, and this naturally supports a return on normative equity above 60%. So BoursoBank combines client growth, deepening relationships, and exceptional scalability. The result is sustained double-digit growth and profitability well above its competitors. We see 2 complementary sources driving BoursoBank's revenue growth. The first is the increasing value generated by our existing client base. As clients mature, they become bigger and bigger contributors to revenues and profitability. But we intend to go beyond that to monetize our client base.

We will enhance our advisory capabilities, notably through AI, and this will allow us to address a greater share of our clients' financial needs. The second source of growth is new client acquisition, of course. The French market continues to offer a highly attractive opportunity. Traditional banks are not yet able to provide the market with the same combination of service, product breadth, and competitive pricing, while neobanks still offer a more limited range of products. So BoursoBank is uniquely positioned between these 2 models. It combines the simplicity and pricing of a digital platform with the breadth of products and services of a full-service bank.

Building on this competitive advantage, we are targeting a total client growth of more than 50% between now and 2029, and that would take our client base to more than 14 million. To us, it's crucial that we maintain a strong balance between rapid client acquisition and high profitability. We should not over-earn. We are, therefore, targeting a RONE above 45% each year from '26 to '29. Bottom line, BoursoBank will combine continued client growth with increasing value per client, allowing it to expand at scale while sustaining a very high level of profitability. Wealth and savings represent a major growth opportunity for the group as well.

France is one of Europe's largest and most attractive savings markets. French households hold around EUR 7 trillion in financial assets. That's the second largest pool in Europe. The savings rate is around 18% of disposable income. An aging population is placing greater emphasis on retirement planning. But with state-funded retirement benefits shrinking, individuals will need to take greater responsibility for their own financial future, and they will need investment solutions. We also expect wealth transfer between generations like we've never seen before.

By 2040, an estimated EUR 9 trillion, around 3x the French GDP, is expected to be transferred from baby boomers to other generations. And these trends will change both the scale and the nature of our clients' needs. And here, our unique position, our new highly segmented approach, and our focus on mass-affluent to high net worth individual clients positions us well for these opportunities. At BoursoBank, our goal is to increase AUA to EUR 115 billion by 2029. In our Private Bank, our '29 target is EUR 180 billion. In insurance, our ambition is to at least exceed EUR 200 billion by '29.

The value of our model lies not only in the strength of each franchise, but in their combination. Here's a summary of the different financial targets I just laid out. Turning to Global Banking and Investor Solutions. Our Corporate and Investment Banking franchise is built on strong foundations as well with leading positions in highly profitable and differentiated businesses such as equity derivatives, structured finance, equity research, and tokenized finance with SG FORGE.

We serve more than 6,000 clients worldwide with a well-balanced client base across financial institutions and corporates. Our revenues are also diversified by product, as you can see, contributing to the strength and resilience of the franchise. In 2025, GBIS generated record revenues of more than EUR 10 billion. But when we consider its profitability, the quality of the franchise becomes even clearer. GBIS is among the most profitable corporate and investment banks globally. RONE reached 19% in the first half of '26, an improvement of 3 percentage points since 2022.

This performance has also been supported by a more capital-efficient revenue mix with fees growing and representing 45% of revenues in 2025 compared with 40% in 2022. As a result, GBIS is on track to outperform all its 2026 financial targets. The cost-to-income ratio stood at 62.1% in '25 and improved further to 60.5% in the first half of 2026. That's already significantly below our target of less than 65%. Both our Global Markets, and Financing and Advisory businesses are also on track to exceed their respective 2026 objectives.

GBIS, therefore, enters the next phase from a position of strength with leading franchises, diversified revenues, disciplined costs, and top-tier profitability. Our 2029 road map is based on the same 4 priorities as the group. Together, these actions will support the cost-to-income ratio below 60% in '29. We expect Financing and Advisory revenues to grow by an average of 3% to 5% per year between 2026 and 2029. For Global Markets, we are targeting revenues between EUR 6 billion and EUR 6.5 billion compared with approximately EUR 6 billion in '25. We will do all this while sustaining top-tier profitability through the cycle.

In Global Markets, our goal is twofold: capture opportunities in underpenetrated client segments and address selected gaps in our product offering. So while historically a core component of our client base, hedge funds and asset managers currently account for a substantially lower share of our client mix than the industry average. And we, therefore, see significant potential to scale our presence in this segment. At the same time, we will strengthen certain product capabilities so we can diversify our business mix and increase the contribution of recurring revenues. Prime brokerage, for instance, will be a key priority.

We see a clear opportunity to gain market share there as we expand already existing relationships with institutional clients and grow our cash prime brokerage balances. And finally, we will grow FIC offering beyond the flow business, and we will build on our strong origination capabilities to expand credit distribution. Together, these initiatives will broaden our franchise and support profitable growth. In '25, Global Markets revenues were 28% higher than the 2018 to 2022 average, while our market stress test usage declined by more than 70% over the same period.

In other words, we have generated much higher revenues while taking far less market risk. But this performance is more than just high quality, it's also predictable. Back in the 2019 to 2023 period, our revenue volatility was broadly in line with our peers. Since the third quarter of 2023, volatility has been almost half that of our peers. This improvement is not accidental, of course. Reducing revenue volatility was a clear strategic priority for us. We have intentionally improved our business mix, reinforced our risk discipline, and increased the contribution of more recurring revenues.

And this has translated also into strong capital efficiency. In 2025, our revenue-to-RWA ratio in Global Markets was around twice the level of our peers. And at the same time, Global Markets delivered a RONE of 20%, approximately 6 percentage points above our CIB peer group. These operating principles will continue to underpin our growth ambitions through 2029. And we will pursue opportunities where we have clear competitive advantage, always within a disciplined risk appetite and with a strong focus on risk-adjusted returns. The other key division of GBIS is Financing and Advisory, as you know.

And thanks to our client base and leading positions in structured finance, we increased total origination volumes by 60% between '23 and '25. This growth was achieved with more efficient use of capital as over the same period, we doubled the volume of loans distributed to investors, increasing our distribution rate from 40% to 50% in 2025. We intend to take this model further. By '29, we are targeting a distribution rate of 60%. More origination and more distribution increases client impact as well as fee generation and leads to a more efficient balance sheet usage. And total origination volumes will grow by 50% between '25 and '29, while maintaining disciplined RWA consumption and, of course, attractive risk-adjusted returns.

We also see meaningful upside potential in investment banking. The combination with Bernstein is generating strong momentum in equity capital markets, particularly in the United States. We will build on this distinctive expertise through targeted investments, strengthening our sector teams and our client coverage. We will focus particularly on expanding our advisory business with financial sponsors and on reinforcing our presence in the U.S. market. Finally, Global Transaction and Payment Services will provide an additional source of profitable growth.

We intend to address their new client segments and increase our share of wallet with existing relationships. This should support an average annual deposit growth of approximately 10% between '25 and '29, providing a valuable and recurring source of revenues and liquidity. Strong risk profile, of course, is one of the core features of the Financing and Advisory franchise. Our credit portfolio is well diversified here again across sectors, geographies, and clients, and this diversification, combined with disciplined origination and prudent underwriting standards, reduces our exposure to idiosyncratic risks and supports the resilience of the franchise.

This is also true for sectors that have recently attracted greater market scrutiny. Our exposure to private credit remains limited and controlled as does our exposure to software, IT consulting, and data centers. And more broadly, our track record here speaks for itself. F&A has consistently delivered a low and stable cost of risk, including through periods of significant economic and market volatility. These operating principles will remain firmly in place. These are the different targets for GBIS businesses.

Over the past 3 years, we have also reshaped our Mobility and International Retail Banking and Financial Services businesses. We completed the disposal of most noncore activities in Africa and exited equipment finance. This gives us a simpler and more focused portfolio. With the successful integration of LeasePlan, we have built Ayvens into a global leader in mobility. Ayvens has what it takes to capture the long-term growth of this market, namely scale, expertise, and operational capabilities.

This pillar also benefits from our strong and well-recognized European banking franchises in the Czech Republic and Romania as well as from our specialized consumer finance activities. Together, these businesses provide the group with valuable diversification across different geographies, client segments, and revenue sources. Our lending portfolio there is also well balanced between retail and corporate clients, contributing to the resilience of the platform. And importantly, this diversification comes with strong profitability.

Since 2023, the pillar has delivered an average RONE of approximately 14%. Its cost-to-income ratio reached 53% in the first half of 2026. This positions us to achieve our 2026 target of below 55%. So as we enter the next phase with a streamlined portfolio of strong and efficient franchises that generate attractive returns and provide the group with complementary sources of profitable growth. These businesses are accretive to group profitability and consistent with our strategy. Now here's what we have planned next for MIBS. Our first priority is always to further improve the efficiency of the business model and bring the cost-to-income ratio below 47% by 2029.

In our international retail networks, we will use our strong positions in attractive markets to grow consistently, aiming at market share gains in target market segments. At Ayvens, growth will remain selective. The industry does not yet offer the optimal risk/reward balance across all segments, and we will not pursue volumes just for volume's sake. We will focus on the clients, products, and markets offering the most attractive profitable growth opportunities while preserving strong margins and responsible risk management.

Historically, our Consumer Finance business has demonstrated strong profitability, and our priority here is to rebuild that performance progressively through prudent origination and again, a clear focus on risk-adjusted returns. So the direction for MIBS is clear: efficiency, selective growth, and rigorous capital and risk discipline. And this will make MIBS an increasingly accretive contributor to group returns by 2029. Each of our 3 international retail banking franchises has a specific road map. At KB in the Czech Republic, we will preserve our leadership among large corporates, grow selectively in SMEs, and accelerate in retail through AI and the KB+ digital platform, which was a key investment in the previous plan.

This will support further growth while maintaining high profitability in a profoundly transformed entity. At BRD in Romania, our priority is to consolidate our market position and close the efficiency gap with peers by scaling our digital capabilities, and growth will remain selective there as well. In Africa, following the streamlining of our portfolio, we will continue to manage our 5 franchises according to our proven playbook.

In Consumer Finance, we have a focused footprint and leading car finance positions in France, Italy, and Germany. And looking ahead, we will look to grow in this business by strengthening partnerships with leading manufacturers, particularly in new car financing. And we will do so while preserving our highly efficient model and strict credit origination standards. And together, these levers will enable us to improve the business RONE by 2029.

Ayvens, as you know, is the global mobility leader, and we have positioned it to realize its long-term growth potential and shape the industry for years to come. Three years after the beginning of a complex integration with LeasePlan, Ayvens successfully delivered its 2025 financial targets and is firmly on track to achieve its 2026 objectives. And by shifting from a volume-led expansion to disciplined profitable growth, the Ayvens teams have done a remarkable job restoring strong margin amidst a rapidly changing mobility market.

Under a skilled new management team and with strong governance, Ayvens is now ready to enter the next phase of its strategic development. And that next phase will be built around 3 priorities. The first is selective growth in the most attractive customer segments. We see significant potential in retail, both among SMEs and individual clients. We will focus where margins are strong, namely in the light commercial vehicles category for SMEs. This is less a market growth opportunity than a market penetration opportunity where Ayvens scale, expertise and product capabilities provide a clear competitive advantage.

We will also deepen client relationships through additional services like insurance, electric vehicle charging solutions and enhanced fleet management services. This will increase value per client while further diversifying the revenue base. Second priority is cost reduction. Ayvens is committed to reducing its cost base through 2029. Technology, AI and a more effective allocation of resources will help simplify the operating model and improve productivity further. A major lever will be the optimization of the cost to serve across vehicle operations from delivery and maintenance to end of contract management.

The third priority is to prepare Ayvens for the future of mobility. We will develop new sources of value, including used car leasing, next-generation automotive technologies and over time, the transitions toward autonomous mobility. By 2029, we are targeting a cost-to-income ratio of approximately 49% and a ROTE between 14% and 16% at Ayvens level. This summarizes the key targets we have set for mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services. Let me now hand over to Leo, our CFO, who will take you through our financial trajectory and targets. Thank you.

Thank you, Slavomir, and good morning, everyone. Let me start with the key macroeconomic assumptions that underpin our financial trajectory. Our outlook calls for a subdued growth in the near term, followed by a gradual recovery through 2029. Inflation is expected to steadily ease while short-term interest rates normalize from their current levels as energy markets stabilize over time. However, we expect both nominal and real rates to remain structurally higher than during the previous decade.

Long-term sovereign yields are also expected to remain elevated and volatile, reflecting higher term premium and public financing needs. While our euro-dollar outlook remains relatively stable across all of the period. Taken together, these assumptions describe a scenario of moderate growth, progressively lower inflation, some normalization in short-term rates and persistently elevated long-term yields. This scenario, of course, is not without risk. Geopolitical tensions, commodity prices, public financings or market volatility could lead to less favorable outcomes.

For these reasons, our targets are mainly driven by factors within our control, the structural reduction of our cost base, disciplined and profitable growth, rigorous risk management and the continued transformation of our businesses. In other words, the delivery of our plan does not depend on macroeconomic tailwinds. It depends first and foremost on our ability to execute. Turning to the key revenue drivers for '27 to '29. The group targets a compound annual growth rate, CAGR of its revenues of around 3% from the end of '26 to the end of '29. All businesses will have a balanced contribution to this growth as can be seen in the slide.

Revenue growth in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance or RPBI will be supported by the wealth and savings segment as well as by a strong contribution coming from BoursoBank. In the case of BoursoBank, this will be driven among other factors by the significant increase in the number of clients served by the franchise. In Global Banking and Investor Solutions, GBIS, growth will mainly be driven by targeted commercial initiatives in structured finance, Prime Services and credit activities. Now with regards to Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services, MIBS, revenue growth will be underpinned by a strong commercial momentum at both KB and BRD as well as by a sustainable and profitable growth at Ayvens.

These revenue streams will be supported by an organic RWA CAGR of around 2% over the whole period. I would like to focus on RPBI for a moment and try to address a request that many of you have made in the past. First, as a context, let me remember that the NII is an important driver, of course, but even within RPBI, it represents only half of the total revenues. This is substantially lower than in many European peers. Moreover, as a proportion of the group's total NBI, RPBI's NII only represented 17% in the first half of 2026. As we have been doing in the past, we will continue to share our expectations on the direction of travel, which continues to be one of gradual progression and moderate growth over the following years.

Let me now explain some of the dynamics, which I hope should help you to gain a better view of that trend. First, in this perimeter, we maintain a very low sensitivity to changes in market rates, thanks to our proactive hedging policy. As you can see, the NII sensitivity is only plus EUR 10 million for plus-minus 100 basis points parallel shift in interest rates. Second, we expect deposits to grow by 1% to 2% annually from '26 to '29. And also importantly, at this point, we expect our deposit mix to remain broadly stable. That's driven by the fact that term and regulated deposits are at peak levels since the rate increased back in 2022.

This implies that the share of term and regulated deposits should stay close to current levels. This is 40% of total deposits. Third, the average maturity of non-remunerated deposits is 5 to 8 years, which gives you a reference of the rollover pace of our replacement portfolio. As a result, volume dynamics and the replacement of back book deposits are expected to be the key drivers of NII dynamics during the '27 to '29 period. And as explained earlier, we expect NII to grow gradually over the coming years. Although, of course, in any case, this is a trend and therefore, may not always be completely linear.

Now let me take you through an accounting change we are introducing regarding BoursoBank client acquisition. Under IFRS 15 standard, client acquisition costs may be capitalized when their recoverability can be demonstrated through future revenues. We now have more than 15 years of reliable customer cohort data and enhanced profitability analysis. This provides robust evidence of the recovery of these costs. In this context, starting Q3 '26, acquisition costs, around 75% of all marketing expenses will be booked and therefore, amortized through P&L over a 7-year recovery period.

This recovery period is determined by using only revenues eligible under IFRS 15, which in this case, only take into account net fees. The capitalization will lead to recognition of an asset in the balance sheet, which will be 100% risk weighted, which will reflect the long-term investment made through the acquisition costs. Overall, this change will follow -- will allow for a more faithful representation of the customer value creation over time. This will happen through a closer alignment between the accounting and the clients' lifetime economics through a better matching of commercial investment and revenues, namely acquisition costs and related revenues and also through greater visibility into sustainable and profitable growth.

Disciplined cost management will support the group's performance throughout 2029. Here's how. Having delivered EUR 2.6 billion of gross savings for about 17% net cost reduction since 2022 pro forma. This is including inflation and perimeter changes as shown in the slide. The group enters this new plan with a relentless focus on enhancing efficiency. We expect to bring our cost base below EUR 16.3 billion or a minus 2% compression versus 2026. This is after accounting for inflation as well as additional investments to further grow our businesses.

Adjusted for these items, inflation and investments the underlying gross savings amounts to approximately EUR 1.9 billion. The cost savings measures will reap benefits well before 2029. In fact, most of the savings will be delivered earlier in the plan providing a meaningful improvement as soon as 2027. It is also important to point out that we will reduce the structure through natural attrition. In other words, we will not have to invest in any cost to achieve these reductions. With regards to operating performance, the group is expected to deliver a significant step-up over the course of the plan.

As you can see, gross operating income, as shown on the left, is expected to increase by around 25% between '26 and '29. This translates into a significant improvement of the cost-to-income ratio in '29, with a target below 55%. This is an improvement of more than 5 percentage points versus the end of 2026. This performance will be driven, as explained before, first, by our structural cost discipline and therefore, net cost reduction and then by the organic revenue growth, which together will more than offset for inflation and additional investments in the period.

Our targets for cost income ratios across our businesses demonstrate our ambition to further improve efficiency throughout the group by 2029. In RPBI, the cost-to-income ratio is expected to improve to below 55% in '29 compared to below 60% in our '26 targets. For GBIS, we're expecting to be below 60% in '29 and versus below 65% in our '26 target. And finally, in MIBS, the cost to income ratio is expected to be lower than 47% in '29 versus below 55% in our '26 target. These improvements reflect our continued focus on operational excellence, simplification and disciplined cost management across all of the businesses of the group.

Within the context of the pillars cost-to-income ratio, it's important to mention that in the last few years, we have significantly reduced the corporate center drag and therefore, narrowed the gap between group ROTE and business RONE. First, since '23, restructuring charges have been recorded at the business level rather than at the corporate center. This was then to better reflect individual business performance and enhance accountability and ownership. Second, we optimized the management of our excess liquidity while also improving the group liquidity steering with the businesses.

Ultimately, each business must be fully accountable for the value it creates and the capital and resources it consumes. Now while substantial progress has already been made on that front since '23, we believe there is still more to do. And in this context, from 2027 onwards, we will keep on working on optimizing our liquidity buffer, and we will reallocate to the businesses EUR 0.3 billion of regulatory and overhead costs, which were previously booked at the corporate center. To put this into context, this further reallocation represents 75% of the overall costs booked at the Corporate Center in 2025.

Those initiatives will reduce the difference between Group ROTE and RONE to less than 3 percentage points in '29 compared to the current 5 percentage points. Moving on to review and risk management. Let me now come back into it since Slavomir already gave you the strategic approach. But nevertheless, we will maintain a prudent and disciplined approach to ensure that we remain resilient across a broad range of economic scenarios. The combination of a low cost of risk, a prudent provisioning and higher pre-provision profit provides the group with a strong buffer against potential shocks.

We are therefore targeting a through-the-cycle of between 25 and 30 basis points throughout the '27-'29 period. With regards to profitability, we are targeting a ROTE of 13% to 14% in '29. Importantly, the improvement will be broad-based. Each of the 3 businesses will contribute in a balanced manner, reflecting both the strength of our diversified model and the progress expected across all our franchises. This increase in profitability will be supported by a combination of a structural cost reduction, organic revenue growth and continued risk discipline. Together, this will generate stronger operating leverage and improve the quality and resilience of our returns.

In terms of trajectory, we expect ROTE to increase steadily over the next 3 years. Finally, as Slavomir outlined earlier with regards to shareholder distribution, we are proposing an attractive policy. This policy is comprised of 2 complementary components. The first one is an ordinary distribution, which is equivalent to 50% of group net income after interest in AT1 and will be delivered through a balanced combination of cash dividends and share buyback. This should translate into a low to mid-teens cash dividend per share CAGR growth over the '27-'29 period with an expected cumulative ordinary distribution above EUR 13 billion.

An interim dividend will also be announced each year in H1, continuing the approach we apply today. The second component will be the return of excess capital. We intend to maintain a CET1 above 13% throughout the '27-'29 period. If no additional accretive organic growth and no relevant and accretive M&A opportunities are identified, we will return to shareholders the entirety of this excess capital. The accumulation of excess capital over the period is expected to be approximately EUR 8 billion. Extraordinary distribution, if any, will be communicated once a year during our Q2 results as is already the case.

Taken together, the potential shareholder distributions could exceed EUR 21 billion from '26 to '29 both included or 39% of our current market cap. In other words, this can be translated to distributing around 80% of our earnings each year after funding our businesses for profitable growth. This framework combines the visibility of an attractive ordinary payout with the additional return of excess capital, and it reflects the strength of our capital position and our continued discipline in allocating capital to where it creates the most value. Let me now give back the floor to Slavomir.

Thank you, Leo. So I want to spend a few minutes now on ESG. In the last 3 years, we have made a substantial progress decarbonizing our activities. It was driven by a sense of responsibility. It is also creating significant and growing business opportunities. The growing distance between the 2 curves shown here on the far left provides tangible evidence of our execution. With the doubling of our financing of low-carbon energy since 2019, we have managed to dramatically flip this ratio in favor of low-carbon energy production and by a wide margin.

But we're not just raising our contribution to financing new energy technologies, we're extending the scope of our contribution to capitalize on growing business opportunities. Our competitive edge here is our expertise and our reputation. We have established ourselves as a leading project finance house and advisory partner for clients investing in the transition. Between now and the end of this decade, we remain committed to mobilizing EUR 500 billion for environmental and social projects. We play a bigger role than just financing the energy transition.

Our expertise helps clients both navigate the transition and adapt to the consequences of climate change. Investment needs are growing rapidly across water infrastructure, climate resilience, nature restoration and supply chain adaptation. We see this both as a critical challenge, of course, but also a significant business opportunity. We have already deployed EUR 1 billion to support emerging leaders of the transition, and we now intend to invest an additional EUR 1.5 billion in debt and equity, which will allow us to support both established transition players and earlier-stage companies in developing climate solutions they can bring to a broader range of clients.

We also firmly believe that one of the best investments is the one you can make in your talent. Our teams are playing a key role in the group's performance. And when that team is diverse, the return on that investment is even greater. That's why building an inclusive culture remains one of our key priorities. While our progress may be slow at times here, our ambition remains firm to achieve greater gender balance by reaching by 2029, 35% of women in senior leadership positions at the group level and 40% in France.

We are looking to accelerate our talent development by expanding leadership training to 2,000 employees by 2029, which is vital for critical expertise as well as continuous talent pool development and sound succession planning. Something else that enhances performance is a sense of ownership. That's why we'll continue to strengthen share ownership through employee share ownership through our annual share plan. Ours is one of the largest employee shareholding bases among European banks. It's our way of saying that if you have helped create value, you should benefit from it. And the more alignment there is, the more performance there will be.

Our investments also extend to the wider community. Societe Generale develops educational programs that help build people's skills in terms of financial skills, confidence and opportunities they need to thrive in society. And finally, we're expanding our philanthropic efforts by increasing our corporate foundation's annual budget by 50% and this will make it possible to widen and deepen our initiatives across our 3 areas of focus: education, culture and the environment. Another important strength of our group is governance. Our governance framework is built on a clear separation between the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and is supported by a highly independent Board.

This ensures a clear allocation of responsibilities between the oversight and executive management of the group, together with appropriate challenge and accountability. The Board brings together a broad range of backgrounds, nationalities and perspectives as well as vast experience across a wide range of expertise. Our governance also benefits from independent external expertise, notably through our Scientific Advisory Council. The council provides an external and scientifically grounded perspective on climate and environmental matters as well as on technology, public policy, macroeconomy, urban planning and human rights.

This makes it possible for us to challenge our assumptions, understand emerging developments and strengthen the quality of our decisions. And as you can see, these efforts have not gone unnoticed with consistent external recognitions. We remain committed as ever to best-in-class governance. Let me conclude by bringing together the key elements of the plan we have presented today. What makes Societe Generale distinctive? Three strong and complementary pillars, leading franchises and a diversified business model with a significantly strengthened financial and risk profile.

Our ambition for 2029 is equally clear to translate these strengths into structurally higher profitability and greater value creation for our shareholders. Our plan is built around a simple and disciplined equation. First, a lower cost base. Second, balanced and profitable growth across our 3 business pillars with a focus on capital-light activities, high marginal and risk-adjusted returns. Third, rigorous risk discipline; and finally, transformation so that the group's operations continuously improve through simpler organizations, stronger cooperation, more scalable platforms and the disciplined deployment of technology and AI.

The financial targets on this slide outline the expected outcome of this strategy. It is broad-based across the group and driven primarily by actions within our control. By 2029, Societe Generale will be an even simpler, more efficient and more profitable group with stronger franchises, resilient earnings and an attractive capacity to return capital to shareholders. But our ambition does not stop in 2029. The actions we are taking today will create value and sustain our profitability well beyond the horizon of this plan. And looking beyond 2029, we see significant potential for the group to continue improving its profitability.

This potential will come from 4 drivers: disciplined and efficient capital allocation, continued growth of our franchises with high operating leverage, sustained cost discipline and the full benefits of the transformation of our French retail. These benefits will build progressively and extend well beyond the formal horizon of this plan. We have strengthened the group. We have restored its capacity to perform and to unlock the full potential of our franchises. We entered this next phase with clarity of purpose, with discipline and an unwavering commitment to the responsible and effective stewardship of your capital. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Let's now take a small break. You deserve it. We deserve it, but you deserve it even more. So thank you very much. And a small break before opening the Q&A session. I don't have a watch. So I don't know, like 15 minutes or something like that. Okay. See you in a second.

[Break]

[Operator Instructions] So let's start. all at once, so I'll pick. If we can go on the third left, please, with Tarik.

Tarik El Mejjad from Bank of America. I have 2 questions actually, and I will start where you left it, Slavomir, around the 15% ROTE target after 2030. I just want to understand, you added this extra guidance without any backing from cost income or any granular guidance. Is this to show actually that your 13%, 14% is more a 14% ROTE because going from 13% in '29 to -- above 15% sounds a bit of a jump? Or is it actually to position yourself with European banks and some banks closer to home maybe in terms of profitability? So question one, my second question is slightly provocative, sorry about that. It's actually about BoursoBank.

And you talked a lot about cross convergence. And the question actually, is it actually more about integration? You've -- I think you've said it in so many ways and words that Bourso is growing fast. There is intergenerational wealth transfer. There's a maturity and vintage of existing clients, profitability. So running these 2 networks, I mean, this may be not 29%, but this direction of travel is more integration maybe on the retail side, not maybe the wealth and the SMEs. And this appointment of Benoit Grisoni as Head of the whole French -- Deputy Head of French Retail is not a strong hint to that.

All right. So I can't say that I wasn't expecting the first 1, right? So let me walk you through the reasoning, right? We provide a range for 2029, not just because we provided one last time, but also because in the current circumstances, I mean, it's difficult to exclude all kinds of sets of scenarios in terms of macroeconomic conditions, in terms of market conditions and so on and so forth, right? So also, I would expect everybody to position their expectations somewhere in the middle of the range, right? So once you start saying this, you see that the differential is substantial versus the 15% in the ROTE of 2030 and beyond, but it doesn't need heroic achievements to get there, right?

And so what we're saying with this guidance is that the continued usage of the same equation, right? This is what you have on the last slide. It's the same playbook, right? Simply factor in more capital allocation to organic growth at improving further and further high marginal returns, add the same approach in terms of risk management and volatility of earnings, et cetera, and then add a few hundred millions in terms of the upper band of the AI opportunity.

As you know, we recognized EUR 350 million out of an opportunity, which we see but don't want to bank on yet closer to double that and then add indeed, and that's going to be a segue into your second question, add the steady-state effects or, let's say, wider, bigger scale effect of what we're trying to do in French retail.

And without any, again, heroic assumptions, you're going to get there, right? And this is what we want to say is that there was a first step, it's behind us. There's a second step now, the upshift, but there's, again, room to go further, right, across the board, right? So you could also -- because of what we're saying about our strategy and what we've done, et cetera, that, yes, there's further cost efficiency, right? I can't tell you right now that costs are going to be down in absolute terms in 2030, that would be stupid of me. But the idea that focus on operating leverage will be a high point of our agenda remains true to French retail now.

So yes, I hope I used quite a bit of words to say that things are changing and are going to change deeply, right? So let's talk about this, right? Let's talk about integration. This is integration or is something slightly different from merger, right? I don't think that at this point, anyone would think about the merger, nor that the merger would make sense because of the purity and clarity of the business model, of the unique selling proposition of BoursoBank of everything that goes so well in that asset, right? Equally, on the other hand, we do have still room to be better.

But first, by thinking about this market in 1 unified way, right? Again, what's the before and after, if you allow me to say it this way. Today, we have BoursoBank, which is mostly all clients, all types of clients, of course, but the vision, right, is it's a channel. It's a successful channel with its own, let's say, strength.

On the other hand, we have traditional network. And so you can see that the former way of thinking about this is driven by channels. And I think -- well, I mean, I don't know if it was a good idea in the past, but it's true that today, it's not a good idea, right? You need to look at clients and at their behaviors and use that as the input into your model, not that you happen to have a channel that you've built over the last 160 years, right?

So the idea here is by having 1 approach to the entire market, knowing that we're the only ones to have all these assets at the same time, we're going to optimize the offer based on client needs and expectations and behaviors and optimize cost to serve, right? So we don't want to have, again, BoursoBank on the one hand, traditional retail where you have everything from mass market to actually large international corporates and everything in between, right? This is not, in our view, the right way to manage this. So from now on, individual clients, one management, one business addressing all the changes in the French market with BoursoBank doing what it does right now.

And SG continue to do what it does, but much more segmented and focused on mass affluent to high net worth with private banking, meaning -- and this is maybe the most important sentence I said earlier, which is with a segmented approach in terms of offer, pricing, right, and cost to serve. The most important idea here is you have to segment your cost to serve much more at a much more granular level and much more effectively.

So in the end, you have BoursoBank, you have the focus on wealth and savings where we already have much better strength than the overall footprint in our market, and you have a separate approach for each one of the segments.

And this will, in our view, over time, create massive opportunities indeed in terms of operating model, in terms of cost to serve and in terms of simply profitability, right? And choices are going to be made in terms of how we address everything, right? All the clients are welcome, but they get a segmented offer that is in line with what they expect.

Okay. Thank you. We'll take a question from Giulia here just in the second row on the left.

Giulia, Morgan Stanley. I have 2 questions, one on costs and one follow-up on French Retail. So costs, I thought the below EUR 16.3 billion was the highlight of the day and quite a commitment, especially because in the previous plan, you had 2 tailwinds, the SRF and the restructuring costs coming down. You don't have that going forward. And there is inflation, peers are investing. So what can you tell the market to give us confidence that this is achievable and also it doesn't cost an underinvestment, if you wish, in the business and will not prevent you to compete with the peers?

And then secondly, if I expand on French retail, so will a client now have the same app? Will the interface be the same for BoursoBank and the network? Will the systems be the same? And if that's the case, why cost/income 55%? That number surprised me because you're already at 58%. So I would have thought a number much closer to 50%, especially if you are sort of integrating the networks into BoursoBank would make sense.

All right. So on the first question, I think the most important idea here is -- I'll come back to our track record, but I don't want to lead with this. The most important idea is that when you run operations inefficiently, you're actually destroying value at a high pace and in high volumes, if you will. And we've proven that in the last 3 years by -- and I'm taking the most important achievement, I guess, from a cost reduction perspective, which is the EUR 1 billion almost shed of our IT spending, right? We've done that, and I gave you stats, while reducing incidents and increasing efficiency and productivity and quality of production, availability of production and so on and so forth, substantially. The incident is 80%.

And so here, what you absolutely need to understand what you're thinking about this is that we're not perfectly optimized and trying to do much better. We're coming from something which was really all over the place in terms of efficiency, having done a lot of work in the last 3 years, but still having substantial real true efficiency spending increase opportunity. I'm going to give you another stat, which is when we look at the structure of some of our teams, and we've improved that and hence, the improvement in IT cost and in IT intensity ratio. But we have still teams where we have doubled the number of coding nondeveloping resources in a given -- versus coding resources in a number of projects or a number of areas.

So the sheer efficiency gains are not what they were in terms of potential 3 years ago, but they're still substantial. Procurement is this other example where -- I mean, we did a lot of things. We think that we can do much better in this case, and it's what? It's policies that are at the group level, much more control in terms of application and so on and so forth. We referred to what we call the control towers. So we've implemented something very strict in terms of controlling the headcount and controlling replacement rate of the attrition. And this is, of course, an extremely important process. But we also have a spend control tower, we call it like that.

And what you see there, it's not about -- like think about this as -- it's not about like just we're deciding that one every two expense requests, we say no. Of course, that would be again stupid, right? And so what we're trying to do here is understand through this much higher level of management, let's say, much more detailed level of management, understanding what's going on. I'm going to give you an example, right? One of the things we spotted and started to address already with Laura, our Chief Operating Officer, is that a number of requests on significant IT spend come late, right?

And so you can have a much smaller impact on procurement if you don't have alternatives, say, to keep it simple, right? And you're much more in the hands of your suppliers if you start thinking about that procurement process in this particular case late in the process. And so here, by changing the way we look at these things by taking the right amount of lead time, we put more pressure and more -- we create more incentives in terms of the procurement discussions, right, and so on and so forth and don't underestimate the level of, let's say, still entropy in the system. And we're in the process of in procurement, for instance, of putting that back together at the right level with the right level of control and so forth.

So you should be confident because of that. And lastly, because of the way we work, right, we're working -- we're not working and insist on this out of our joint office and saying, "Oh, you know what, I look at this benchmark, you're 10% above, why don't you cut 10% and just come back in 6 months once you're done, right?" The approach is completely different, right? We have this ongoing running every single week, right? Every single week, with reviews at all kinds of levels. Leo gets 3 meetings a week on this. I get one every week where we follow a super granular cost and efficiency plan, where we have thousands of initiatives, which are replenished very regularly and so on and so forth. So we feel very comfortable that we are going to reach this target.

In terms of the French retail question, I think the heart of the answer is it takes time, right? It takes time to affect total change there because the answer is not so much that it's going to be the same interface. I mean, it's going to be blue and pink for BoursoBank unless we make a very aggressive decision to change the colors and red and black on the SG side. But to your point, yes, ultimately, we don't want two entire teams, right, doing digital applications and digital processes design and production in our company. We want only one. And at that, we want the best one, right?

So absolutely, right, part of this whole logic and part of what's going to help uplift support the '29 target. But -- after that uplift even further the profitability is this idea of convergence across everything while maintaining the purity of the channels with a focus on wealth and savings on the traditional side. So going back to your 55% well, first of all, 58% is an H1 number, right? So always remember, and you know that in Q4, usually, you have a number of true-ups, et cetera, which could kind of change a little bit that number at a quarterly mark.

But more importantly, right, the next step is 55%. But of course, right, the contribution of the steady-state contribution of what we're trying to do should drive this performance higher.

Okay. We'll take a question from Chris in the second row here, please. Chris Hallam from Goldman Sachs.

Chris Hallam from Goldman Sachs. So 2 questions. First, any color you can give about RWA growth on a sort of divisional basis? I guess the trends are reasonably different across the 3 landscapes, so to speak. And is it fair to assume that leverage exposure will grow faster than RWAs through the plans? And does that have any impact on the AT1 issuance or AT1 costs we need to think about in '29?

And then second, on Slide 29, I think it is the prime balances growth, looks like roughly an ambition to double prime balances by 2029. When you think about that, is that -- what are the key drivers to grow? Is that products, geographies, people, tech, balance sheets? What are the kind of ingredients you want to put into that business to roughly double the size of balances?

All right. So let me do it this way. I'll start on the RWA, and then I'll leave the floor to Leo. I'll just talk about the business side of things and Leo on the second part of your question, and then I'll take it back for prime brokerage. So from a business perspective, the way you should think about this is more capital light on RPBI, meaning support for BoursoBank, but as you know, it's not a high RWA intensity business today and support for wealth and savings, which is also not a high RWA intensity business.

So conversely, you should expect us to be on the conservative and super disciplined side of things in terms of the allocation to corporate or to broad lending into the mass market, right? For -- I mean, obvious reasons in the French market is that it's substantially lower profitability than anywhere else in Europe, and we have to take this into account.

And this is the logic of what we're explaining, the opportunities actually to grow more in asset-light businesses there. So then the most important part will indeed support more GBIS, both in F&A and more marginally in markets because of prime brokerage, which is -- which consumes RWA, but also, of course, at the heart of it, the F&A business, which is one of the destinations for capital.

And then on MIBS, it is capital at KB and BRD. But at the level of the group, this is not super material. And we don't want to -- in growing markets, especially in Romania, we don't want to overdo it as well, right? So we will be disciplined there as well. There is allocation, but at the group level, it's not that much.

And then lastly, Ayvens is a final destination for also capital investments. But as you know, and we'll see whether we have questions on this later, but the idea there is we see the market substantially still in deep transformation at the beginning of the plan, right? So we don't expect these investments to come early. We expect them to come towards the end of the trajectory.

Sure. So I mean, just rebounding on that. So obviously, there's going to be a part which is going to be driven by loan growth and the more normal RWAs. We can be talking about Eastern European franchises, as Slavomir was mentioning or our F&A effort. But on this, it's important to remember that we want to increase the origination, I think by somewhere around 25%. We did 50% in the previous cycle. But we also want to increase a little bit the distribution, right? So the net will have an increase in RWAs, but it's balanced, if you wish.

On the other hand, on the market activity, it will be more driven by leverage indeed. So leverage is going to be something that we will need. Right now, at this point, today, we've done almost 100% of the funding program of the group. Now going forward, we have a buffer, which is above the bucket of AT1. So right now, we're not in a constraint at all. We're actually beyond that. It's normally, we usually do some prefunding of the previous year. So we'll probably do the same this year. Our funding program in the coming years, we expect it to be remain more or less stable. So we're going to do something around EUR 13 billion to EUR 16 billion every year. Of course, if we distribute more capital to shareholders, we may increase that a little bit, but it's not going to be anything sizable.

And in terms of the prime brokerage business, so the opportunity, again, quickly, it's we, as you know, have a very strong franchise in equity derivatives, high profile, one of the leading ones, especially in terms of thought and innovation leadership and the capacity to do all kinds of things for all kinds of clients. But historically, we've had 2 issues with prime brokerage. We didn't develop this business organically that much because we're focused on synthetic prime brokerage.

And then the second piece was obviously cash equity and research, which actually are significant components of cash prime brokerage businesses.

So first thing that happens, we invested in Bernstein, and we now have a much more meaningful platform from this perspective, both in terms of the cash equity business, but also in terms of the research.

And second, we have been investing in the systems because that's the other component organically. And we're now progressively, and we're now at maturity to kind of roll that out. So the idea is now that we, again, have all the components, we can really accelerate the development of this business. And as you know, the market dynamics there for all kinds of reasons led to concentration, right?

And so the opportunity is very simple is that, as you know, I'm sure most of the clients, well, actually, they do seek an alternative provider. And SocGén because of everything we have done for decades, we are a relevant and a trustworthy provider in the space. So there's -- nothing is easy, right, in that business and certainly not in CIB, but it is a real tangible opportunity where now that we have what it takes, it's possible. So you need RWA, you need Sales force, which we are investing in. And to your point, there is a component in human capital. There is a component in IT spending. There is a component in capital, but which we now can put at work on something that has the infrastructure to be developed.

Okay. If we take fourth row, second left, please.

I'm fourth row, second left. Jacques-Henri Gaulard from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Thank you for the red and black.

No. I love doing that with the banks. Generally, put the colors. Two questions. First, the agreement between AI and Anthropic. It's true you're not the first financial institution to announce one. Can you be a bit more specific explaining to us how this is going to work? And is there any chance that in 5 years' time, you wake up with twice the cost, which has been decided by your provider? That's question 1.

Question number 2, it seems that Revolut is on a rampage now. They've hired somebody who is not completely unknown to you to chair the company. Just a little bit about how you view that particular type of competition in France vis-a-vis in particular, your BoursoBank franchise, which is going to be under attack, I assume.

Thank you. So on the first point, let me address the latter part of your question, which is, is there a risk that we wake up with a substantial increase in costs wherever this thing is, let's say, applied 3 years from now. The answer is I don't think that the risk is substantial because we are going to pay attention. And I know you guys are very busy, so I don't expect you to follow what I happen to say about AI. But in our regular interaction, I think you got the gist that we were always very conservative on this topic, and you've never heard me or Leo or us in any way, shape or form, drum rolling the fact that we're going to reduce our workforce by 30%, thanks to AI.

I thought always that this was absolutely unrealistic to say things like that right now. I guess that the last few weeks give a little bit of color on why that's unrealistic, especially in highly regulated, highly supervised businesses where the trustworthiness is absolutely fundamental, right? So the risk of us overspending there or not paying attention to what happens is very, very low, right? We don't want to do this. And to your point, you do have already today in some of the AI firms, I'm not going to name names, but 10% to 15% of their spending is actually the cost of tokens, et cetera, et cetera. So you can easily see a world where, yes, maybe you're down 30% with your workforce, but you're also up 50% in your IT costs.

So I'm 100% with you there, and I think it's a view that we share at the management level. Now what is it? It is something where what have we been doing, right? To some extent, you know us, right, 25 years ago, we were running high-frequency trading desks and BoursoBank is what it is, like 1/12th of the workforce of the regular retail. So I mean, talk about being focused on efficiency and on high automation and so on and so forth.

But on the other hand, we want to go from experimentation, right? Yes, sure coding is a little easier. Yes, sure people can do some things that seem to be burdensome before faster, et cetera, et cetera.

But like if we stop now, take a step back, et cetera, what is embedded today in terms of AI, actual AI impact positive on either revenues or cost, it's a minimal figure, right? If we're honest, right, in terms of being at scale and so forth and so on and so forth. So what we -- our vision here is we need to change tax a little bit, and it's not about like kind of trying to grab everything that's out there and use it and experiment like we're all some form of Albert Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci of today's world, but rather take advantage of Anthropic's approach to enterprise AI, right?

It's not that they're perfect at it, but it's the one firm that has in their thinking, embedded the idea that it's not so much about the models, but very fast, it's about what can we do with these tools at scale in deep transformation of companies, right? And so I'm going to say something crazy, right? Can we rewrite an entire CBS and then implement it with no friction, something we all tried at some point in the time and never succeeded at, right? And usually drowning EUR 500 million in the process, right? Is that the future, right? Is that the future? In which case, guys, I mean, the opportunity is incredible, right? Or is this going to happen maybe in 20 years' time.

And this -- for this, you need constant dialogue, right? So this collaboration agreement gives us access to all their technology, gives us access to co-developing, adjusting their models like Claude, for instance, et cetera, specifically for the needs of our business and the financial services in general or whatever we choose to work on. But more profoundly even, it gives us access to their experts so that we can think about this in strategic terms and stop just throwing money indiscriminately all kinds of ideas. So that's really that. With all that, I forgot the second question.

Revolut and Bourso.

Revolut, yes, this is why I forgot it. I choose to forget. No, no. Listen, first of all, as I always said, you have a market competitor, right, that enters your market of choice with a strength, with a strategy that's working and with apparently very determined views about their growth in France, you have to pay attention, and we are paying attention.

Now I go back to what I think sometimes alluded to, which is today, we have still very different businesses, right? On the one hand, a bank, BoursoBank that has the entire product offer, as you can say, a proven track record in running an entire product offer from very simple things to very sophisticated ones, the brokerage, remember, et cetera, et cetera.

And on the other hand, we have something which has so far covered a large ground geographically and in terms of types of clients. One could say what's the usership versus clientship in that -- is that me? No. Well, that's not a great idea.

So -- and in terms of AUAs, it's a fraction, 1/10th of what we have. Most likely, our AUA per client is in the 8,000 to 9,000, theirs is below 1,000, et cetera, et cetera. So we think we're not exactly doing the same job today, but a client is a client or a user is a potential client, and this is why we're working very hard adjusting some of our marketing approach in terms of how we acquire clients.

We had a certain way of doing it in France. For those of you who follow us super precisely, we have tilted that to a slightly different approach and being much more present online with a different kind of marketing, et cetera, et cetera. But in the end, what we are working off is the entirety back to what I said earlier of the market, including with high-end segments, which are going to continue to be covered by traditional networks that has to be more segmented and more optimized.

So ultimately, Revolut can be Societe Generale in the French market anytime soon. Societe Generale, the way I described it earlier, which is all of our assets together, one market, one business, one management. No one can do that in the French market so far. And we will increase substantially our usage of this competitive advantage.

Okay. Thanks. Let's take a question from Andrew, please. Third row second right.

It's Andrew Coombs from Citi. Just a broad question and then a follow-up on Bourso. On the broader question, you talked about a steady improvement to your ROTE target in 2029. At the same time, you said that the cost reduction would be front-loaded in '27. So should we assume that the revenue growth is more back-weighted in '28 or backloaded in '28 and '29.

And then the second question is specific to BoursoBank. You've given an absolute profit target for this year. You haven't given an absolute profit target for '29, but you've alluded to the RONE actually declining versus this year, so greater than 60% to greater than 45% and that's even with the IFRS 15 accounting change. So can you just talk through both the implications of the accounting change from a numbers perspective, but also the reason for the decline in the return profile of BoursoBank?

All right. So Leo, you'll take some of these questions, and I'll -- both on costs and on the accounting change, et cetera. Well, I'll start then by addressing the strategic side of the 45%, 60%, et cetera, right? So it's quite simple.

And 3 years ago, we already had a discussion about, is it worth developing BoursoBank, growing it. And there was a number of voices on the buy side, which not only analysts but also investors who were questioning why would you continue to develop this asset? Why don't you milk it and generate the high returns that it carries basically structurally?

Well, I hope that by now, the answer is clear, right? And that when you have an adventure like this from a growth perspective, from a strategic disruption potential for an entire market, your first duty is to make sure that you develop it. While and you saw that, containing costs. And we did much better in terms of containing costs than what we initially planned. But this idea that we have this unique asset that needs to continue to grow and to continue to disrupt the French market through cost to serve, like think about it this way, right? The French market has a number of positive features, right?

It has a number of negative features, the products, some of the structural constraints with the regulated savings, with the nature of our mortgage products and so on and so forth. But if you apply a radically different cost to serve to this market, right, well, you are going to create a big opportunity out of something, which initially seems challenging, right? So this is the thinking that we have. And going back more precisely to your question, the idea is exactly what you implied, which is at 60% RONE, we have a much, much lower. We still grow, right? We still grow, as you can see, but we have a much lower growth rate, while delivering a profitability, which is equivalent to over earning, right?

And so just having these 2 things shows you that it's not the right thing to do, right? You need to find something which is much more balanced between the growth and the earning, right? So from now on, we have a highly profitable BoursoBank that's going to contribute to the group, but at a lower level than it could because we still want this to grow at a very high pace, 14 million in 2029. And as I said many, many times, ultimately, way more than 20 million and the leading bank in France in terms of market penetration. So that's that.

With everything I said, you can imagine that we're not disclosing it right now, but the absolute terms contribution in terms of net income is going to grow at a slow pace.

So taking it from there, if you wish. I mean the reason between the difference of the 65% and the 45% as Slavomir just explained, it's that just to drop a couple of numbers there. In the first half of the year, BoursoBank acquired 300,000 clients. Now we want to acquire 2 million, right, which, by the way, it's more or less the same amount of clients that we already acquired in 2025 when Revolut was already trying to get deep into France.

Now the -- I would like to highlight that there is no change in the accounting framework, okay? So the accounting framework doesn't change.

What changes is that we're going to apply now a norm, IFRS 15, which was in place or was implemented back in 2018. The reason why we didn't implement that norm in 2018 is because we didn't have the historical very granular by vintage data that could support how long it takes us to recover the initial investment through the revenues that are being brought by those specific vintages per year. At this point, we now have over 15 years of experience and moreover, a very good experience over the course of the last 3 years where we doubled the number of clients. So it's very specific. And then again, the numbers are specific. We cannot take into account all the revenues.

We cannot take into account the revenues, for example, driven by the IFRS 9 norm. This is -- we cannot take into account NII, right? NII that has been -- that we acquire from the clients. We can only take into account the net fees. So going forward, we're going to capitalize the assets actually from this quarter. So that's going to be risk-weighted and therefore, will have an impact on the CET1 of BoursoBank. while amortizing these assets to basically align the investment made on the acquisition of the client with the revenues that we're going to get from the client going forward.

Yes. So if we didn't have that, the returns would be lower. But there was another question on the --

The second is curve.

In terms of both costs and the revenues.

So on this regard, right, we've been a little bit more cautious. We obviously have more control on everything that has to do internally is intrinsic to the bank. It's on us, if you wish as management, and that's costs, and that's why we wanted to show that the costs are not going to be backloaded, but front-loaded. And of course, this comes from a lot of work that we've been doing not only in the last 2 months, but in the last, whatever, 18, 24 months. It's a number -- very, very granular number of projects. I think we've explained this in the past, which don't give all the benefits in one quarter, but are spread out through the course of several quarters or even years, right?

And we monitor these very precisely, as Slavomir was pointing out before, I have 3 meetings per week, Slavomir has one, and we are constantly monitoring the milestones behind those projects so that we achieve them. So indeed, the cost reduction is going to be significantly front-loaded to 2027.

On the other hand, as per the revenues, we have taken a more cautious view for 2027. Why? I'll try to explain basically pillar by pillar. So on the MIBS side, we're going to have a little bit of an impact of perimeter for some of the companies that we are still divesting in Africa this year. So we don't -- we will not have that kind of revenue next year.

On the second hand, Ayvens will still be normalizing on the used car sales by '27.

So basically, we're not expecting a huge increase in the revenues of Ayvens because of that reason and probably they will grow further down the line because of all the things they want to aim for.

On the GBIS side of things, we have an F&A, which we do think will grow next year, more or less linearly every year on the grounds of the numbers that we gave you, 3%, 5% CAGR. So that's not something that we see at risk at this point.

On the other hand, on the market side, which represents 60% of the pillar or more, if you wish, well, we gave a target this year, which was a range between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion. Honestly, we always said we were going to land above EUR 5.7 billion last year.

We did EUR 6 billion. We're on track to be there. So we're already at the bottom part of the range, right? So we're being a little bit cautious. And next year, we're more aiming for the bottom part of the range than the higher part of the range. And again, this is a big part of the pillar. So that's another piece of conservatism, if you wish in our numbers.

And then lastly, in RPBI, well, we cannot avoid to understand that next year, we may have volatility in that market driven by all the uncertainties regarding the French elections. So we have again been conservative on that end. We have the increase of rates driven by increase of inflation, which will have an impact in Librea.

And therefore, that will directly have an impact on the cost of funding of our franchise and actually sets the floor for the term deposits for the overall franchise. And then the benefits that we're going to see from the wealth management and from Bourso, it's something that's going to scale up, right, over the course of the next 3 years. So it's not that we're not going to have them next year. We think we are. But of course, those 2 million clients -- 2 million new clients in Bourso per year are escalating over the course of the trajectory. And that's why we've been a little bit more cautious on the revenue side in '27, but it's under the same assumptions that we have for '28 and '29.

Just very precisely, but it's not that all the costs happen in '27, of course, right, not EUR 1.9 billion of gross savings happen over '27. And equally, it's not all the growth happens there. You -- I know that some of you are going to take the ruler and take a pass at the slide. I mean, we try to be accurate even with that from that perspective. So to give you some color.

Okay. If we just take a question on the fourth row on the end there, please.

Anke from RBC. Two questions, please. First, on RWA growth, you say 2% organic RWA growth. What would it be including the BoursoBank effect, regulation and any capital optimization?

And then on Global Markets, so you say you're stepping up from EUR 5.1 billion, EUR 5.7 billion this year to the EUR 6 billion, EUR 6.5 billion. If we think about the drivers that drive that step up, is a large part of the increase in your normal run rate coming from prime brokerage given the increase in the balance?

So I'll take the second one and Leo take the first one. On markets, so I think to be fair, it's a combined effect more than prime brokerage kicking in by, say, from a guidance perspective of EUR 300 million in one year, which is not the case. It's more a combination of continued growth indeed in this business and a bit across the entire franchise and the recognition, right, that there was undue conservatism now in the previous guidance, right?

So think about it as a combined effect of some of that organic growth, but also us recognizing that the argument that I served you with like for 4 years, which is the market conditions were exceptional, which, again, I think was a reality now is simply the regime in which we're working, right?

So again, if we have another 2017 with a VIX at 7% or 8% throughout an entire year, not moving in at that kind of level, I mean, the performance is going to be much lower, right? That's for sure. But the likelihood of this happening anytime soon, right, is equally extremely low. So again, in a base case scenario, we do believe that the steady state of our performance in markets actually is higher than what we've been guiding to, right? So a combination of that changing guidance reflecting progress made.

Remember, I checked, right, because I knew that I would have some questions about the guidance. When I took over at CIB in 2020 and at CMD in 2021, I mean, the target was 4.5%, right? So there is a real, right, substantial increase in the earnings capacity of this business and the guidance reflects partly this and partly some of the growth projects that we have.

And regarding your question in Bourso, I think it's worth perhaps taking one step back, right? So why is Bourso so profitable at this point, right, with 60-plus percent RONE or 45% for the future, right? If I can oversimplify, it's basically because of 2 reasons. On the one hand, because we have 9 million customers and 1,000 employees. So obviously, it's the end game of whatever we could dream of out of AI, if you wish. The efficiency is very important. But it's also because our clients are different, are younger than in a natural or a historical retail franchise. And therefore, they're much more leveraged on the liability side of things than on the asset side of things.

So we have much more deposits and AUAs than loans granted to them because they still don't have that need. Our purpose is to retain those clients so that we can serve them as their needs for other financial assets grow, and therefore, we have -- we can offer the best product there. But in the coming 3 years, we're not expecting BoursoBank to be highly using RWAs because this path will take some time. And as per the impact on the amortization or the capitalization of those costs, again, I don't think it's going to be very material in the overall scheme of the group.

Regulation.

Regulation in the coming 3 years, we're not expecting a major -- I mean, we are still forecasting, but it's beyond 2029 and 2030 FRTB. We still put it in our trajectory because it's there. And of course, we will have some plus and minus over the course of the years as we're showing in the last couple of years because you have some add-ons that are released and you have some OCs where you need to book a few basis points here and there, but it's nothing material.

We just take the question fourth row on the right, please.

Pierre Chedeville, CIC. First question regarding your FICC activity. You mentioned the last 2 quarters also that your mix of activities was not optimal for the period. But from a more general point of view, do you see any change in this activity where you are a little bit less, I would say, present than in the equity business? How do you see your future in this activity in Europe, but also in the United States? You didn't speak a lot about that.

And any complementarity also with what you did not mention SGSS with these activities? How do you see the future of that with the cost/income ratio of this activity? We don't know it, but we suppose it's much above 60%.

And my second question is on retail. You did not mention your ambitions regarding P&C or protection. You mentioned your ambition in the life business with outstanding but in protection or P&C, we don't see anything. Do you think that for you, you forget it for the next plan or for another life? Or do you have any views there because for individuals, we have a good environment for pricing today. So it could be an opportunity for you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. So on the FICC franchise first, right? So again, like quickly, we discussed that in the past, but quickly, the biggest gaps are product because of our substantial focus on rates in general and euro rates, in particular, overrepresentation of Europe versus the equities business as well. So these are the biggest gaps. And then always, right? I mean, it's a choice, it's a management choice, not a reporting choice because, frankly, we could have a reporting upside if we change that. But part of the credit business, which is very often reported in fixed income almost everywhere else in our house is partly booked in Global Banking in F&A.

Why? Because we made, I don't know, like 15 years ago almost, right, right after the GFC, the decision, right, that credit-intensive activities would not be run out of the market activities, but out of the credit business where we do underwrite on a regular basis every day, billions of exposure and where that expertise is. So it's a super important choice that Pierre and I made when Pierre was leading that division and I was working for him.

And we continue to run it this way. It's a very successful business. And if it were on the fixed side, it would also support that business from this perspective, right? And we're very happy with the performance and risk management, most importantly, right now there.

So closing these gaps over time, right? And the other thing that you see on the slide is that the flow business on the fixed side is a much bigger component of the business than if you compare this to equities. So it's really -- think of it like us doing the job step by step. We don't expect, and this is why we didn't spend too much time in the presentation, we don't expect like revolutionary change there. But what's important for us is to continue closing the gaps also through the investments in the prime brokerage because there is a continuum there, right? Once you have the cash prime brokerage business at scale with your clients, it is actually supporting also, obviously, your fixed income franchise as well.

So that's one of the avenues. The investments that we mentioned in the U.S. are part of it as well. We do intend to invest very selectively in the U.S. I'm just going to give you an example, right, 15 years ago when I took over there, we were running a huge investment in an MBS and agency desk, et cetera, et cetera. Believe me, we're not going back there because that would be completely irrelevant, and it would be a bad investment for sure if we were to go there. But again, around credit, around some of the corporate business, right, we can do better because we have a substantial client base in corporates there where we can do better, right?

And that's part of the investments that we're referring to earlier. And usually, that business, as you know, in the U.S. is actually marginally to substantially more profitable than the corporate business in Europe and let alone France. So expect us to do this gradually to support our entire market business, but also specifically FICC.

In terms of the P&C. So within two answers, I hope very, very clear, right? So it's not a highlight of this plan. So I don't know if it's another life or another plan. But more precisely, we believe that in this business, you have some of the products which are important, especially in France, life benefits linked to the mortgage origination, et cetera, and some other products there that have, to your point, a high margin and high opportunity is a big opportunity in terms of cross-selling and so on and so forth.

And the market is very sound from this perspective. On the other hand, on pure P&C, I mean, two things. One, because of our historical focus on savings and when I say historical here, we're talking about decades, and investment and a little bit higher-end segments, we have a cultural challenge there in terms of the marketing for these products, right? I mean let's recognize this. It's much more difficult for somebody who's working with that tilt, if you will, towards investments and savings, et cetera, to be a super good salesman on P&C.

Now the other thing also with P&C is that when we look at the -- well done. Well done.

When we look at the differential in penetration, we do have a differential in penetration of this product with our client base versus other banks and some of the leaders in the space that, that differential would be with the best ones, I think, 15 to 20 percentage points. So it's substantial, right? But when you take the end profitability on this product, right, and apply it to the client base, et cetera, I mean, let's say, addressing half of that gap would not dramatically change the overall picture for FRTB for French retail and private banking and insurance. So that's how we think about this, right? It's important. We're working on this, but it's not the #1 priority and neither from a revenue nor from a bottom line perspective.

Okay. We'll take a question at the back. Third to the left first, please. Back row.

If you can hear me. Jeremy Sigee from BNP. Two questions on BoursoBank again, please. Of the 5 million extra customers you expect, how many of those do you expect to come from the SG branch network? I know historically, it's been a very small proportion. Is there a difference in this plan?

And then second question, you talked about lower customer acquisition costs in Bourso. Is that just a function of the accounting? Or are you finding ways to bring in customers with less cash payment?

So on the first question, like the one word answer would be 500,000 right? Because more or less, and we monitor this very carefully. We've been monitoring this for the last decade very carefully. Basically, the cannibalization, so to speak, which we don't see and have never seen as a cannibalization, but rather as customer development is roughly the size of our SGRF network's market share in the market, which is around 10% to keep it simple, right? So we expect this to be consistent with this historical trend. And if your question -- and I do want to address this, I know we're trying not to answer questions you didn't ask. But in this particular case, the implication was also linked to the new strategy, new vision with the bank.

The 14 million does not include any transfer from the traditional bank to BoursoBank, not any transfer. This is stand-alone growth strategy for BoursoBank. So I mean, as we develop the vision, can you imagine flows both ways, again, in the spirit of one business addressing 1 market, we expect these flows to go both ways, right? And we'll work on this so that the flows are both ways, but that would be incremental. The CAC is down, like the customer acquisition cost is down actually substantially if you compare it to what BoursoBank was doing earlier.

And this is why, if you remember, we had projected a negative GOI of EUR 150 million that would be the consequence of the investment, right, in the previous cycle from '23 to '26.

It has not been the case. We have been profitable net net contributor, BoursoBank was a net contributor to the net income throughout the entire trajectory. So you can see and that's directly, directly linked to all the efforts made on optimizing the customer acquisition cost. And the way it's done is, well, twofold mainly.

One, a much more subtle regulation, right, if you will, of this expense throughout the year and throughout the campaigns, right? Because obviously, it's run through all kinds of campaigns, linked to advertising or not or this or that. And instead of being a little bit, if I may say so, blunt and aggressive, it's much more subtle and trying to optimize that. And so that's one of the drivers.

The second one is also more recent and important evolution, right, which is trying to -- how to put it, be more sophisticated about it. And so not just focus on the only on the acquisition fee, which was a little bit of a feature of the strategy in terms of acquisition, like just pay a fee, get the customer since you are the best performer in terms of quality and app efficiency, you turn it into actually a very good and active one, hence, the level of AUA per client, but rather taking into account the online opportunities and how the younger generation, let's say, navigate these offers, et cetera, et cetera. And the combination of all this, I mean, it's a 65% reduction in cost of acquisition since 2016, right, just to give you a sense.

Okay. We'll take a question from Sharath at the far left, please.

Sharath Kumar from Deutsche Bank. I have 2 questions. Firstly, on Ayvens, the fleet growth at 3% between now and 2029. It's still very modest if you compare it with your closest peer, BNP Arval, who've been growing at 5% per annum. So my question is the gap is now significantly reduced with their acquisition of Athlon. So how important is being the #1 player to you? And related, Arval has also started doing more SRTs in this particular business. So how open are you in this regard?

And the second one is regarding SRTs. At a group context, any change in your message? And if I compare it to BNP, they are doing net 10 basis points. Cumulatively, they have 90 basis points. So just wanted to understand these figures from your perspective. And is there any messaging versus your previous stance?

Right. So I'll address the Ayvens question by saying, I guess, 2 things. One is when you compare us to competitors, any competitors, it's possible to also look at other parameters of the performance, and we try to obviously look at what's going on in the market. And what we noticed, right, if we read things well is that some of the competitors, I'm not going to name them, but some of the competitors have a much more aggressive stance, not only on growth, but also on profitability and funding for that matter.

So you think about us, you tilt this the other way around, right? We pay attention to funding, and we pay attention to building businesses that are strong from a healthy, from a risk management perspective and so on and so forth.

And so our focus in the market, which I mean, think about it, again, right, between the EV paradigm shift, between the UCS paradigm shift and so on and so forth and still unstabilized customer behaviors on both origination of these assets, but also at the back end in terms of what happens at the end of the contract and the secondary markets and so on. I mean, it's a market where you do want to protect value, right, value at the expense for now of growth because once these things are stabilized and they will be stabilized, obviously, right? And we get inputs every year, right? This year, this market got a huge input from the war in the Gulf. So with Iran.

And so once all these things are stabilized, I mean, we will be happily pouring capital at this sound and healthy base so that we can use the high profitability that we will have there, that we have already and we will continue to have to grow at super high levels of marginal return, right? So that's how we think about this.

Now on the SRTs, short answer, there's no change in stance, right? So it's a tool. It's an efficient tool. If you manage it conservatively in terms of diversification of your providers, that's very important, of course, right? And when you don't rely on this as a fundamental piece of your equation, right? Because if you start relying on this as a fundamental -- inexorable, I mean, It's too fancier word, like unavoidable piece of your equation, right, you're going to maybe wake up one day with no capacity in the market and what do you do then?

If you use it too aggressively in terms of capital management or frankly, in terms of like huge differences between underwriting and what you actually want to hold on your balance sheet, right? So from this perspective, our stance has always been and remains, one, focused on risk management as an additional tool just to kind of manage some of the extra opportunities or whatever, but that's fundamentally where we stand. So no strategic change in SRTs.

Okay. Fifth row, please, it's just Delphine with a hand raised.

Delphine from JPMorgan. Just a few questions on costs, just to come back on cost reduction. Just wanted to check that the minus 2%, '29 versus '26, that's going to be mainly driven by France. And you talked, I think, in the presentation about 11% decline in headcount at the group level. How much have you assumed? Are you going to see an acceleration in this next plan?

And also a very quick one on sort of the decline in '27, which is more pronounced. I mean, if you just can explain, is that related to the sort of the disposals you've made recently? Or is there a staff reduction plan that impacts a bit more '27 compared to later years? Or it's just the phasing of the cost investments that you're going to make towards later years?

Thank you. So in terms of the headcount in your first question, and I'll leave the second to you. It's -- so 11% is the headcount reduction over the last plan when adjusted for disposals, right? Otherwise, it's closer to 20%. We're giving this figure just to point to the fact that, obviously, cost savings don't come from nowhere, and it is a combination of IT, headcount and procurement in the end, right, if you oversimplify.

And so there was a substantial contribution from this reduction in headcount, which, as you can see, is far higher than, let's say, the sporadic news that you can read in the press because of this or that particular little action that we take, right? So just to give you some perspective, this is why we chose to give you this number.

For the future, the way you should think about it is we have decided to run all these transformations through natural attrition, right? One, because it compels us, right, and our teams to be better, to be better, simply that, at transformation, right, and not rely on big announcements that are value destructive, and you guys of all people know that better than us.

You put this in an nexus spreadsheet, you will see the difference in present value between a high CTA intensive move versus a no CTA move, right? And there's no argument, right, that natural attrition is a much better way of doing this and much safer way as well because of the losing expertise phenomenon that you have in the plans and the negative bias, especially in voluntary plans, which is what we can do.

We can't do anything else in particular in France. So we focus on this. We don't do it everywhere in the world, but we focus on this, and we focus on this in France. The natural attrition creates an opportunity, right, to run these things, which, I mean, we're not disclosing the figure, but think of us as one of the player in this industry. You can take some average turnover and average retirement hypothesis and you'll get to a pretty significant number, right? So what's happening is that this is what we can do. But of course, there is a reasonably high replacement rate. Just to give you some color, last year, we actually recruited 8,000 people, right, in the group.

So there is, of course, a replacement rate because you need to replace some of the expertise and you need to replace some of the capacity. But as our efficiency work kicks in, we do want to use this in the future as a main tool to work on that part of the cost base. With that, I didn't give you any number, but I won't, but it gives you the color of how we think about this.

And the single most important condition for this to work is the control of hiring, right? Because why plans based on attrition don't work often is because you don't exercise enough control on rehiring. Believe me, we exercise extremely strict control on rehiring.

And on the front loading in '27, again, as I tried to explain before, there's no big bang. There's no huge project, which is going to bring, I don't know, hundreds of millions of euros just because of one project. As a matter of fact, we have literally thousands of initiatives, which are small. Some are bigger than others, obviously, as you can imagine, and that will go through over the course of the coming years.

Additionally, some of the initiatives that we have in IT in IT, most of those costs are capitalized, and therefore, they need to be amortized going forward. So it's not something that you see in one quarter, but it's going to streamline over the course of our trajectory, obviously, right?

And on top of that, yes, there may be a little bit more of an opportunity to front-load some of those procurement initiatives because it's the renewal of those contracts. So there's more perhaps opportunities in the short term and then you roll them over and you keep on working on them over the course of the future, if you wish.

But it's no big bang, no big opportunity that's going to drive -- sorry, this significant reduction of costs in '27. It's more an addition of many, many, many, many initiatives for which we've been already working for the best part of 2 years.

Okay. We'll take a question at the back, please, from Matthew.

Matt Clark, Mediobanca. A couple of questions on the resources that you're deploying into revenue growth. And I guess I'm curious how you decided not to spend more on costs and presumably, there would have been opportunities to grow revenues faster. So how do you think about marginal cost versus revenue opportunities?

And the same in terms of capital deployment. I mean the slide you have showing the very high return on incremental capital deployment into the equities business and the various other businesses is quite impressive. But why is 2% risk-weighted asset growth the right level? Does that return on incremental capital deployment rapidly tail off where you could deploy 3% risk-weighted asset growth per annum? I'm just intrigued why you've framed your footprint of capital resource deployment over the plan as conservatively as you have.

Thank you. Listen, two different things, right? One, in the deployment of capital, you have to think about this as something that is linked to 2 different forces. One is the one you described, which is you have an opportunity, you decide to deploy the capital, and therefore, it's an increase in capital allocation and the capital consumption.

But there's another force which we didn't speak to, which is continued focus on eliminating waste in terms of capital deployment. And while we have done quite a bit, as you can see in the figures, right, both at GBIS since 2021, but also elsewhere in the group. I mean, there are areas where we are just getting started, right, in terms of pulling capital from where, just to be blunt, there's no prospect whatsoever to ever reach the right level of return, right?

And you have portions of retail where it's like that, and both in France, but more marginally elsewhere. And so we're in this process of being very, very strategic about putting some of that capital back. And so the 2% is also, again, right, you need to think about this as the combination of these 2 forces. And again, we're not doing anything stupid. We're being responsible. We talk about clients here, sometimes clients that have been around with us for a while.

So we don't do this. We try basically, right, like with everything else, we try not to be a caricature of what we're trying to do, right, and be responsible with all the stakeholders that are involved in our transformation. So that's one set of reasons.

The second set of reasons is has to do with the table that you're referring to. And I'll actually first support your point even further there is no theoretical capacity or declining returns in these businesses in our view, right? Of course, nothing ever grows to reach the sky. But all of the things that are on this page have actually quite a bit of capacity to absorb investments, right?

But the question here is not so much, and I'm addressing your question, how much basically revenue are we willing to leave on the table for the sake of cost containment. We think about it slightly differently. If I have a business that comes to us in the various processes that we have, strategic planning, budget, et cetera, and tells me, listen, I want to increase here my investments so that by the end of next year, by the end of the trajectory, you have something which generated accretive cost to income and accretive ROTE, I mean, both of us are going to say, let's do it, right? Let's do it. The question we will have is, one, how confident are you on the cost spend there, right? And how confident are you on the market environment and market conditions, right? So my point here is the reason it's 2% and not say 5%, right? Because theoretically, in a spreadsheet, you could easily make that argument, right? Why isn't your growth rate 5%, right? Well, because last time I looked outside the window, right, the world was pretty, pretty challenging.

And one thing that we have done way back in the past is both throwing capital indiscriminately at the entire business mix of the group, right? The argument on marginal ROE in banking, right, once you have a stabilized franchise, you could actually make it throughout the entire business portfolio, right? But the point is, if you do this, you will end up with uncontrolled growth, either from a cost or a risk perspective, and we're not going there, right? So that's how we think about this. Hopefully, that was clear.

Okay. Question from [ Se-Ting ] on the fourth row here.

[ Se-Ting FRENZEL ] From MONETA Asset Management. The first question is on your French Retail. Why not give us a little bit more in terms of guidance, particularly on the revenue growth side, where I imagine this division should be quite visible, have good visibility. I'm thinking particularly on the NII side. Some of your competitors have given fairly precise guidance there. Should you not have a similar range, I suppose that's my underlying question. And perhaps it's because you want to build some flexibility. And I'm thinking, is it because we want flexibility on the investment side on BoursoBank?

And would you give us the disclosure of your cost of cost of acquisition for the customers so we can have a better visibility on the underlying trend. So that's the first question.

The second one, M&A, you mentioned that briefly. Could you perhaps give us a little bit more color about what fits strategically nowadays?

All right. Thank you. So on the first question, I mean, one, we -- and I'm just saying this because that's true. We don't disclose these numbers for the pillars. I'm not saying it's a great answer to your question, but it's the framework in which we communicate.

Second, as you can see, though, right, I mean, like I said earlier with my ruler, a little joke, you have a representation, which is not strict right? We -- in the way we represent this in the presentation, there is flexibility indeed in terms of the actual number. But what we are saying is that this growth is going to be balanced. And if you look at the slide very precisely with the ruler, you'll see that indeed, French Retail has a contribution, which is slightly higher, which looks slightly higher than the other peers.

So you can make an assumption quite easily here through the calculation of how much NBI is expected here with a 3% CAGR and knowing that a little more than 1/3 is going to come from RPBI. And you're going to be, I guess, very close to the reality. So that's one.

In terms of -- is it about flexibility? And I'll come back to NII in a second. Is it about flexibility? I mean, I guess, a little bit, right, in the sense that in our markets, and that's part of why we have a diversified business portfolio, you have circumstances which are going to be different even in a normal world, right? And today, with everything that's going to happen in the next few years, we will be managing with flexibility, our sources, right, to optimize, again, the stewardship of your capital, the capital of the investors.

So yes, this is why a little bit like Jamie Dimon, right, and I'm not thinking I am Jamie Dimon, but he basically never gives guidances, right? Why? Because to some extent, right, there is intrinsic flexibility to be used, right, when running this company, now the banking firms, right? Now in the past and today in the objectives, you have something which gives you color and it's going to be balanced with a slightly bigger share of RPBI.

In terms of the NII, Leo talked to you about the size of that in our business mix. And here, I absolutely confess to PTSD from my early days as CEO, where I inherited an NII guidance, right, which we had to communicate on, of course, right, because it was a guidance that was formal.

And I went through a few quarters where we were doing twice to 3x better than any competitor, but everybody was obsessed with the fact that we're below the guidance, right? So from that moment, I decided, and I personally will never change my mind. You will never get the guidance from me on NII from French Retail. That's it. There was another question. I got so worked up that the other question was.

M&A.

M&A. So as I said, the strategic fit is really how can we grow, expand in our businesses, either by closing gaps, right, or by moving into something adjacent in terms of either geography or again, product or client segment or something like this. So the first rule is, is this something that basically we know how to manage, right?

I mean the idea that we would go out there and start from scratch doing something new is not something that's going to happen, right? So that's the first parameter.

And the second one is, I mean, of course, right, that this thing has synergy potential, either from revenue perspective, but you know us, so more on the cost side, right?

Is there a synergy on the cost side that could justify that we pay the price that we're supposed to pay and that overall, the financial equation makes sense for you and for investors, of course, right? So right now, it's fair to say that I think it's extremely difficult to imagine what kind of assets would meet all of these criteria, right, both being strategically fit for us and us for it and the valuation as well, right?

So -- but anything that has to do with, again, some of our product gaps in investment banking, some of our product gaps in fixed income, some of our gaps from a geography perspective, I mean, I don't know, right? If [ Sabadell ] is a little bit deeper, I mean, we go for it the next day, right? And we do have some insights into the asset. But again, right, today, I think the set of circumstances is still very challenging to see anything super material happening there.

I think we can stop there and we can maybe continue the conversation with Slavomir and Leo over lunch.

All right. So thank you very much for your time and for all the questions. And let's take a little time to chat. But thank you very much for being here. Thank you for joining us online. And yes, let's talk soon.

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Société Générale Second Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. I will now hand over to Mr. Slavomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Leo and I are delighted to present to you another strong set of results. They demonstrate the strength of our execution as we enter into the final stage of our current strategic road map. Our high-quality financial performance during the first half of 2026 puts us ahead of our 2026 annual targets and results in a record net income for the group of EUR 3.5 billion. In light of this performance, we are pleased to announce the launch of a EUR 1.5 billion extraordinary share buyback as well as an interim dividend for the first half of 2026 of EUR 0.75 per share, EUR 0.75, up plus 23% versus last year. These strong results delivered in a highly uncertain and volatile environment demonstrate the success of our transformation over the past three years. Today, we are much more efficient, focused and profitable with a well-diversified business mix.

The numbers illustrate this. Our revenues are up by plus 2.4% versus H1 '25 on a reported basis. This is in line with our 2026 annual guidance of revenue growth of more than plus 2%. Our actions on costs are paying off -- continue to pay off, driving greater efficiency with operating expenses down minus 5% versus H1 '25. It far exceeds our original 2026 target of around a 3% reduction and delivers substantial value creation with a 7.3 percentage points of positive jaws. This leads logically to a cost-to-income ratio of 59.7%, which is in line with our year-end target of a cost-to-income ratio below 60%. With a cost of risk of 26 basis points, we remain at the low end of our guidance range, demonstrating both the prudent risk management and the strong quality of our credit portfolio. All of this translates into a group RoTE of 12% in H1 '26, well above our full year target of more than 10%. But this merely represents a base camp for us in what is an ongoing climb upwards. Ultimately, our capital remains strong with a CET1 ratio standing at 13.2% after taking into account the extraordinary share buyback of EUR 1.5 billion.

Given these strong results, we are upgrading our annual targets on costs and ROTE. We now expect for 2026 a cost reduction of around minus 4% compared with around minus 3% before and a ROTE around 11% in 2026 versus above 10% before.

Now let me hand over to Leo, who will go through our Q2 '26 performance. All yours, Leo.

Thank you, Slavomir, and good morning, everyone. Let's now turn to our financial performance for the quarter. The group continued its strong momentum, explained by a solid revenue growth of 4.5% versus Q2 '25, notably driven by sound commercial performance in French Retail Banking and Global Banking and Investor Solutions, as we will see later. At constant perimeter and exchange rates, revenue growth stands at 6.1% versus Q2 '25. Costs, on the other hand, are substantially lower by minus 4.1% versus Q2 '25, confirming our strong cost discipline. This translates into further improvement in our operational leverage with a cost-to-income ratio of 58.6% in Q2 '26 or down by more than 5 percentage points versus Q2 '25. Asset quality-wise, the cost of risk continues to be contained at 27 basis points within the 25 to 30 basis points guidance range. This positive expansion of jaws, together with a contained cost of risk explains the record quarterly group net income of EUR 1.8 billion, which translates into return on tangible equity of 12.2% versus 9.7% in Q2 '25.

Moving on to Slide 7. We can see the key drivers behind the revenue growth in Q2 '26. The group recorded a strong 4.5% increase in reported revenues. First item on the bridge reflects the impact of disposals with an overall effect of minus EUR 70 million. The impact is mainly related to the disposals of activities in Cameroon, Mauritania, Guinea-Conakry and Equatorial Guinea. At constant perimeter and exchange rates, the evolution of group revenues is even higher at 6.1% versus Q2 '25. From a business perspective, revenues in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance increased by 12.6% on a reported basis, mainly driven by a strong performance of net interest income, which grew by 14.9%. Revenues at Global Banking and Investor Solutions continued to progress this quarter, an increase of 2.7% versus Q2 '25 or 4% at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

Revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services decreased by minus 4.9% versus Q2 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates as a result of lower revenues in Aven, driven by lower used car sales results, which are still under normalization as guided. Finally, in Corporate Center, revenues improved by EUR 112 million, notably in the back of an optimized management of the excess liquidity. We have repeatedly highlighted in recent quarters, rigorous cost discipline is a cornerstone of our 2026 strategic road map. And Q2 '26 once again demonstrates our ability to execute on this commitment. Our costs are down by 4.1% versus Q2 '25 on a reported basis and by 2.7% at constant perimeter and exchange rate, primarily supported by structural savings. This decrease is driven by disposals, which explain a variation of EUR 41 million by lower transformation charges as guided for minus EUR 8 million. We have a higher contribution from charges related to the global employee share ownership plan launched in June 2026 for an amount of EUR 127 million versus EUR 101 million in Q2 '25, which, in any case, it's important to remember, it's an item that has no impact on the distributable net income.

An update of April '21 tax estimate includes a reduction of EUR 36 million of costs. And then we have a net cost decrease of EUR 117 million, confirming the sustainability of our cost savings efforts quarter after quarter. As a result, group's operating leverage is improving, as you can see on the right-hand side of the slide. Cost-to-income ratio is falling by more than 5 percentage points from 63.8% in Q2 '25 to the current 58.6% in Q2 '26, which is already, by the way, below our below 60% 2026 target. One final highlight in this slide relates to the fact that all pillars are within their end of the year targets.

Moving now to cost of risk on Slide 9. Cost of risk for the quarter stands at 27 basis points, and it's fully in line with our target range between 25 and 30 basis points for the year. Business-wise, the cost of risk stands at 38 basis points for RPBI, 3 for GBIS and 43 for MIBS. Both RPBI and MIP probably accounted for some generic overlays in S1, S2 provisions, while GBIS had a strong risk management this quarter without any significant defaults. Cost of risk this quarter mainly comprises Stage 3 provisions, which account for EUR 405 million and are slightly up versus Q2 '25. Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions, we had limited reversal of EUR 15 million, which included overlays offset by some reversals, considering our prudent approach in this uncertain and complex environment. As a result, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remained stable, a high level of EUR 2.9 billion or 2 years of cost of risk. NPL ratio stands at 2.7% in Q2 '26, down versus both last quarter and last year. And finally, net coverage ratio remained high at 83% in Q2, slightly up versus 82% in Q1 '26.

Now turn on to Slide 10, where we can see the evolution of our strong capital position. The group's CET1 ratio stands at 13.2% at the end of Q2 '26, representing a strong buffer over MDA of around 290 basis points. This ratio includes 39 basis points impact from the extraordinary share buyback of EUR 1.5 billion as announced previously by [indiscernible]. Before adjusting the extraordinary share buyback, the CET1 ratio is slightly up compared to Q1 '26. Going through the bridge in the slide from left to right, returned earnings contributed to an increase of 19 basis points after accruing a 15% dividend distribution payout. RWA organic growth represented an impact of minus 8 basis points. And all in all, the recent disposal of -- so Cameroon regulatory model changes and other inputs contributed to a net decrease of 6 basis points. In addition, as you can see at the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On Slide 11, liquidity reserves remain high at EUR 339 billion in Q2 '26, the balanced mix between cash and securities. The liquidity profile of the group remains strong with sound liquidity ratios. The LCR stands at 146% this quarter, while the NSFR was 115%, both well above regulatory requirements and in line with our steam targets. The 2026 long-term funding program is already almost completed with 96% execution rate, driven by a 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, and overall loan-to-depo ratio stands at 76% at group level.

On Slide 12, we show a summary of the P&L for the group for Q2 '26, which we will cover in more detail in the following slides. Let's move now to the individual businesses, starting with Societe Network, Private Banking and Insurance. At Societe Network, Q2 '26 loans outstanding fell by 2% versus Q2 '25 and are stable compared to Q1 '26. Outstanding deposits fell by 3% versus Q2 '25 or 1% versus Q1 '26 as site deposits are up and term deposits are down. This took place within the context of continued strong growth of retail savings and investment products, which contributed to the continued solid momentum in overall asset gathering. On the one side, AUMs in private banking reached a record high of EUR 145 billion at the end of June '26, increasing by 10% versus Q2 '25. On the other side, Life Insurance outstanding reached a record level of EUR 167 billion, increasing by 11% versus Q2 '25.

Moving on to Per Bank. Commercial performance remains very strong within the asset gathering and administration space, which continued to grow steadily, reaching EUR 84 billion at the end of June. This represents a 16% increase versus Q2 '25, helped by the continued strong increase in deposits of 9% versus the same period last year. Similarly, Life Insurance outstandings increased by 20% versus Q2 '25, with a high proportion, 51% of unit-linked products. BoursoBank also saw a record number of market orders at 3.7 million, representing an increase of 25% compared to Q2 '25. On the lending side, total loans outstandings are up by 8% versus Q2 '25. BoursoBank serves now around 9.1 million clients after onboarding more than 280,000 new clients in Q2 '26, while the churn rate remains below 4%. In Q2 '26, bank's net income stands at EUR 84 million. This is EUR 176 million for the first half of the year or well on track to reach its 2026 target of more than EUR 300 million. Finally, the ROE for BoursoBank stood at 60.7%, strong proof of the profitability of this model.

Looking at the whole pillar on Slide 16. French retail, private banking and insurance posted a strong increase in revenues of 12.6% versus Q2 '25, which included a 14.9% growth in NII and 11.3% growth in fees. Same time, operating expenses fell by minus 4.1% from Q2 '25. As a result, the cost-to-income ratio stood at 55.5% in Q2 '26, which represents a substantial improvement of almost 10 percentage points versus Q2 '25. All in all, net income lands at EUR 674 million for the quarter, up 38% versus Q2 '25 with ROE at 14.7% versus 11.2% last year.

Moving on to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 17. Global Markets revenues declined slightly by 1% versus Q2 '25 compared to a high base case in Q2 last year, and we benefited from strong client activity following the announcement of U.S. tariffs. Equities posted a strong quarter with revenues up 5.5% versus Q2 '25, supported by sound commercial activity. Derivatives, financing and prime services were the key drivers for this good performance. In fixed income and currencies, revenues declined by 11% versus Q2 '25. As we saw in previous quarters, we're still affected by unfavorable market conditions for our business mix, which, as you know, is mostly exposed to Europe and rates. Lastly, revenues in Securities Services grew by 3.9% versus Q2 '25 on the back of growth in fee income and a stronger net interest income performance.

Let's turn to Slide 18 on the evolution of Financing & Advisory. Revenues increased by 8.9% versus Q2 '25 on the back of a strong business dynamics. Revenues in Global Banking & Advisory grew by 9.7% versus Q2 '25, driven by solid origination and strong client activity. By sectors, growth was supported by good momentum in energy, infrastructure and commodities trade finance. We also saw a strong rebound in investment banking on the back of DCM and ECM revenues, which were driven by landmark transactions and spreading across different sectors and geographies. Lastly, in Transaction Banking and Payment Services, revenues increased by 6.7% versus Q2 '25. Commercial activity was strong, driving growth in corporate deposits across all regions.

Now moving to Slide 19 for the overall view on GBIS. At the pillar level, revenues grew by 2.7% versus Q2 '25. One more quarter, we maintained disciplined cost management that can be seen through the reduction of operating expenses by minus 2.7% versus Q2 '25. The increase of revenues and the reduction of costs explain the cost-to-income ratio of 58.4% in Q2 '26, 3.2 percentage points lower than the same ratio in Q2 '25. At the same time, the cost of risk was particularly low at 3 basis points in Q2 '26, which compares with 12 last quarter. All in all, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 867 million in Q2 '26, up by 15.6% versus Q2 '25 and resulting into a very high ROE of 19.9%.

Turning now to International Retail Banking in Slide 20. The strong commercial momentum continued in Europe, supported by both KB in the Czech Republic and BOD in Romania, where loans and deposits increased by 9% each versus Q2 '25 at constant perimeter and FX. This translates into a 3% revenue increase versus Q2 '25 despite lower spreads this quarter. In Africa, the 2% growth in revenue is in line with the lending dynamic, driven by higher NII in core countries and the deposit evolution, which was also up by 3% year-on-year at constant perimeter and FX.

Focusing on Mobility and Financial Services in Slide 21. The decrease in revenues this quarter, minus 10% compared to last year comes essentially from Av. On the one hand, we observed a high level of margins at 610 basis points in Q2 '26 or up 60 basis points versus Q2 '25, thanks to good dynamics in both leasing and services. These were more than balanced by lower results from used car sales as the secondary market is still normalizing as was well anticipated and guided. The average result per unit in the quarter was around EUR 330 within the range of EUR 200 to EUR 600 that [indiscernible] guided for the full year 2026. The cost to income already stands at 50.3% and the ROTE at 13.4%, both in line with targets for the year. Finally, looking at consumer finance performance, margins continued to improve, translating into an NII growth of 9% versus Q2 '25. This quarter, we have a base effect to a positive revaluation of asset back in Q2 '25, leading to flatten revenues overall this quarter.

In Slide 22, MIBS overall shows the same level of operational efficiency as last year, reflecting the combination of lower revenues, minus 5%, which were netted through strict cost discipline, reflected in a reduction of cost of minus 4%, both at constant perimeter and FX versus Q2 '25. At 52% in Q2 '26, the cost-to-income ratio is below the target of 55% for the full year. Cost of risk this quarter stood at 43 basis points, very similar to the 40 basis points that we had in Q1 '26. MIBS posted a net income of EUR 360 million, down by 8.5% versus Q2 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, but still translating into a good level of profitability with ROI at 13.4%.

To conclude with the quarterly results, let's move on quickly to Slide 23 with the Corporate Center. Similar to previous quarters, revenues improved versus Q2 '25, notably thanks to continued efficient management of liquidity and also positive revaluations of liabilities accounted at fair value through P&L. Operating expenses include EUR 127 million related to the group employee share ownership program, which, as a reminder, is a noncash item and therefore, does not affect neither CET1 nor shareholder distribution.

Let me now give back the floor to Sam.

Thank you, Leo. And turning now to sustainable development. As the energy transition continues to reshape the economy, we believe our deep sector expertise, along with our long-standing client relationships, strongly position us to support the technologies and infrastructure that will decarbonize the economy. For instance, this includes emerging champions such as Fervo Energy in the U.S. who are specializing in next-generation low-carbon energy, but we're also supporting lower carbon mobility as well as carbon capture and storage infrastructure. And beyond climate, we further strengthened our ambition on nature-based solutions by launching a new partnership with Ardian this quarter. We also renewed our commitments through Act for Nature International for the 2026-2028 period. Together, these initiatives demonstrate how we continue to support our clients' transition and adaptation strategies, while developing the sustainable solutions of tomorrow.

So to summarize, we are moving forward, making progress and upgrading our future targets as a result of our building momentum. The conviction behind our actions continues to pay off quarter after quarter. And I can assure you that we will continue to forge ahead with determination never letting up. We look forward to seeing you again on the 21st of September at our Capital Markets Day. Thank you very much, and we will now open the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] The floor is yours.

The first question comes from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

Two questions, please. First, I mean, you had a strong cost cutting in the quarter and the previous quarters, massive Jaws and growth driven by French retail and financing advisory. Is that a preview of the CMD to come in September? Should we expect you to be amongst those handful of banks in Europe that cut costs in absolute terms rather than guide for jaws, cost of RWAs or other types of KPIs to appreciate the cost efforts. Second question on your equities business. I mean, it looks like you were not invited to the equities party this quarter. But I mean, joke about -- can you explain the lower [indiscernible] versus European banks, let alone the U.S. So when you were CEO, I remember in charge of CIB, you conducted this exercise to derisk the derivatives business. I mean you worked well to reduce the vol at the lower to downside and to the -- and by preserving the upside. But it looks like from this quarter, you cut too much of the upside. Would you be ready to increase the risk appetite if you see a profitable super cycle in equities business coming in the future years?

Thank you, Tarek. Thanks for your question. So listen, thanks for the first one. I'm just going to write that up into the slides, and we're done. So all jokes aside and without saying anything in advance, but let me put it this way. We are certainly very committed conceptually and I would say, from a management experience and vision perspective to have as much as possible in our own hands. So to rely as much as possible on things that we have control over and that allow us to basically improve the company's performance across the board, somewhat regardless of what's happening outside, right? Obviously, market conditions influence where we're going to be, but we want to focus on what we can manage. And so for sure, if you see signs of that in our 3-year performance or in this particular quarter, you should feel like this is a feature of what we're trying to do, and we believe that there's no reason to change that, right? So more in September. Since you had this funny line about the -- not being invited to the party, so let me follow through. We were invited to the party, but we didn't drink so much alcohol. So that's the joke line. More seriously, you are right. There is a strategic preference and has been for the last 5 years since I was back then the CEO of CIB, strategic preference for stability and profitability over, let's say, the particular opportunity in one particular quarter. This -- and you know that I know, Tarek, that you know, this does not prevent us from making -- remember the initial range that I gave, which was 4.5 to something I don't even remember, we're making up to EUR 1.5 billion more than 5 years ago, right? So this strategic stance didn't prevent us from doing better from actually growing and from keeping a high level of revenues close to our highest level historically, especially at constant business model. And clearly, from a guidance perspective, I can reiterate what I already said last quarter that we're aiming to be above the top of the range, above the 5.7% top of the range that we have for this year. We're very confident about this and nothing's changed. So in all likelihood, we will be at a high level of revenue generation. And may I remind you, at a very high level of ROE for the division GM and GMIS, which includes the small contribution from SGSS, Security Services, we're talking for this quarter of about a 25% RONE, which is, as you know, among the highest in the industry. So that's the strategic stance. That's the strategic mix that we look for and that we execute against, if you will. Now in terms of, are we always going to have that preference and basically leave some money on the table because of this? No. And I think since you pointed out the equities, you need to have in mind two things. One, less than in the FICC business, but we do have a focus on Europe, right? And this quarter, the big drivers were Americas, Asia Pacific and obviously, the prime services business in which we do have a capability, but it's not today in terms of size, comparable to most of our peers, including the European ones that do have this activity. And so we're not sitting on our hands. We are investing in this space. We have been acquiring Bernstein was a major building block in that sense, and this is going well. Now we are continuing to develop the systems and the offering to be able over time, but on an organic basis to provide the service, which was the outperformer this quarter on the equity side. So a strategic stance that favors predictability and stability, combined with the willingness to invest in the business organically at the right pace to fix some of the business mix or geographical mix issues that we may have when compared to broader scale competitors.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have two questions. And the first one, I'll go back on costs. And I remember, especially Leo, you talked about the IT landscape and being very complicated, having more than 500 providers and wanting to simplify it. So I want to ask you, where are you on this journey? Are you done with the simplification? Have you taken it down to 5 providers? Or is there more to go there? So an update on that? And then separately, Second question is on French retail. So PBT and people grow nicely, so that's great. But when I look at volumes, loans and deposits, and I put together the networks and Bursta Bank, that's actually flat year-on-year because BoursoBank is growing, but the networks are instead declining. So how are you thinking about the performance of these two parts of your French retail? Because BoursoBank is clearly performing very well, but the networks not really. How do you turn around this performance in terms of market share capture? Or maybe is it deliberate, I don't know. Any comment on that?

Sure. Thank you very much. On the first question, so as far as -- because you're referring specifically to what we call the concentration or ultra concentration effort that we had. And actually, it was more 700 than 300 initially down to 5 main providers today. On this front, we're done, right? So this is done now benefits from this very deep transformation, right? You can imagine how deep of a change this was not only from a pure supply chain management, but also in terms of culture, in terms of quality of the strategic evolution of our systems. I mean, very simply, you talk to 700 people about your strategy in terms of transformation of your architecture and landscape from an application perspective. It's not the same conversation than if you have it with 5 major providers. So what I'm trying to hint at here is that yes, there's the supply chain benefit, but the implied benefits throughout the organization continue basically to generate positive effects in terms of efficiency, both like just sheer cost spending, et cetera, but also, again, from a strategic standpoint, so like a second layer of improvement over time. So that's very important. Now in terms of technology specifically, we continue to work on other aspects of, let's say, legacy inefficiency. For instance, again, the structure between the coding personnel versus the business analysts, the project managers, et cetera, where historically, we've been off benchmarks. And so all this work continues. It's been delivering very significant outcomes, but there is still a potential for us to do better. So that's on IT. In terms of the French retail, putting out clearly a feature of our business there. But let me take a step back for a second and address the underlying strategic question that you asked. There's a way of thinking about this, which is that we have a French retail business, which is made of distribution networks, product factories, insurance, of course, being one of them. I mean insurance is an integral part of what we're doing in the network. And so to some extent, the idea that you would single out -- I'm not talking about the U.K., but generally speaking, that you would single out, for instance, the, let's say, the traditional network without taking into account the massive value creation, which is reported here in the insurance company, of which 90% of the business is basically catering life insurance products and P&C products for the network, right? So the value chain is one here, right? On the other hand, in the market, which, of course, is changing in terms of behaviors, in terms of structure, et cetera, et cetera, we do have this remarkable vehicle, which is BoursoBank, which is, to your point, performing very well. And so if you take a step back, and I'm hinting here at our vision for the future, right, take a step back and think about this as it's one business, right? It's one business, which is there is a retail client in France that needs banking products on the investment side and on the credit side. And how do we approach this market with all the tools we have. And as you can see, both on the product side, on the network side, distribution network side, on the private banking side and on the digital banking side, we have a super powerful offering for that market opportunity that is constituted, if you will, by the existence of a retail banking customer or prospect in the French market, right? So I hope I'm giving you some color about how we're thinking about this. The idea is the strength of the pillar is made of all its components. And to some extent, it's not conceptually sound to single out one of them. Now just to give you some more, let's say, precise color on the volumes and everything, what you need to have in mind is, again, what we apply to markets or to Ayvens, which is a sound long-term strategic view about what's the current situation, what's the current market condition and how do we navigate this, balancing very precisely, fine-tuning precisely the balance between growth and profitability. So bear with me, what I'm hinting at here is today, you have -- and you've seen that in the numbers, obviously, site deposits, which are a significant opportunity always for banks for obvious reasons. And you have term deposits, which, to be frank, are less of an opportunity for banks. And so what you see in our numbers is the focus that we have there, which is, again, we don't need to go after the last dollar of not so profitable deposits, and this is what we're doing, right? Not everybody in the market is in the same position, right? Not everybody has the same loan-to-deposit ratio as we do. But we have structurally a little bit of a luxury there to fine-tune our approach slightly better for the sake of generating value. So that's for -- on the deposit side. But then you need to think also about the fact that on the loan side, first of all, the macro, you saw the French figures, which are slightly, I would say, slightly better than feared by some in line with consensus, but they're not stellar. So in that context from a macro perspective, you will not have like massive growth in terms of inventory of credit, especially as most of that inventory is geared towards investments. And as you've seen in the GDP release, investments are not the most dynamic component of the GDP in France today for, I mean, obvious reasons also linked to the macro context. Now we are also there, not unlike in the other business, focused on making sure that we don't spread our capital investments too thin across the entire client base on the corporate side, right? And so you also see some of that effect, which is we've been pickier and pickier in terms of how we allocate capital in this particular segment, which, again, represents very good opportunities in a number of cases, but also the risk of diluted returns in a number of other cases, right? And so what you see here is us fine-tuning this approach very carefully so that we strike the right balance between the growth opportunity or -- yes, growth opportunity and profitability. Hopefully, that gives you some color.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

So first of all, just wanted to come back on French retail. So NII growth has been amazing, and that has been helped by the stabilization of the mix that you've talked about. Now just kind of looking forward, do you think that you can continue to grow at double digits, assuming that this deposit mix remains the same? Do you think that this NII growth can still be strong in coming years? And then my second question is on the buyback and capital return in general. Even with EUR 1.5 billion, your CET1 ratio is still at 13.2% and you even continue to generate a bit of capital in the second half. So just wondering about your commitment to maybe distributing that excess capital closer to that 13% level? Or are you thinking that it is better today to have a little bit of margin above that?

Thank you, Delphine. Listen, on NII growth, I'll be very specific. So we are -- the great performance that you see mid-teens is clearly supported by the cost of funding decrease because of the sharp repricing down of Livret A last year, right? And remember, last year, we benefited from two repricings down. And so right now, in the reference, you have only one -- so the point is, as we move forward in the year, you're going to start to have comparisons to pricing down of Livret A. It's a way of saying, well, everything else being equal, you will not see the same level of performance. But what you will see is what we've been saying forever, so to speak, which is the moderate increase of the NII as the back book reprices and as in a slightly better rate environment, we also hedge progressively at better levels, knowing that this is a very, very controlled process because, as you know, we've been talking about this in the past, especially the French retail is hedged almost entirely for year 1 in terms of sensitivity. And then a substantial portion of year 2 is also hedged. So you will have an evolution there, a positive one if the rates stay slightly higher than in the initial, let's say, scenario, but it's going to be a process. So this is how you should think about this. There is the Livret A effect. Now don't forget what we discussed in the previous question, bank is having a run in terms of growth of its inventories and its performance in terms of both client acquisition and client development. And that's going to be also sustaining that dynamic, right? But this quarter does benefit from a base, which doesn't have the entire benefit of last year's Livret A pricing down. In terms of the buyback, I mean, listen, don't read too much into this, right? At some point, there are processes, they are -- we accumulate capital every day as we go. Some of the regulatory -- big regulatory headwinds like FRCB, yes, kind of moved off the horizon. But on the other hand, from a simulation perspective, we need to make sure we understand where we put that in the trajectory at all and so on and so forth. So knowing that there are still some small moving parts in terms of the exact timing and temporality of things, we maintain, I don't know, 10 basis points of extra caution, but I mean, this is frankly a detail at this point from our standpoint. To run it -- the commitment to run the ship at close to 13% CET1 is totally unchanged.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

I have two, please. First, you were discussing in response, I think it was Julia's question, looking at the French retail and incorporating Bourso in a holistic manner. I guess what's the fungibility of the BoursoBank business into, say, the Red brand French retail of Société Générale because there's a notable gap in terms of the resourcing behind or so versus the resourcing behind the -- what I would refer to as the Red brand SocGen. I guess what's the fungibility across those two businesses first? And then second, how do you think about organic risk-weighted asset growth going forward from here and the various opportunity sets across your different businesses?

Just a small precision. It's red and black. I'd rather not say on red only. That's it. I'm not going to say anything else. No, just kidding. Fungibility and how the thing interact, I would say, from a strategic standpoint, what's important is that it's a market opportunity, the retail client in France. who may have all kinds of needs and who can be very different, right? You will have clients who will only go for the red and black for all kinds of reasons, who don't want to do anything else, but bad and black. And obviously, at the other end of the spectrum, you have those who want to do only the blue and pink, which is B among. So in between, you have all the shades of the rainfall, right? And so the idea here is to recognize that there's one market, one opportunity that needs specific addressing through various vehicles. So it's more -- that's more how we think about this, right? Not so much what's the fungibility of the static client basis today and so on and so forth. But what's the opportunity in terms of growth and profitability if we see the market opportunity as one and if we see our means to take advantage of the opportunity as one, right? Basically, that's the way we think about this. And when you do this going forward, the fungibility or more accurately in our strategic framework, the opportunity to get advantage to take advantage of all the opportunities, well, is high. And from that perspective, the fungibility, if you will, is high, especially when you look at it forward, right, on a forward-looking basis. In terms of the organic growth, listen, for the year, the guidance of 2% is unchanged. You have some quarterly volatility. We are still committed, obviously, to be as capital efficient as possible. So when we have interesting solutions in terms of -- and I'm not talking about SRCs here, but more in terms of distribution, in terms of high velocity of our balance sheet, we do seize them. So these are the components. The guidance is 2%. We're committed to being very efficient, and you have some seasonality and all these ingredients will produce something which I believe should not be too far away from the guidance. In terms of more strategic longer-term views, well, please come and see us on September 21.

The next question, sir, is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

I just have two small ones first, please. The first one is cost. I just wonder in terms of your guidance that you can do better than previously expected. What are sort of like structural input factors have driven this? And obviously that, I guess, would educate your presentation of the strategic update. And then just like a housekeeping question. For the strategic update, I guess your last plans have always been sort of like 4 years, which would suggest 2030. I just wanted to confirm that and prepare my spreadsheet.

Thank you. They're very well organized. So I'm going to try and help you with that. So starting with that last question. So the plan is going to be 2029, but we will as much as possible, right, because it is a strategic update. We will give you some other thoughts about the future. But the thoughts about the future will be obviously more qualitative than quantitative, but the plan formally will be a 2029 plan. In terms of the costs, I think -- so once again, right, a few things. One, technology, I addressed it earlier with the question, which has been a significant driver of both inefficiency in the past at both sheer spending level, but also in terms of coherent, in terms of strategic vision for the infrastructure and the application set and so on and so forth. And so it has been a substantial source of efficiency, both in financial terms, right, reduction of the spending there, while actually improving KRIs and KPIs across the board there. That's very important. But it's also something which will continue, maybe at a slower pace, right, but -- than in the last 3 years, but it will continue to drive substantial improvements, again, both directly, but also as the landscape, if you will, becomes more efficient, it drives also improvements elsewhere in terms of processes, in terms of how the company is organized and so on. So that's very important. That's number one. Second thing, we have been in addition to some of the big projects, in addition to the synergies at Ayvens, in addition to the merger of the French network and so on and so forth, we have also been sustaining the cost efforts at a deeper, more granular level and also, shall I say, cultural level by running for the last 18 months, a group-wide effort where thousands, like literally thousands of our colleagues are working every day, both in identifying, imagining actions that can be taken to improve efficiency and lower costs at a very granular level right where they operate whatever it is that they operate for the bank across businesses, functions and so on and so forth. And this effort, which is an ongoing effort, the entire Exco is committed to this and works every single week under my chairmanship on this effort. And so all that has generated thousands, right, close to now 10,000 initiatives that are helping still today, every day, improving the company. And what you see here is the combination of all these effects continuing to yield positive results in terms of efficiency. And lastly, I want to say that all of that work resulted in something else in a byproduct, which is a positive one, which is in the ability of management, of course, but not only management, and that's what's important at a granular level, increase the ability of people to exercise very acute scrutiny over hiring and spending, right? And so if you will, we moved closer to smaller businesses performance in terms of cost management and owner-operated businesses in terms of cost management versus like the history of being a huge 100,000 or 120,000 company all over the world that generate by the sheer size and complexity inefficiencies. So the level of scrutiny over the expenses is much higher. And the combination of three things continue to yield results and will continue to yield results in the future in terms of efficiency.

The next question is from Pierre Chedeville of CIC Market Solutions.

First question, I'm coming back on the retail trends. We see that actually you have discussed that you're very dynamic in terms of fees. And I was wondering you as a CEO, if you have curate your network from a commercial perspective, I mean, motivation, implication to sell products, not loans and deposits, but other products. What would be on a scale from 1 to 10, your rating? And do you think that you have more to do after what we can say quite a shakeup of your management last year? Second question is regarding Ayvens. You mentioned a stabilization in the fleet as far as I understand. I was a little bit curious about that. Are you -- is it due to the fact that you improve your margin, so you have a price effect, which is downgrading the volume, or is there anything else there?

Thank you very much. So on the first question, so on the rating, well, it depends if I'm going for my Frenchness or my Polish or American routes, right? If I go for the French thing, I will rate very low, and I will be very unhappy. If I go for the other routes, I would be much more positive. So beyond the little joke, I think, one, you see -- look at the numbers, right? We have a double-digit growth in fees across the traditional network. We have a stellar performance in terms of client acquisition at Bourso while reducing substantially the expense on the customer acquisition costs and the balances there, which shows the client development after the client acquisition is very strong. And finally, but very importantly, we continue for the 10th year in a row to fund raise both at the private banking very strongly in the market, but also in life insurance products and high-quality life insurance products through the traditional network at a pace which is twice the pace of our initial market share. therefore, gaining substantial market share in the space. So all these things are proof points that on the wealth side, on the advisory side, well beyond indeed loans -- basic loans and basic deposits. We are generating a lot of value from our commercial performance. So these are the proof points. Now is this all perfect? No. We can do better. We are still working hard to improve the performance in terms of client satisfaction, et cetera. We are still fine-tuning a lot of things in terms of how we want to -- to my earlier point, how we want to optimize our ability to seize the opportunities in this market. But from a commercial dynamic with all the figures I gave you, I mean, we are doing quite well, and I'm very thankful, grateful to our teams who are doing an outstanding job on the -- in the field every day for our customers. In terms of the Ayvens, listen, you would expect that. In coherence with everything I said about virtually any business today, and we talked about quite a few, we are trying to run this strategically, right? So there was a stance that was taken by management, by the Chairperson, my deputy at Ayvens, by the Ayvens management for years now, which is it's a market where a lot of moving pieces create issues, both in terms of margins and in terms of risk management from a residual value perspective. And I think that you see that in the market very clearly, right? We have taken a stance, which is we need in this super volatile environment where dust has not yet settled in terms of the EVs and other aspects of the business. The stance was let's make sure that we run a profitable business. Let's make sure that we take advantage of all the synergies which we have and let's make sure that we build strong foundation for times when growth is going to be more linear, more clear, more predictable and less risky. It's fundamental to remember that you need to manage risk in this business. And what do you have? As a result of that combination, you have a business that is flattish in terms of NEA slightly down, sharply up in terms of margins that has ROE, which is already in line with the objectives that we set at the respective Capital Market Days and which for the cost to income, for instance, is 52%, which is probably best-in-class in this business. So this is simply the philosophy of [indiscernible] management applied to that particular business, and we're very happy with the current performance.

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

I have two. Just a quick follow-up on French retail and then on Ayvens. On the French retail, my question is, just going forward, have you given thoughts about the possibility of the possibility of the Livret A going up because that's what it seems to be happening very shortly. And secondly, do you think that there's going to be more upside from the liability side going forward or from the asset side? That's my question on French retail. And then on Ayvens, I've seen that the used car sales results have come down to the lower end -- close to the lower end of the range that you indicated. So do you think that there's still room for some normalization or we're pretty much done there?

Thank you. On the first point, we actually in our trajectories have factored in a slight increase in the Livret A cost of funding, if you will. And we also, at this point, in the scenario, but I mean, you have to recognize that the world is what it is, right? And the same conversation a month ago would have been different. But this is why, again, we're trying to be on the conservative end in terms of the way we think about the possibilities. And to some extent, let me comment on your second question here, just as a matter of conceptual soundness, so to speak, we are still within our range, while something very specific happened this year, which is an unexpected hit on the ICE vehicles market dynamics directly linked to the Iran war. So -- and still, we're within our range, right? So it shows you that what we're trying to do, right? No one is perfect, right? But what we're trying to do is to have a broad vision for the environment so that we're not overly surprised and that we can basically swallow within our -- a decent set of parameters in terms of profitability and so on, whatever happens. So going back to Livret A, we do have a scenario which first caters for an increase and then a decrease afterwards, and it would obviously affect, but to -- at this point, we believe to a small extent, the numbers for us. On the asset side, obviously, there's the opportunity of the repricing of the liabilities. Now the issue is that the hedging policy, which basically limits short-term impact and smooth them over as we make sure that the whole business is properly hedged, especially year 1 and year 2 out. But any movement that's favorable there eventually makes its way into the P&L. Finishing on Ayvens. Listen, again, I'm not going to repeat what I just said. In this very specific context, I think we were able to capture all kinds of scenarios in the range we've given. There is pressure in this market. And most importantly, we believe that final longer-term features of that market are not entirely settled yet between the local production cars, the Chinese cars, the pace of adoption, the regulatory uncertainty to some extent, et cetera. There's still a number of missing moving parts. And we are navigating quite successfully through all this uncertainty by being very reasonable and protecting margins while protecting the business, but not growing it, let's say, unconsciously, both in terms of margins and risk, right? And so you should always expect that from us. And again, the financial performance is very strong because we also do focus on the synergies, on the cost management. And eventually, we are already in line with our end of year targets there. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.

No, I just want to let you know that there are no more questions registered. Thank you, sir. Back to you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Listen, everybody, thank you very much for your time. I know you're super busy these days. And so thanks for joining. Thanks for your questions. I wish you a great summer. I do hope to see you all in September -- on September 21st in London, and we will have the opportunity to talk about the number of things that are of interest to you and to our investors. So thank you very much. Take care. Buh-bye.

Thank you. Buh-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over, and you may disconnect your telephones.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. It's my pleasure to be joined here on stage by Leopoldo Alvear, CFO of Societe Generale and member of the Group Executive Committee. Leo joined SocGen in January last year, having previously been, as many of you will know, CFO of Sabadell. Leo, thank you for once again joining us here at the conference.

No, thank you very much.

Today, we have 35 minutes. That will include some time for audience Q&A towards the end. We've got a few questions to run through to begin with. I know sort of we're all -- or you're hosting a highly anticipated Capital Markets Day in September. So perhaps no new medium-term targets today. We'll have to wait until September for those. And the session is being webcast. So a warm welcome to everybody who's also joining us online.

It's been a volatile backdrop, I guess, for the first 6 months of this year. And given everything that's been happening on the macro front, how about we begin with thinking about the overview of how the business is currently performing and how you managed to deal with some of the various ebbs and flows of recent volatility.

Well, thank you very much, Chris. So I mean, it's been a volatile 6 months because actually, when you look at the markets, most of the asset classes have gone back to pre-crisis mode, if you wish, or pre-crisis valuation. Volatility has gone down a lot. I mean it went up, but now it's actually fairly low. And the only -- well, the only between brackets, I think that's off right now, it's energy prices, which are still at $90 to $100. And this is the current situation. And of course, we need to wait and see what happens.

So my point being that it's still a little bit early to see direct impacts nor on asset quality nor on the businesses. When we looked at asset quality in Q1, it was following the same trend that we were seeing in the previous years. So basically, NPLs were stable, actually a little bit down. We had a pretty good cost of risk of 25 basis points, so in the lower part of the range of 25 to 30 that we were aiming for. And actually, that already included an EUR 80 million overlay that we did in the quarter. So it's still early to see those kind of impacts. We would need sustained very high energy prices, which could have an impact in inflation, which could have an impact in supply chain, which could have an impact in monetary policy, GDP, unemployment, real estate to start to see a trend forming in terms of asset quality, especially on the individual side of things. Now you can always have single names or whatever, but we haven't had any of those either. And I'm not aware that there have been many in any case.

So from an asset quality perspective, we're still more or less in the same situation as we were. Again, very early to say because it takes time to generate. From a business standpoint, if I look at the 3 pillars. So again, nothing to report on RPBI. Actually, we did a pretty good quarter. It was 9% up versus the same period in 2025, driven by a good evolution of NII, which is more or less what we expected and guided and a very good evolution or good evolution of fees and with a very good contribution from Bourso for this quarter.

Then if I look at MIBS, basically, the revenues were down on reported, but basically because of disposals of last year. This is where we made the biggest disposals in '25. So if we adjust same perimeter and exchange rate, revenues were up like 3%. So again, nothing that was seen in terms of disruption. And finally, GBIS, which is the one that's more closer to the markets and to short-term evolutions. Here, what we saw is on the market side of things, revenues were down, but at constant FX, they were actually a little bit up. So basically, FX was working on the contrary for us because of Rates Europe.

And then within markets, we have equities, which actually did a record quarter. So it was reasonably good. And then FIC was less conducive. But because of our geographical mix because we're very much hedged to Rates Europe because we don't have commodities and so on and so forth. And then the impact of there, the conditions were less conducive for certain. And then on the CIB part of the business, again, yes, uncertainty is not good for this part of the business. So I think we saw a more muted scenario for I don't know, M&A, ECM and so on and so forth.

So maybe if we pivot to cost, one thing that really stood out to me in the Q1 print was the breadth of the cost outperformance across the group. It was more or less better than expected in every business. How consistent is the cost opportunity that you're seeing across the divisions and the varying approaches that each of those individual business is taking in order to improve efficiency.

So I think this has been a core part of our strategic plan since 2023. So if you recall there, we had basically 3 targets very, very simplistically. The first one was to streamline the company, so to retain only the core businesses. We are 95% there. Second was increasing our CET1 towards above 13%. We did it last year. We already did some extraordinary return to shareholders. So I think that's also ticked. The third one was operational leverage because that's the real underlying issue of the bank. Back in '23, we had a cost to income of -- in the mid-70s space. We are aiming now to be below 60% for this year. We think we're well on track to do so. So that was our key focus and criteria. And within the cost to income because it's obviously the cost side of things.

So I think certainly, we're doing -- we've been doing a lot of efforts on this front in the last 3 years. We're obviously doing this year. What are we doing here is there's a variety of situations and levers. Basically, the IT front is very important, both on the external expense and on the internal expense. On the external, we have reduced very, very significantly the amount of providers we work with from the many hundreds to the mid-single digit. And of course, this is something that is already bearing results, but it will be so during the course of the coming years because most of this comes through amortization and therefore, it's not something that you see in 2 quarters, but it's more something that you see over the course of many years.

And on the internal side of things, we're also trying to reduce the complexity of the IT landscape. So we have plans to basically decromize thousands of apps. Again, this is that's not going to be seen only in 2 quarters, but it's more of a long-term project, which will envisage 3, 4 years to be completed, and we will see returns out of that over the course of this period. And also, I think perhaps this is one of the most -- or the clear examples of the usage of AI today. We're improving the productivity of the coding of the site. So that's very clear. On the IT, and we are doing -- we did it last year. We're doing it this year. We're going to see returns coming in the coming years.

We're also -- as you know, when we disclosed our CMD and the target for a 60% cost to income in '23, we said we needed EUR 1 billion, to invest EUR 1 billion cost to achieve that cost to income. The vast majority of that has been spent through the course of mostly '24 and also '25. So there's only a little bit left. We booked this in the OpEx line. So again, we're going to have a step down here because the amount of CTA that we're going to book this year, just like we saw, I think, in Q1, we had a difference of EUR 60 million coming from this, right? So we're going to see this steadily through the quarters.

We're also working on the reduction of the structure of the group. So when you look at our URD back in 2023, we were like 126,000 employees. Now we're 109,000. We already disclosed that we are reducing our FTEs in France by 1,800 people in the coming 2 years. So this is a constant review of the structure that we have. And then we launched a program last year, which again is going to last for a number of years, very, very, very detailed initiatives. We have over 4,000 initiatives, some of them are very small, some bigger, which are to be executed over the course of the coming years.

So all of this to say that the focus of the management on the operational leverage obviously is not finished this year, and we'll go forward because 60% cost to income is a target that we were aiming to achieve for this year, but it's a target that we need to keep on working on, on the coming years. And of course, cost to income. So it's a matter of income, but it's a matter of cost also. If we look at the cost structure stand-alone, I mean there's this so many ways that you can look at this in order to compare yourself with the world. You can look at costs on total assets, but probably you will see it will not be so comparable depending on the peer you compare to. And I like a little bit more cost. It's not perfect, but a little bit more cost on RWAs.

And when I look at our cost base here, we're still at 4.4% of RWAs, right? And some of the best peers in the industry are probably more in the 3.5% space, right? So certainly, we need to keep on focusing and working on this regard for the coming years and will be one of the pillars certainly of the CMD in September.

Very clear. You referenced earlier the decision to get to 13% CET1. You've been there for some time as of last year. How comfortable are you that, that remains the right level for the group? And I guess, what are the trade-offs? What are the pros and cons of operating at that level versus a higher level or a lower level.

That's a good question, theoretical one, but a good one. So I think we decided to increase our CET1 back in 2023. We were operating with 12%, and we wanted to raise it to 13% basically to discourage any potential risk of dilution of the shares. So it was a management -- completely a management decision. Since then, we were aiming to achieve this target by the end of this year. We were able to achieve it way before, so basically probably almost 2 years in advance because of 2 reasons.

So we were able to execute most of the divestment program earlier and probably in the higher range of the expectations that we had. And second, because we were very disciplined in capital allocation, also because we were transforming many of our businesses. So we were above the 13% threshold last year, and we were very clear in this regard. The 13% already includes a management buffer. So we don't want to build a buffer on top of the buffer. So basically, everything in excess of 13%. We believe this is capital that needs to be used either organically or inorganically or with return to shareholders who are the owners of the capital at the end of the day. We are just the stewardships of the capital.

I think we proved this last year, we already executed 2 share buybacks for a total of EUR 2 billion in 2025 because the Board decided that the best usage for that capital was to be returned to the capital. We didn't find another usage of capital, which could equal or surpass the benefit for shareholders of giving it back. Now this year, the only thing that we disclosed in Q4 is that this is not something that we're going to do on an accounting basis on a quarterly basis. So we think this is strategic, the usage of excess capital.

So we will be coming back to the market with the Board's decision in Q2. But the rationale has not changed. So basically, in order to see where we deploy the excess capital, we need to see whether we have a better return, an accretive better return organically, which, of course, there are possibilities to do so, but we don't want to grow organically by changing our risk profile. So that's very important. And that, for example, this year, we're aiming to increase RWAs by 2%, and we're a large bank, so we could do -- we could grow faster, but it probably would take us to the wrong situation.

We can use the capital in inorganic approach if we find something that's very clear strategically and financially. And if not, the capital will be returned to shareholders. As per the level itself is 13% the right number. So I think -- I mean, it's true. It's absolutely true that if I look back at 2023 and you look at today, the group is quite different. So the return on tangible equity has basically doubled since 2023. So it's a different -- and of course, the pre-provision profit, which has increased by 50%. So basically, we have now -- we're now in a different situation. We have much more capital. We have a more robust balance sheet. We have a more robust P&L, which is generating more profits every year. So that could take care of unexpected losses down the road.

But we also need to look at where the market is. And since we went for 13%, I think the overall of the market has gone higher, I mean, higher than where it was. So some of our peers, for example, have moved to 13% just recently. So I think we need to take into the context the overall framework. In our side, yes, our situation has improved since 2023. The overall, the market has moved, and we need to take that into account. So for the time being, I think we're comfortable with the 13%.

Good. And then you mentioned actually in earlier comments, the performance in the businesses in the first quarter, French retail, in particular, NII was up double digit. That was funding costs and back book repricing. But how much of this NII momentum that you're seeing in the French business today is structural versus this kind of timing-related tailwinds? And should we expect the sort of double-digit growth rates that we're seeing in French retail NII to normalize as we move through the rest of 2026.

So indeed, we have had a good quarter. Our NII went up more or -- if I exclude PEL/CEL which is a very technical issue, which is a product that needs to be repriced every Q1. So it's a little bit not recurrent. It went up 10% basically year-on-year. And the moving parts behind these are basically the ones that we've been discussing with the market. So again, if we simplify, it's basically cost of funding, and that's moving by the mix of term and site, which I think has stabilized over the last 3 quarters or so, plus the cost of funding, which obviously is coming down as we reprice the deposits that we had in the past. So that's the major lever, if you wish.

Second one, it's the repricing of the long-term assets. So that's much -- it's slower. It's good, but it's lower. So we're pricing the mortgages, but that takes 8, 9 years. And then the third lever would be the volumes. The volumes are relatively muted. So this all gets into places where we can still sustain that our view here is that our NII should be progressing not only in the coming quarters, but all things being equal, of course, if things change, it will be a different circumstance. But over the course of the coming years because these levers should be working in the right direction over the course of the coming years. We've guided for a muted increase of our NII going forward. And I think on this regard, at this point, nothing has changed. So that we stick to that kind of follow-up.

And on BoursoBank, clearly saw an improvement in profitability in the first quarter. How should we think about the balance there between the search for growth and the search for profitability. What's the right sort of steady state in terms of client acquisition expense and the returns profile for BoursoBank within the broader division?

So BoursoBank, I think we need to look at it within the scope of the CMD. So basically, out of the CMD, we had targets for the group and then we have targets for specific business units, right? And in the case of BoursoBank, we had 2 targets. The first one was to achieve 8 million customers, and we achieved that basically last year, so ahead of schedule again. The second one was to deliver a net income of EUR 300 million in 2026. So we debated internally significantly whether we wanted to apply or reach both targets or keep on growing the assets because we believe that the asset is a growth asset. I mean, for certain, right? This is, in my view, it's a very, very good asset that the group has for a number of reasons. I think we just showed in Q1 that it can be very profitable.

We made EUR 92 million in the quarter with RONE which is in the mid-60s space, which is extremely high. Why? Two reasons basically. Again, simplifying. The first one is that we have 9 million customers, almost 9 million customers and 1,100 employees. So basically, have joking that's what AI -- we could dream with AI. It's BoursoBank basically today. The second one is because of the profile of the customers that we have. We are more leveraged on liabilities than assets, right? So basically, we are consuming less RWAs. So it's a very, very profitable asset, which, in my opinion, has the potential to disrupt the French retail environment because of these very small, very contained cost base because it's important to mention that we've doubled the customers in 4 years, but the workforce has gone from 950 people to 1,100 people. So basically, the operational leverage is huge on that regard.

So given that we understand that this is a growth asset and we need to keep on managing it that way, we came to the conclusion that it's very important to show the market the commitment of the management with all the targets that we disclosed. So we want to comply and achieve all of the targets that we were aiming to achieve back in 2023, and one of them is Bourso. So for this year, we've shown the profitability, and that comes against a smaller or lower growth of clients, which I think also gives the management an opportunity this year to focus on the profitability of the clients as the vintages roll over because basically, the evolution of profits of BoursoBank will be driven by the NII evolution, and that's the cross-selling of products over the course of vintages for those clients and also on the fee line.

So I think that's one opportunity instead of solely focusing or mostly focusing on the growth, focusing also on the profitability of the client. And also, we have the opportunity to study other forms of growing our cost base. But then again, for the future, I think the asset is very good for -- if I were to simplify, what do you need for retail, oversimplifying. So you need to be able to provide all the products that clients need. Bourso is offering right now with 40, 50 products. So that would entail probably 99% of normal clients need.

The second thing you need to do is to be able to offer those products competitively. So basically at good prices, again, 1,100 employees, so we can be as competitive as anyone else or more. You need to have a very good relationship with your clients. So basically to serve him well, #1 NPS over the last few years. And then you need a fourth thing, which is the client demand, right? So you may have the best product, you may have the best mortgage, but if your client is a 25-year older, you need to keep him engaged or her until have the need for this kind of mortgage.

So basically, the growth of revenues cannot be done in retail in 2 quarters. It needs years of engaging because some products cannot be sold even if you are very good and you have the best product, you need the client needs. So our duty is to keep those clients engaged. And for me, a very good proof of that is the churn rate. So basically, we've been growing clients in the high-teens space over the last -- sustainably over the last few years. and the churn rate, the amount of clients that we lose every year, it's at 4%. So this means that we are engaging those clients in -- and BoursoBank is becoming more and more important for them.

So for all of these reasons, we are firm believers that this is a growth asset. And certainly, we will keep on growing the asset going forward. Now it will be a different road. So we will sustain a certain level of profitability, which is accretive to the group, and we will reinvest the rest of that profitability to grow the asset further. And of course, in September, I'm sure we will spend some time explaining the next leg of BoursoBank because I think it's a very important one for the group.

Well, I like that sound by the 60% RONE for AI-powered cost liability income business is quite compelling.

It isn't the headline I was looking for, but...

So markets, you mentioned earlier, there was a big disconnect in the first quarter between the performance in equities, which was actually very strong versus your performance in FIC, which is a little bit weaker. How much of that performance is purely cyclical, some of the dynamics you mentioned given the euro rates heavy mix of the business. Or on the other hand, do you see there being a need to rebalance the business towards a sort of broader set of revenue streams in order to increase resilience if we continue to move through these kind of consistent episodes of volatility.

So again, I mean, I think the strategy that we have with the markets, I think, changed back in 2021. Slawomir was the head of GBIS at the time. And we decided to reduce our exposure to the most volatile products, right? So it was a conscious decision by the Board and by the management to reduce the exposure to, for example, very dividend-driven products, which were more volatile and so on and so forth. And we had the bad experience back in 2020 when we had the ban on dividends in Europe. So as a matter of fact, since then, we've reduced the use of RWAs by 20% and the use of the stress test by 60%, 70%. So quite significantly.

So basically, we wanted to make a business which was robust, less volatile and where we could secure 2 things. On the one hand, the bottom part of the range. On the second hand, the profitability of the business, right? And of course, we are aware that we're leaving money on the table because we have exited some of the businesses or some of the products that were more volatile and therefore, riskier and where you can have higher profits in the good part of the cycle, but probably you're going to have some more losses on the wrong side of the cycle, right? Since then, and I think this is very important to frame the overall of the business, and then I'll get into the details of why we're different, right?

But since then, I think in 2020 or 2021, the middle -- we always give a range. This is one of the guidances that we give for the group, a range of the revenue that we're expecting from the markets business. Back in 2020, 2021, the middle of the range was EUR 4.5 billion. This year, it's EUR 5.1 billion to 5.7 billion. And we have been for -- this will be the fifth year in a row, having revenues above EUR 5 billion, right? So basically, we've tried to build up the bottom part of the range while not increasing the range going forward. And I think this is going to be the strategy going forward. So I would not expect a huge range out of our CMD, right?

And on top of that, we are very much focused on the profitability of the business. So on the margins. And when I look at the RWA or the NBI per RWA, we compare fairly well in most of all of our products with the market. And then we have different mixes, and I'll get to that in a minute. And also, we've been working pretty hard on the cost base. So the RONE for this business in Q1 was 25%, close to 25%. The RONE over the last 5 years has never been below 15%. So basically, we are trying to improve the RONE as we improve the bottom part of that range. So that's the overall strategy on the business, profitability and less volatile.

Now if we get into the details of equities and FIC, equities had a good quarter. It was a record quarter for us actually. It was -- the revenues were up 5% or 10% with constant FX, if you wish. So it was good. We have a less conducive quarter in FIC, where FIC was down 18% or 15% at constant FX. Why is this evolution? Basically, there's 2 reasons. The first one is geographically. So we have 25%, 30% of our revenues are in the U.S., which obviously had a much more conducive market conditions, and the rest are basically or mostly in Europe. So that's a big difference.

If I look at the markets business in the U.S. or a number in Q1, in dollars, we were 24% up. So that compares fairly well to -- or in line or well with other peers. But of course, in Europe, things were more muted. We have done -- and so that's geographically. And then by products, in equities, we have less exposure to prime brokerage or cash equities, which are activities that we're trying to grow, and that's why we had a joint venture with Bernstein, and we hope that this -- sorry, allows us to grow in this business going forward. But again, I wouldn't expect the hockey stick. So we want to grow it steadily.

And then on the fixed side of things, we are very much hedged to Rates Europe, which has not been conducive over the course of the coming -- of the last 2 quarters. And we have a big, big part of our mix. It's driven by that part of the business. And also when comparing to other peers, it's fair to take into account that we exited the commodities business back in 2019. So when I look at Q1, for example, some U.S. peers had a good quarter in FIC, but it was driven by the commodities business, which we didn't have. So it's basically geography and business and product line.

And maybe pivoting to Ayvens. What are the latest views or walk us through your latest views on Ayvens, particularly in the context of the normalization in used car prices that we're seeing, but also it was a choppy year in terms of performance in 2025.

Sure. So again, here, I'll go back to our targets for CMD. So basically, for Ayvens, we had, again, if I simplify, 2 targets for this year to be able to reach a return on tangible equity between 13% and 15%. We were at 13.9% in Q1. So basically, we're there. And second one was to have cost to income without the used car sales because that brings a lot of volatility in the 52% space. And I think we were at 54% in Q1, okay? So for this year, the company is completely focused on basically the last part of the integration of LeasePlan and ALD, which -- the migration of the 2, 3 last platforms that we have this year. Some of them have already occurred, have already happened and delivering on the financial targets. So that's basically what we're doing for this year.

Now when I look at the evolution of the company, ROTE is there, cost to income is getting there. In 2024, we made a decision to pull the brakes on the production. That's probably the one thing that we're -- so one of the targets that we were aiming for in '23 that we're not going to do. So we're going to deliver on the financials, but in a different way. And we pulled the brakes on the production for 2 reasons. The first one is that the margins were very, very, very constrained. And we thought we had to protect margins, and therefore, we didn't have to grow so much. Second one and the biggest one probably was the uncertainty on the residual value of EVs.

Now in hindsight, I was not here, so I can look -- it's very easy always to look at the past. I think it was -- they were the right decisions. So on the one hand, our margins are still growing. In Q1, I think we had -- the margins of new cars were -- I think it was 587, if I recall correctly, so around 25 basis points higher than Q1 '25, so in the right direction. And that's not happening everywhere in the sector. So I think it was the right decision. And then the uncertainty with regards to the new EVs that you're selling, I think it's coming down. Now of course, the used car sales are coming down significantly because they were -- they started at a place where it was not natural. So the used car sales for average previous to COVID, where this disruption happened, was more in the EUR 100 space, right?

Now in COVID, the industry got to EUR 3,000. So since then, because of the supply chain and so on and so forth. So since then, we've seen a natural decrease or normalization of those margins. So in Q1, I think the average used car sale was around EUR 470 per car, which is within the range that we guided the market with, which was to be between EUR 600 and EUR 200 for the year. But it's the normal normalization of the evolution of this part of the business. So I think things are going more or less as expected. As I said, this year, very focused on finishing the integrations and delivering on the financial targets.

From next year onwards, I think this is an asset which is going to be in the mid-teens space in terms of return on tangible equity. So we're probably the biggest player in their space. And the uncertainty with regards to new EVs, which, of course, the demand is only going up and therefore has an impact on the mix. Well, I think it's coming down. Is it finished? Probably not yet, but I think we're getting closer to a place where we can sort to print those kind of vehicles without expecting a loss down the road. And therefore, I'm not sure if it's going to be in '27, we will see it out of the CMD, but this is an asset where, at least from a financial standpoint, provided that we are comfortable with the residual value risk, right? I would put capital to work because it will be accretive to the group.

Very clear. My last question before opening up for audience Q&A. The international retail businesses in Central and Eastern Europe, they're sort of a little bit hidden gems within SocGen. What do those businesses bring to the group? And where do you find synergies between those businesses and the operations in the rest of the group?

Sure. So I think we have 2 retail franchises in the Czech Republic, KB and in Romania, BRD. Both of them are -- I mean, they're core to the group for a number of reasons. We like the countries. We like the geographies. They're growing and they're linked to the EU, either because of flows, either because of the Czech Republic being very close to the German economy. The economies are growing. The demand for loans are growing. Both are doing like 7% to 10% increase in loans, which is natural increase of demand coming from the economy. They are sizable players. So basically, they're #3, #5 in their countries. They are profitable.

So basically, the ROTEs in these businesses are in the high teens space, high teens to 20%. They have quite a lot of capital, again, in the high teens to 20%. Their asset quality is controlled. They bring a very, very atomized deposit base to the group. And so basically, we are comfortable with both franchises and then they have synergies with the group, right? And what kind of synergies do they have with the group? So basically, on the revenue side of things. So we -- simplistically, we sell our products to their clients, so basically CIB and markets business to their corporate clients. And then -- but not only that, we also have synergies on the cost side of things, for example, in the IT space, right? So this is basically the reason why these 2 franchises are -- remain part of the group because we think they are completely core.

Okay. Any questions from the audience? Mark in the corner, if you could just wait for the microphone, Mark, so we can -- the people on the line will be able to hear your question.

Yes. Mark from BDL. I just had a question on SRTs because it seems like the regulatory tone on those instruments has turned slightly negative over the last 6 to 9 months. And I just wonder if you share that impression that I have. And also, if you can remind us the role that SRTs have played in reducing your risk-weighted assets and what's included in the medium-term plan in terms of the benefits from SRTs.

Of course, thank you. So basically, I mean, SRTs for me are a very interesting tool within the toolbox, right? So we've never leveraged too much on SRTs. I don't think we are one of the players that are using SRTs the most. And we see it more from a risk standpoint. So basically, to use SRTs to cover risks that we no longer want in the balance sheet or much more often risk, we want to down or decrease our risk in a certain sector because we're very strong in that sector, and we keep on -- we want to keep on producing originating loans, and we are closer to the limits that -- internal limits that we have. So we offset part of that through SRTs, and therefore, we can keep on originating on the sector.

But as I said, it's a tool that we use more from a risk standpoint and from a capital generation standpoint. We're not using SRTs to retribute excess capital, if you want me to put it that way. I mean as every -- each and every SRT transaction needs to be approved independently by the ECB. So that's the way this has been working in the last few years, and there has been no change in that regard. So my perception, despite the noise that we can hear in the market, things have not changed in the -- on the ground. So I'm not aware that in any way, shape or form, we have seen delays in the transaction at this point.

And actually, the other question could be, is there appetite in the market given the volatility that we have in the market and there is. So I haven't seen anything on that regard that would derail significantly the focus or the aim that we have out of this tool. And again, is this going to be a part of our next leg? Yes, as it has been in the past. So again, and I would like to reinforce the message, it's another tool within the toolbox that we can use to reduce risks where we want to keep on originating or things like that.

Very clear. Any more? Okay. Well, I think with that, that's a great note on which to end. Leo, thanks again very much for your time.

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to welcome you to the CNIT Center. This is the 11th meeting that I've chaired, and it's also my last, right. And for 11 years as the first independent Chairman of Societe Generale and with the support of the Board of Directors, we've been able to maintain the benefits of the governance of the very highest standards, which has enabled us to weather crisis, of which there were many serious sanctions, COVID, Russian crisis. We also managed to renew the company by successfully managing the leadership transition from [indiscernible] to Slavomir Krupa, we managed to define and implement in 2023, a strategic review that has now enabled Societe Generale to rejoin the rights of Europe's leading banks.

Now at the end of this term of office, the 2025 performance is historic, the result of the transformation initiated 3 years ago. The slide on the value creation from 2015 to the date of of my appointment as Chairman speaks for itself, and I think illustrates the performance of recent years. Although it should not be misleading, right, there remains much to be done to consolidate the reorganization of our group. And Mr. Krupa will certainly outline the main thrust of our thinking for the future, which is set against a backdrop of profound change, a macroeconomic and geopolitical environment in crisis and caught with uncertainty, a technological revolution driven by AI [indiscernible] in how bank customers use their services, the success of [indiscernible] bank being one of the symbols of this, the emergence of crypto assets and stablecoins with Forge. We are one of the key players by huge global financing [indiscernible] particularly for the energy transition. So the list of all the re-struction is a long one, right? Now to conclude this brief introduction, I must pay tribute on behalf of the Board of Directors and on behalf of you all to the performance of the bank staff and management. Without them, none of this would be possible.

Joining me on stage to speak with you Slavomir Krupa, who is CEO; and Pierre Palmieri, who is the Deputy CEO. Now during our meeting, we'll have an update on the results by our CFO, Leopoldo Trenor. We'll have an update on strategy by our CEO, Slavomir Krupa. We'll have a specific agenda item on CSR and climate change -- this by Pierre Palmieri have an update on the corporate governance, this by myself. We'll have an update on remuneration by Annette Messemer, who is Chair of the Remuneration Committee, and we'll have the discussion followed by her on the resolutions, right?

Now before we proceed to formalities, so our quorum is at 93% -- [indiscernible] for 30,575 shareholders. Patrick [indiscernible], who did the supervision of '26 general assemblies told me this is a record-breaking call. So with this, we may now proceed to the appointment of the officers of our Annual General Meeting. The 2 shareholders who have accepted the rules and who either as proxies hold the largest number of votes have been appointed as scrutineers, [indiscernible] representing BNP Paribas Asset Management and Mr. [indiscernible] representing Amundi.

I'd like to thank the for their agreement and propose that as Secretary of the Board of Directors, we appoint Patrick Suet right? Sorry, He is secretary of the board and he will be appointed Secretary to the meeting. He's been a Secretary of the Board since 2010. And by the way, this is his last general assembly, and I'd like to thank him for his work. I also would like to remind you that we have in detail all the documents on our line and made available to [indiscernible]. Our proceedings have been broadcast live on the Internet and will be available to view on demand on our website.

Now as we do every year, we conducted a survey of shareholders in preparation for this Annual General Meeting and 4,040 individual shareholders responded. And as it is the case every year, the survey shows that your primary interest lies in the group's strategy, results and financial structure as well as in the dividend and distribution policy. These are followed by executive remuneration, risk management as well as the group's innovation and digital transformation. Now all of these topics will be discussed today, and you will have the opportunity to revisit them during the debate. To ensure this session run smoothly, I would like to inform you that staff members are stationed at the entrance to answer any questions you may have. I would also like to point out that whilst this meeting is being streamed online, we are committed to respecting each and every one of you by not broadcasting images of those attending the general meeting, including those asking questions.

Right. Ladies and gentlemen, with this, I would like to move to the next item, and I'll ask Leopoldo Trenor to join us on board for the financial results. So he will be speaking in English, but we will have a translation into English for those who need this.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be here with you once again to present the group's performance. I would like to take you through our 2025 results, followed by our ambition for 2026 before concluding with our first quarter 2026 performance published on the 30th of April last year.

Now let me continue in English, please. As you can see on the slide, 2025 was another year of strong achievements across all key metrics with all 2025 targets achieved or exceeded. In details, our revenues were up by almost 7%, excluding disposals, more than double our target of above 3% driven by a strong performance across all our businesses. We had a strong increase in the net interest income in French retail and record high assets under management, both in Life Insurance and Private Banking activities. Wholesale Bank continued to grow sharply, gaining 1.9 million new clients, bringing its total to close to EUR 9 million by the end of 2025. Global Banking and Investor Solutions had a record year in terms of revenues, exceeding the EUR 10 billion mark, driven by a strong performance in both Global Markets and Banking & Advisory.

International Retail Banking continued to deliver robust commercial performance, especially [ KB and BRD ], our retail banking franchises in the Czech Republic and Romania, with a successful optimization and continued digitalization of the respective distribution networks. [ Evans ] continued to steadily enhance its margins throughout 2025, thanks to the strategic decision to focus on profitability and key risk management. Furthermore, we maintained strict discipline in cost monitoring and risk management. On one hand, our costs are down minus 2% compared to 2024, excluding disposals, better than our 2025 target of more than minus 1% and allowing us to reach a cost-to-income ratio of 63.6% for the year. This is more than 5 percentage points of improvement over the previous year and improving our 2025 target of a cost-to-income ratio below 65%. This evolution demonstrates our absolute commitment to reduce structurally our cost base.

On the other hand, cost of risk for the year was 26 basis points at the lower end of our guidance range, reflecting the high quality of our loan origination as well as the diversification and strength of our risk management. Overall, this translated into a significant improvement in profitability with our ROTE reaching 10.2% for the year, up 3.3 percentage points versus 2024 and comfortably above our 2025 target of around 9%. Finally, these earnings allowed us to further strengthen our capital by around 20 basis points over the year to reach a CET1 ratio of 13.5% after Basel IV implementation, a strong level, especially taking into account that we executed in 2025, our first ever extraordinary distributions in the form of 2 additional share buybacks for a total amount of EUR 2 billion.

Our 2026 targets reflect our continued focus on growth, operating leverage and sound risk management. The execution of our road map resulted in an upgrade of our return on tangible equity target to more than 10% for the year versus the one set at the CMD back in 2023 of a range of 9% to 10%. In details, for 2026, we expect a revenue growth above 2% versus '25 on a reported basis, a further net cost decrease of around minus 3% versus 2025, again on a reported basis, a cost-to-income ratio below 60% a cost of risk within the 25 to 30 basis points range. And last, CET1 ratio above 13% throughout the year.

At business level, all our CMD financial targets for 2026 are confirmed. Looking in details, [indiscernible] Bank will fuel 2026 profitability, contributing more than EUR 300 million to the group's net income. In addition, the Global Markets revenue target is adjusted for the consolidation of Bernstein U.S. and is now estimated between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion for 2026. On costs, the objective to further enhance operational efficiency remains consistent across all businesses. Accordingly, we confirm the cost-to-income ratio targets in 2026 for each business line with a cost-to-income ratio below 60% in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, a cost-to-income ratio below 65% in Global Banking and Investor Solutions, a cost-to-income ratio below 55% in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services, including a cost-to-income ratio of around 52% at [indiscernible] level, excluding used car sales results and other nonrecurrent items.

To conclude, let's move on to our Q1 '26 financial results. These results demonstrate the consistency of our execution and confirm that we're well on track to meet our 2026 targets. We reported a group net income of EUR 1.7 billion, up 5.5% versus Q1 2025. Consistent with previous quarters, these results demonstrate the sustainable improvement of our performance, both commercially and financially across our businesses. Revenues were up 0.3% despite negative impacts from FX and disposals completed in Q1 '25. While at constant perimeter and exchange rate, the evolution was 4.4%. Costs are down 6% compared to Q1 '25, better than our annual target of a cost reduction of around minus 3% and down 2.6% compared to Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

As a result, the group achieved a cost-to-income ratio of 60.9% or 57.6% when linearizing IFRIC 21 taxes, which are yearly taxes fully paid in Q1 each year. This is in line with our end of year target of a cost-to-income ratio below 60%. At the same time, the group continues to apply a rigorous risk management observable through a low cost of risk at 25 basis points at the low end of our range of 25 to 30 basis points, reflecting our strong asset quality in a complex and uncertain environment. All of this resulted in an improvement of our return on tangible equity to 11.7%, well ahead of our end of the year guidance of more than 10%. Finally, we maintained a strong capital position with a CET1 ratio of 13.5% at the end of Q1 '26.

So to conclude, our results confirm our group's solid fundamentals with performance improving quarter-on-quarter, which reinforces our confidence in achieving our 2026 targets. Furthermore, thanks to a strong capital position and rigorous risk management, we approach the current environment with confidence. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, Leopoldo. I now give the floor to Guillaume [indiscernible] on behalf of the Board of Statutory Auditors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, hello in the name of KMPG and PwC. I am happy to present the 10 reports that we have established, which have been set out to you in the bundle of documents. So we have 2 reports on accounts, 2 reports on information of sustainability, special reports and 2 reports on various operations on share distributions.

Now regarding the results, consolidated accounts for 2025. Let me remind you that [indiscernible] is about ensuring that these results have been, let's say, achieved without [indiscernible]. And we can without [indiscernible] approve these results. And obviously, you will be approving these results in the first and second resolution [indiscernible] . We also have a presentation on a certain number of works that we bear a certain number of risks. We call these the key items of the audit. We have 9 of them regarding the financials for 2025. 5 of these items are about the consolidated accounts and the [ key ] accounts. So we have a certain number of credits to clients, financials additions to actually [indiscernible] the legal and tax risks the risk related to outstanding in France, number of IT-related controls linked to market operations. 3 key items are about the consolidated accounts and namely regarding the payments activities in car rentals, the variable commissions is also and the adjust hedging of interest rates, namely specifically for Retail Banking in France.

And finally, regarding the yearly results for [indiscernible] participations in companies. We have a number of other aspects that we cover in this report and we submit to the Audit Committee a detailed report regarding these, we do not have any specific observations regarding the internal management report. And we do these reports taking into account the European [indiscernible].

Societe Generale has published a certain number of information in their yearly reports that fit within the CSRD European directive. Now within our reports and the idea being to provide you with a limited insurance, we present you with the conclusion of our work. And we can, therefore, say that we do not see any mistakes or errors regarding the compliance to the various rules and regulations of the information that has been published.

Regarding the special report on set number of regulated conventions, which is the fourth resolution, we can inform you that no resolution has been submitted to us and no resolution already approved by this assembly has [indiscernible] the question.

Regarding the 6 reports on certain number of capital-related operations and share distributions. Some are being submitted to you under resolutions 19 to 23. These reports are to do with a certain number of share distributions and bond issuance and increase -- capital increase for a certain number of subscription mechanisms. For each of these reports, we have no specific observation to mention. I would like to mention also that we obviously could not issue or give any opinion regarding the reports as the [indiscernible have not been submitted to us.

We also have 2 reports on authorizations which have been submitted to you for approval for the distribution of free shares related to performance. In our report, we did not mention any information about the reports provided to us by the Board. This will be submitted to you in Resolutions 24 and 25.

And finally, regarding the authorization that you will be suggested to you to approve through management. So this is Resolution 26. We have no observation to submit to you.

Mr. Chairman, with this, I would like to thank you for the trust you put in us, and we are very happy to continue working with you.

Well, thank you for Mr. [indiscernible]. And we now give the floor to Slavomir Krupa, who is our Chief Executive Officer, so that he may provide an update on the implementation of the strategy defined at the end of 2023, which, by the way, runs until 2026 as well as the preparations for the new strategic plan, which is due to be presented on the 21st of September 2026. But first of all, a short video.

[Presentation]

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, in May 2023, 3 years ago, you entrusted me with the responsibility of leading our group as Chief Executive Officer. And with your trust and with the support of the Board, I would like to thank everyone for the work you have done. We have opened a new era of our history. Starting with a clear diagnostic, we have come up with a plan. We have been able to present it in a very transparent way in September.

In May 2024, 2025, I told you that we have been able to do exactly what we wanted to do without deviating from our strategy at all. And I also told you that we would be trying to reach our objectives right up until the end of 2026. So today, I wanted to say the same thing to you. For the second year, we have exceeded in 2025, all of the objectives that we had set for ourselves. And this is based on a solid foundation for our bank, rebuilding the foundations of our group. So we have a good liquidity situation, organic growth, better efficiency, managed risk and better profitability, everything that we needed to do to be able to continue to exist in a sustainable way and also to finance this economy for our clients. This is a very difficult step for us, transforming our business, which has been something that has been very difficult to do, but necessary to be able to have better credibility. And this is also important for the future of our bank. So we have to work very carefully. We have to be very methodical -- we need to have in our minds, the interest of shareholders, our employees and all of the stakeholders.

We have to transform our culture, our process and the organization of our work. This is something that we are doing now, and it is very demanding. We have followed three principles. So sustainable growth with a good portfolio profitability, thanks to a more efficient portfolio. So first of all, so a strong bank is one that is something that is based on a strong solid foundation. Capital in our industry is a natural resource. It is -- capital allows us to have margin maneuver through economic cycles and to allow us to sustain our growth and our resilience. We are at 13% of equity. We have -- and this is a fundamental decision. This is a decision that we made in 2023 in a major undertaking. We, therefore, increased our capital base by more than EUR 4 billion, and we achieved this by utilizing all available levers and almost 2 years ahead of schedule. And this allowed us to do as of 2025 to look at our distribution policy and begin distributing in a rational way, a considered matter a portion of our capital surplus to shareholders.

Now sustainable growth. We simplified our portfolio, activities portfolio in a very responsible way. And we have done this respecting the company, the customers and for our group. We have been able to focus on transforming our core businesses we are stronger, so we are most needed and where we create the most value sustainably. For our market activities, we have also invested in the group's net [indiscernible]. For our market, we have -- so for our financing and advisory activity, we have launched a new model to improve our balance sheet efficiency in order to strategically increase the capacity to originate financing for our clients and distribute to investors. And this allow us to help our clients in their major transitions and energy and technology transition. So -- and this has allowed us to increase by 50% since 2023, the amounts that we have been able to pay out to clients.

Now with the creation of [indiscernible], which manages a fleet of nearly 3.5 million vehicles throughout the world, we have been able to consolidate the foundations of a global leader in this sector. I would like to add that [indiscernible] through the gradual electrification of its vehicle fleet is making a real contribution on a scale befitting leader to the decarbonization of mobility with 1/3 of the vehicles in its fleet being electric. And we have gone on the offensive in Retail Banking, Insurance and Private Banking in 2023 with [indiscernible] Bank, of course, a fully fledged bank, a leader in online banking and approaching roughly EUR 80 billion in assets under management and an average of around EUR 9 million per customer. So this bank has remained profitable for the third year running, demonstrating both the strength and sustainability of its model.

Now in traditional banking [indiscernible] is back in [indiscernible] serving its customers across all key product lines, starting with mortgages and leading the way in savings with rate of inflows into life insurance and offering very attractive returns to customers and leading positions as a wealth management bank in France. And we are also building, let's say, the future of this activity. Now our profitability, well, profitability, obviously, is very important for us to continue what we do. And this is the only source in terms of our investment ability. Now obviously, we try to work with a lot of discipline and if I may say, unprecedented discipline for our group, right, from a structured and consistent approach to thoroughly review our cost base, achieving a 10% reduction in cost compared to 2024 and 2025, excluding assets disposals, which is better than the annual target of 1%. And we thereby improved our operating leverage by more than 10 percentage points compared to 2023.

And we also have a very ambitious target for 2026 to reduce operating [indiscernible] by 3%. Now -- when it comes to operational efficiency, we are very far from where we want to be. Our performances are very far from our European peers. And we are very much decided as on day 1 to continue pushing down this way. And we are going to work on this transition, ensuring that we all stick together and that we all take up the various challenges that come our way. We have achieved many, many good results and actually the best in our history in 2025, right? Growth across all business lines and targets exceeded in every respect, right, even though we had to proceed with a [indiscernible] number of disposals. Our reported profitability has been -- has reached 10%. It's much better than the average from 2018 to 2022. And the ability to achieve all these objectives at the same time is, I believe, the main feat of our performance since 2023.

We, I believe, brought trust back to the market, investors, to you, shareholders, because without your trust, there is no future, no sustainable future for a company our size. And if we look at the share price evolution, well, I think this just goes to show that we have managed to bring back trust to the company. The cost of capital is at a historically low level for Societe Generale. In 3 years, we have multiplied by [indiscernible] of the company. And I mean, we are breaking many records in this respect. Now for our shareholders, this represents obviously a value creation without parallel in our group's recent history, right? And we have roughly EUR 4.7 billion returned to shareholders for 2025 in the form of dividends and share buybacks. And in 2025, one of this total shareholder return is over roughly 237%, as you can see on this slide.

Now this value creation obviously directly benefits the employee shareholders who represent 10% of the company's equity. And they are rewarded as employees, but also as shareholders. Our Dear shareholders, I think we have begun to write our story at new with the opportunity to once again be masters of our destiny. Now obviously, there are uncertainties, they are different, right? We have geopolitical crisis. We have the crisis in the Middle East, the restructuring of the value chains, technological disruptions, disruptions in international trade, supply of raw material, critical metals and without the channels through which these factors affect the economy being entirely foreseeable or predictable. Fundamentally, something has changed in the way we must manage [indiscernible] groups in this increasingly uncertain world.

We need to ensure risk management. We must apply the instincts, right, throughout our banking history. We need to monitor these risks, extreme risks namely. We need to, in other words, do our work with a lot of rigor and discipline and always questioning what we do, the way we do it in order to better perform year after year. We have a solid track record. But most of all, we recognize that this is a work that needs to be done and improved on a daily basis. Stronger we can also tackle the challenge of artificial intelligence, head-on artificial intelligence has become almost a stable of [indiscernible] features, right? The impact of AI are massive, decisive. These impacts need to be prepared, and we are preparing for them because there are certain number of prerequisites in taking on new technologies, a certain number of different architectures in order to ensure that they are performing, and this obviously requires a certain number of modern infrastructure.

So we've been working on these issues, topics for years now in order to make this technological transition possible. We've launched a certain number of trials, tests. We are also training our employees to take on these changes. But -- obviously no one knows to what extent and how fast these changes will hit us and how the impact will be big. We are in a transition. The banking industry is a great industry and a great industry in which the quality of data management is huge. And if we manage this in the right way, we will perform better and be able to reduce our costs. So we are taking on this challenge, and we will be successful.

Ladies and gentlemen, since 2023, we have rebuilt strong basis for our activity. If we continue with the necessary transitions or transformations, we will manage to continue the good results that we have shown in recent years. The financial solidity, the strategical rigor, the rigor in terms of cost management are the basis of a strong and sustainable growth. This rigor is also the basis of a long-term quality commitment to our pledge to fund the economy and serve our clients. And we are determined to ensure that this does not change. We have presented our strategy and our road map in 2023. We have implemented it in a very rigorous manner with results that you know. The commitment of all which will allow us to achieve and even do better than the 2026 objectives that we have set ourselves.

We are going to continue to do this, but we are much stronger to do so, and we will be able to go even further in order to do better than many of the best-performing banks in Europe. And this is an ambition that we will have at the heart of our next Capital Market Day on 21st of September 2026, which will mark the start of the second phase of transformation.

Now I would like, obviously, to end my speech with a special thank you to our Chair, Lorenzo, who is, as he mentioned, chairing today his final Annual General Meeting. Lorenzo's contribution to our governance over the years has been absolutely pivotal. He has brought to our group his broad perspective, his experience as a central banker, his deep understanding of macroeconomics, his ability to anticipate disruptions and changes in the environment and finally, his European outlook because Lorenzo is a deeply European man. His courage and determination has allowed Societe Generale to live through the crisis in recent years. So ladies and gentlemen, allow me to express on behalf of the group and mine obviously, our most sincere thanks for his service as he is about to pass the torch with your support to William Conley as Chairman of our bank's Board of Directors. Thank you again.

Bolstered by our 161-year history, our recent successes and the strength of our franchises serving our 27 million customers, bolstered by everything that we have proven to be able to do. I have unlimited confidence in our ability to meet the challenges before us and in the ability of our company, Societe Generale to embrace the future and the opportunities for growth and value creation that lie ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for these nice words, Slavomir. I'm now going to give the floor to Pierre Palmieri. He will be presenting to us our CSR strategy.

Hello to everyone. As you know, we have chosen to embed sustainability issues into our strategy. We remain committed to this approach. We are strengthening the integration of these issues into the group's operations and supporting our clients through major transitions. And we are pursuing this approach with a constant spirit of responsibility and innovation. Allow me to begin by highlighting three of the major upheavals we are collectively facing. Climate change remains a major challenge as highlighted by the scientific community.

Furthermore, at a time when the international balance of power is shifting, resilience and sovereignty are emerging as priorities. Finally, the development of artificial intelligence is a revolution for all economic players and is creating new opportunities. Building the future with our employees and customers, therefore, requires foresight a long-term vision and determination. These challenges are an opportunity to grow our business, manage our risks and make a positive contribution to the major transformations taking place in economies and societies. I would first like to review the concrete progress made in our CSR strategy, particularly in terms of the environmental transition.

Firstly, we are continuing to pursue our objectives to decarbonize our operations. We have made significant progress regarding our financial portfolios in the highest emitting sectors. Here are two examples. By the end of 2025, we are ahead of schedule in reducing our exposure to oil and gas production by 80% between 2019 and 2030. We are also reducing the carbon intensity of our electricity generation financing portfolio. This is thanks to an increasingly significant share of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. Through our Leasing subsidiary, [indiscernible], which operates the world's largest multi-brand fleet of electric vehicles, we are actively contributing to the electrification of our customers' vehicle fleets. Avven has, in fact, just received an SBTi certification, which is a science-based targets initiative certification for its decarbonization road map.

As a responsible bank, we are also reducing emissions linked to our own operations. We are, therefore, on track to meet our target of 50% reduction between 2019 and 2030. We have achieved a 44% reduction by the end of 2025, excluding the purchase of renewable electricity. In particular, we are working on the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing business travel and promoting more sustainable digital practices. Secondly, we are actively pursuing our goal of mobilizing EUR 500 billion for sustainable finance between 2024 and 2030. This ambition is reflected in financing, advisory mandates and bond issues supporting environmental and social objectives. By the end of [ 203 ]5, this contribution will reach EUR 165 billion, slightly ahead of our target.

I would also like to reaffirm our commitment to supporting our clients, both individuals and businesses as they navigate the challenges of transition and adaptation. Our recognized expertise in renewable energy and the energy transition constitutes a competitive advantage. This is reflected in our involvement in projects relating to energy generation, transmission and storage infrastructure of carbon capture. As such, the group continues to distinguish itself as a leading player in project finance advisory services supporting this transition. Furthermore, the group continues to finance innovation by supporting the emergence of new players and new technologies, hydrogen, battery storage and the electrification of road transport. Beyond financing the energy transition, this year has also been dedicated to continuing our efforts regarding adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change.

We have strengthened our capacity to analyze issues related to nature, particularly water and the consequences of climate-related hazards. We are developing analytical tools to discuss the resilience of our clients' businesses with them. The aim is to help them better understand their risk and offer them the most appropriate advisory and financing solutions. As an example -- for example, we have supported a 25-hectare deforestation project in the Southeast of the United States as well as a program to adapt water infrastructure in the United Kingdom. The group has also invested on its own behalf in projects in France. We are working to promote reforestation and regenerative agriculture. We are also supporting the plan of hedge growth and reintroduction of fruit growing sectors. The Societe Generale Group Foundation is strengthening its environmental initiatives through new purchase partnerships.

For instance, it supports the [indiscernible] Foundation and more specifically, a program to reforest waterways across several geographical sites. In 2025, we carried out initiatives to raise customer awareness of ocean protection and water-related issues. The bank organizes conferences across all regions of France on these topics. Furthermore, our employees worldwide took part in a charity sport challenge supporting 11 partners committed to preserving the environment and biodiversity.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the past year marked an important step towards embedding CSR firmly into the bank's day-to-day operations. At an operational level, we have integrated environmental and social considerations into our strategic decisions and the group's processes. This approach has enabled us to meet the ECB's requirements to publish our second sustainability report and align ourselves with the European Banking Authorities new guidelines on ESG risk management. The consideration of environmental and social risks is reinforced by appropriate governance. The Board of Directors plays a central role. It approves the strategic directions, including those related to environmental and social matters put forward by the executive management and ensures their implementation. It fully integrates social responsibility issues within its bodies, notably through the Risk Committee. This governance forms the foundation of an ambiguous -- rather an ambitious social policy placing human capital at the heart of the group's sustainable performance against the backdrop of profound transformation.

This translates into a constant and renewed commitment to ensure the skill match job requirements based on training, adaptation and the anticipation of skills needs. This policy prioritizes internal mobility over redundancy plans. In 2025, over 60% of positions were filled through internal mobility and each employee received an average of 33 hours of training. The group is committed to promoting individual and collective performance by fostering cohesion, collaboration and the transfer of skills. In this context, remote working practices have been reviewed and are currently being harmonized. They aim to support effective teamwork, cooperation between business lines and a sense of belonging to the group. Furthermore, ongoing simplification efforts aim to improve quality of life at work.

The group also promotes a fair and inclusive environment. The proportion of women within the top 250 is increasing and will exceed 31% by 2025. The results of the employee barometer, which are down since 2024 are a key concern for senior management. Our employees' commitment is indeed seen as a key factor in the success of our collective projects. The group's ESG policy is recognized by nonfinancial rating agencies, which ranks Societe Generale above the sector average and in some cases, at the highest level. Once again, this year, we have been honored by several awards, both for our CSR strategy and also for our ability to structure innovative initiatives in this field.

In conclusion, our determination to contribute to a sustainable world remains undiminished. Ensuring our actions are sustainable and working towards transition adaptation is above all a matter of creating value for our clients, our employees and, of course, our shareholders. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much, Pierre. So now we are going to be looking at the company governance. You can look at Page 63. There's a report on company governance that you can read the reports, and there you will also see the Chairman's activities.

In 2025, the Board of Directors met 11 times. This does not include committee meetings. There were 35 meetings in total, meetings of nonexecutive directors and strategy seminars and training sessions. The attendance rate was 65%. This reflects the very high level of commitment shown by the directors. In addition to all regulatory matters, the Board of Directors devoted considerable time to strategy, in particular, to monitoring the implementation of the guidelines announced at the Capital Markets Day on the 18th of September 2023 for the period of 2024 to 2026.

The Board of Directors has also approved the Bank's CSR strategy. It has worked extensively on the sustainability report, and you have the contents of which can be found in the universal registration document on Page 263 in the following pages. On Page 62, you have the universal registration document. You will find a summary of the assessment of the Board of Directors' work. This assessment was carried out independently by [indiscernible]. He is very positive.

[Interpreted] It has worked extensively on the sustainability report, and you have the contents of which can be found in the universal registration document on Page 263 in the following pages. On Page 62, you have the universal registration document. You will find a summary of the assessment of the Board of Directors' work. This assessment was carried out independently by [ Senor Stewart ]. It's very positive, both in terms of the Board's composition and the quality of its work.

The Board of Directors has ensured that it possesses all the necessary expertise for its operations. The arrival of Ingrid H. Arnold has strengthened its technological expertise, and with Laura Barlow, has bolstered its expertise in risk and CSR, and with Olivier Klein, has enhanced its expertise in retail banking.

I would remind you that the Board of Directors also benefits from the expertise and experience of its Non-Executive Director, [ JB Levy ], on CSR and climate issues. We have also taken steps to enhance the training of the 14 members of the Board of Directors, particularly on CSR issues, but also on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, which are key topics for the future of the banking industry. As for my personal role, I have been actively involved in liaising with regulators and have met with international shareholders and investors, particularly in the run-up to the Annual General Meeting.

The year 2025 was marked by several major governance decisions. We announced the reappointment of Slawomir Krupa as CEO upon the renewal of his term as a director in 2027. This early decision is based on 3 key considerations: first, to stabilize the group's governance; two, to put the group in the best possible position to prepare the new strategic plan, which will be announced in September 2026; and three, to enable Slawomir Krupa, whose track record has been exceptional, to continue his work for the benefit of the group, its employees, its shareholders and its customers.

Secondly, we wanted to strengthen the attractiveness and effectiveness of the Board of Directors through remuneration commensurate with its objective of becoming a major bank in Europe. It is therefore proposed to increase the remuneration budget from EUR 1.835 million to EUR 2.25 million to bring it closer to the average for European banks, around EUR 3 million.

Three, I would like to prepare my replacement as Chairman by appointing William Connelly. This choice was already presented to you last year. William Connelly has extensive banking and financial experience. He is thoroughly familiar with corporate governance, having previously chaired for [ Aegon ] and also has highly valuable experience in technology as he chairs at [ Amadeus ]. Following this meeting, it will be for the Board to confirm his appointment. In anticipation of this, I offer him on my own behalf and on yours, my most sincere congratulations.

Four, we will be replacing certain directors with my departure and with William Connelly moving in as Chair of the Risk Committee -- Chair of the Board. [ Konem ] was tasked with finding a candidate capable of chairing the Risk Committee. [ Konem ] has successfully met this challenge by putting forward the nomination of Clara Furse for your vote. Clara has extensive banking and financial experiences, having notably served as a Chief Executive who shaped the London Stock Exchange into what it is today. She subsequently served as a Director of major financial institutions. Thank you, Clara, for being here today. We would like -- could you please tell us what your motivation is, Clara?

[Interpreted] Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Clara Furse. It is a pleasure to be here today at this general assembly. I am very honored to be here and very honored to be able to present myself.

After more than 40 years working in the financial sector and working in the city of London, I have gained a profound acknowledge that I hope to bring to the Board of Directors of this very important bank, this very important universal bank. I am very excited to be able to participate in meeting our ambitions and also in developing the Societe Generale in the years to come. I would like to sincerely thank you for giving me your trust.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Clara. You are asked to ratify the cooptation of Laura Barlow. This cooptation took effect on the 1st of September following the resignation of Beatrice Cossa-Dumurgier. Laura Barlow has extensive experience as a banker. She has recently retired from Barclays and therefore, has an up-to-date knowledge of banking and financial risks, particularly ESG risks.

Since September, the Board has been able to assess her understanding of our business lines. In particular, she sits on the Risk Committee. It is proposed that you ratify her cooptation and appoint her for a 4-year term commencing today. Dear Laura, would you like to say a few words to our shareholders?

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, general administrators, Chairman, it's with a great honor that I am here today before you. My name is Laura Barlow. I am British, and I live in London. I am married, and I have 2 adult sons who work in the business world and also in law.

My ambition is to bring to the Board my experience in the banking world internationally after 15 years working in high-level positions in banks such as Barclays, specifically working in banking services to companies, regulatory and also sustainable development. I worked for 20 years for multinational companies in transformation. I have been -- I have chaired -- rather, I have been a part of a number of different boards and also worked for the UN for the environment.

I would like to bring all of my practical and banking experiences in the service of your Board of Directors. I will give my best as I have been able to do in my previous positions. I would like to thank you for your trust.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Laura. Finally, two reappointments, that of Jerome Contamine for a third term. Jerome chaired the Audit and the Internal Control Committee, having previously chaired the Remuneration Committee. He has extensive experience in financial matters and the management of large listed companies, either as an executive or as a director.

And that of Diane Cote's nomination for a third term. Diane is a member of the Audit and Internal Control Committee and the Risk Committee. She is also a member of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. Diane has extensive experience in the financial sector. She has served as a Director on the boards of several companies. She currently sits on the Board of [ Eskor ]. Thank you for your support.

If you approve these proposals, the Board of Directors will consist of 15 members, 13 elected by the Annual General Meeting, including 1 director representing employee shareholders, 2 employee directors. Out of those, there will be 11 independent directors, 7 women, including 1 elected by the employees.

It is now time to move on to the section on remuneration. Annette Messemer, Chair of the Remuneration Committee, will present this.

[Interpreted] Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we have -- so the remuneration of the -- will be fixed at -- and they will be giving [indiscernible]. So all of these topics will be part of a topic that will come in front of the Board. In 2025, this will be -- this Board will be meeting 7 times.

According to the laws, the general assembly must approve the amount in 2026, the [ sixth ] and seventh proposals. And also that happening for 2025, the Resolutions 8 and 10. Attention needs to be given to this presentation to the increasing of the remuneration for the General Director, which is Resolution #6.

For the Chairman, the amount remains the same. For Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, it was fixed at EUR 925,000 gross per annum since May 2028 and for the duration of his Chairman office. His remuneration remained unchanged upon the renewal of his term as a Director and Chairman at the Annual General Meeting of the 17th of May, 2022.

With regard to William Connelly's remuneration, the Board of Directors intends to maintain his remuneration at the same level as that of his predecessor. This approach is justified by Mr. Connelly's experience as a Director of Societe Generale as a Chairman of the Risk Committee since 2018. He was Chairman of Aegon and former CEO of ING. And by the European benchmark, as a regulated institution, Societe Generale is in a comparable position to Barclays, UniCredit, Intesa, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas.

With regard to the remuneration of executive directors for the year 2025, the various components are set out in the table below and have been determined in accordance with the rules of the remuneration policy approved for the year of 2025. This includes fixed remuneration, annual variable remuneration and long-term incentive schemes. The amount of the annual variable remuneration were determined taking into account the rate of achievement of the targets set for the 2025 financial year. More than 65% of the annual variable remuneration is linked to the value of the SG shares, and 60% of the total is deferred over 5 years and subject to performance conditions in accordance with banking regulations.

The long-term incentive, which is entirely linked to the share price, may only be vested after 5 years, subject to the fulfillment of performance conditions. For 1/3, linked to the relative performance of the SG share, 1/3 linked to future profitability measured by ROTE and 1/3 linked to an 80% reduction in exposure to the oil and gas sectors and the contribution of [ EUR 500 billion ] to sustainable finance. On this basis, the Chief Executive Officer's total remuneration for 2025 will be 1% lower than the remuneration awarded for 2024.

The 2025 executive remuneration report contains information on changes in the remuneration of each executive director compared with the average and median remuneration of employees and the group's performance. The charts presented show the ratio between the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration and the average employee remuneration since 2023. The 2025 ratio is down compared with 2024.

It should be noted that over the period between 2023 and 2025, the group's profitability was measured by ROTE increased by 6 percentage points. Earnings per share increased by 213% and total shareholder return increased by 237%.

In connection with the full year renewal of Slawomir Krupa's term of office with effect from the Annual General Meeting of the 16th of May 2027, the Board of Directors proposes to increase his fixed remuneration for 2026 to EUR 2.4 million compared with EUR 1.65 million since his appointment in May 2023. The variable component remains unchanged.

And this proposal is based on the following factors. The positioning of the proposed fixed remuneration has been determined in relation to a panel of benchmark European banks. The table on the right shows the positioning of the Chief Executive Officer's fixed remuneration before and after the proposed revision based on the study carried out by Willis Towers Watson.

Currently, the Chief Executive Officer's fixed remuneration is 28% below the panel median and falls within the first quarter. Following the increase, it will be close to the median, but would remain 34% below the third quartile of the European panel. Exceptional performance since taking up his position, right, exceeding all targets announced for 2025: revenue growth; cost and risk and control; profitability; the completion of the divestment plan and the sharp rise in the share price; the desire to secure the group's leadership in the long term within a highly competitive international environment, where senior executives are scarce and where Slawomir Krupa enjoys international recognition. And finally, this remuneration will not be reviewed upon the renewal of the mandate next year and at the very least, for the duration of the new strategic plan in accordance with the recommendations of the [ AC MEDEF ] Corporate Governance Code. Pierre Palmieri's fixed remuneration remains unchanged.

Now with regards to variable remuneration, its terms remain unchanged for 2026. It comprises annual variable remuneration and a long-term incentive scheme. The target annual variable remuneration is determined 65% on the basis of the achievement of financial criteria relating to the ROTE, the group operating ratio and the CET1 ratio used as a threshold criteria, 20% on the basis of the achievement of CSR objectives and 15% on the basis of regulatory compliance and group transformation criteria, common to all chief executives as on objectives specific to each executive.

Long-term incentive awards may only be vested after 5 years, subject to the fulfillment of performance conditions. The Board of Directors will define,, following the publication of the new strategic plan, which is scheduled for September, the new structure and the new targets for the variable component of the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration for 2027. It is noted that in accordance with banking regulations, the sum of the annual variable remuneration and long-term incentive awarded may not exceed 2 years fixed remuneration.

Chief Executive Officers are also eligible for: compensation to offset a noncompetition clause paid at the level of their fixed remuneration and lasting for 12 months; a severance payment, which is paid only in the event of compulsory departure from the group. And finally, managing directors retain the benefit of the supplementary pension scheme for senior executives. Finally, the Remuneration Committee has ensured that the remuneration arrangements for regulated under the CRDV directive, the amounts to be paid to this group in 2025 are submitted to you for a consultative vote via the 13th resolution. Thank you for your attention.

[Interpreted] Thank you. Thank you, Annette. Let's now move to questions. So regarding written questions. So this year, shareholders submitted one or more written questions, which is usually several. So the total number of questions were 69 by 9 shareholders or 4 retail shareholders. The responses were published on the general meeting website. And apart from those of a purely informative nature, the questions related to the topics that had already been addressed since the start of the general meeting: results, accounts, dividend policy, and above all, CSR policy and the climate transition. As these responses have been published, they will not be read out at the meeting.

I'll now open the floor -- open the floor for questions for the audience. As I've already mentioned, if you have any questions regarding your personal situation as a customer, there is a stand at the entrance where staff will be able to assist you, and they will be available to you after the Annual General Meeting. Microphones are available and will be passed to you by the hostesses. Please return the microphone as soon as you have finished your question. I would also ask everyone to keep their comments brief and limit the number of questions so that as many shareholders as possible can speak.

I suggest we begin with a question from the Shareholders' Advisory Committee. Madam [indiscernible], you have the floor.

[Interpreted] Hello. Like many individual shareholders, I've been a loyal SG shareholder for over 50 years. And on behalf of the individual shareholders I represent today, I would first like to offer my congratulations to you, your Executive Committee and all your teams on the challenging transformation you have successfully led over the past 3 years. Thanks to the strong recovery in financial indicators, you have restored investor confidence in the SG Group, as evidenced by the remarkable rise in the share price from which we have all benefited.

That said, in light of the indicators mentioned in the nonfinancial report, there has been a decline in staff engagement and in the quality of the business and customer loyalty as measured by customer satisfaction levels. With satisfaction levels falling for the second consecutive year within the French network resulting from the CD and SG merger, which accounts for a significant proportion of the group's results, these 2 assets are essential to value creation in the medium term. And my question is, in a highly competitive environment, [ mutual network ] on one hand, digital banks on the other and retaining the skills necessary for the development of strategic activities, what role do you intend to give to these 2 assets in the forthcoming 2027-2030 strategic plan, and with what objectives?

[Interpreted] Well, thank you, [ Dominique ]. Well, to start with on behalf of the teams, on behalf of the management team, thank you very much for your very kind words. Obviously, what we do requires strong commitment and hard work on a daily basis. So it is always nice to see that people feel this and acknowledge it.

Now you asked a very, very important question about the 2 very, very important assets for every company, but for Societe Generale specifically. So I'll try and take a bit of time to answer this question. I'll start with the [ Barona ].

We take a step back, you need to bear in mind that 2024, as the first year of our transformation, saw many, many aspects of the transformation linked to the financial transformation, right, on the capital and also the various disposals. Now in reality, the transformation perceived by the teams, and especially regarding their daily work, really happened in 2025. In 2024, we made many and very strategic decisions which had an indirect impact on employees, obviously excluding those who were part of the disposal schemes.

Now in 2025, employees are, let's say, directly impacted, let's say. Now in 2025, we are in this context of transformation, as you mentioned in your question. And this environment is very broad, right? And this naturally creates the, let's say, the challenges to our teams.

If I could summarize this in a few words, we require from everyone, much more efficiency, less waste. We are much more demanding with our teams, and we ask them to be demanding with themselves, with their colleagues. A certain number of changes in the work organization and a lot of questioning, and namely questioning the culture of our company. A certain number of practices that have been around for decades need to change and need to be changed in a certain number of aspects. And especially in environment with increasing uncertainty, environments in which there is increasing anxiety, and an environment in which, let's say, changing these habits is tougher. It also requires our employees to make, let's say, different decisions or decisions in a different way. Now all of this obviously applies to everyone, to management, senior management, to myself.

Now in the [ Ram ] survey, well, we have a very interesting feedback. It's obviously a very serious exercise that we take very seriously. Now this feedback, we have to take into account. We take into account. It has to lead us to question ourselves. It leads me to question myself. And we need to come up with a positive answer in that we take into account what our teams tell us, and we try to come up with the answers that are expected from us. And as you said, the assets, namely, the teams that interact on a daily basis with our customers is very important as without them, there is no long-term future for any company and for Societe Generale for that matter.

And so we have committed to work on 4 different aspects. To start with, spend more time in explaining. Now I don't need to go over everything that we see. But in 2024, we spent a lot of time explaining what we do, trying to decipher the various decisions that we made, strategic decisions that we made, which we call financial decisions. But they're not so much financial. Rather, they are strategic, and they set the structure of our strategy. And well, I mean, we've seen in different ways today, to what extent we were right to make these changes. Anyway, the efforts that we put in explaining these decisions was not sufficient. So we need to improve this.

Secondly, we need to organize ourselves in a better way when it comes to listening to the teams in order to ensure that we capture everywhere, the various messages that are set to us, be it in New York in Wall Street or be it in a small local branch or be it in India. Everywhere we have staff, we have people who have questions for us. And all these questions, individual questions, we need to be able to consider.

Third, we need to accelerate the simplification. And there is indeed, a very concrete positive impact for this. Now I'll give you a few examples, EUR 1 billion. I mean, you know the size of the company. The cost basis or cost structure of the company is EUR 1 billion, right, in terms of additional labor costs, right? That is significant. And the interest scheme has increased by 50%, roughly EUR 100 million last year. And not even mentioning the value creation, it's very difficult to value, but it's close to EUR 3 billion, EUR 4 billion.

So from a financial point of view, if we take a step back, I think we can agree to say that there are concrete benefits to do what we have done. Now where it is not that obvious, it's when it comes to simplifying these simplifications. It's still quite difficult for many of the guys out there to really understand all of this. And sometimes imperfections and -- I think it's not much, saying this -- is too important. The imperfection is too important, and the quality is not there.

And the thing that we have all these changes that are ongoing and our colleagues do not yet see or sense the benefit to them in terms of quality of the work organization. It is indeed linked mainly the quality of the tools that we make available and also the quality of our processes. So we have an ongoing program -- transformation program, which is rather holistic, which is being implemented by thousands of our employees.

And we are adding a specific -- to simplifying our operations and simplifying and in that, improving the quality of life at work. So the simplification actions will be backed by a certain number of investments, namely in IT tools. We've already started this, right, because there was an emergency, namely level of network. And so yes, we have started this, and we've already actually started getting positive feedback following this.

So I'd like to add two things now. To start with, this survey, the [ Rongter ] was carried out end of 2025. Now beginning of 2026, we added on something essential and quite unique, I believe, if we compare with other major French and European banks. And this is at the same time, now we have many more transformations to come.

We still wish to operate this transformation without letting go anyone. And I think this is essential because some people obviously have an increasing anxiety when they consider the future within Societe Generale. But the thing is that we commit to make sure that within Societe Generale, there will be opportunities for all everywhere, wherever they are, whatever they do.

So I think, yes, it's very, very important to consider this. We committed to this. We discussed this with employee representatives, with my teams. And so we are going to implement this transformation, and there's still a lot that needs to be done, taking seriously this objective to not let go anyone in the process.

And finally, I want to be very clear on one thing. Is the transformation over? No, certainly not. And far from it. Are we going to continue in the upcoming cycle in a very determined way to increase the efficiency of the company? Well, the answer is yes. Yes, we are going to continue, and we are very determined to do so to increase, let's say, the performances of the company because we are still one of the worst [ banks ] out there, and we cannot be one of the worst banks in terms of efficiency. It's just not possible. Are we going to continue to question ourselves, my teams, management, general management and so on? Yes, obviously. But all of us and myself included and senior management, we need to constantly question ourselves in order to ensure that we are successful in implementing these changes that we presented to you and that you entrusted.

Now regarding the interaction with our clients and the quality of this interaction, quality of our customer service. Now especially in the world today, right? I mean, this has always been important, right? But I think especially in this environment of hyper competition, it is a life-threatening issue, to put it this way.

So first thing here, I consider the performance of the company as a whole, and then I go into more detail. So you mentioned retail banking in France. I'll come back to this later on. But performances are not what we want them to be. Having said this, at EUR 27.3 billion in revenue, and we have so many more activities than the network in France. So if we consider this more specifically, more than half of the group's activity have great performances in terms of quality. We'll get to retail banking in a moment, because this is so important and this is our historic activity in France.

Now to start with, more than half of our activity is, let's say, has achieved some of the best scoring, if I may say, in terms of quality. Second, [ 60% ] of scope, I must say, is improving compared to last year. And third, the network of France are experiencing some of the biggest changes. So I'll put it differently. We actually just did something that we have never done before in France, merging 2 retail banks, 2 independent retail banks who have been working independently for 20 years, [indiscernible].

So the idea that -- and here again, I want to clarify this, right? The idea that just by -- of fingers, we can achieve in-depth transformation whilst achieving the results, it's just an illusion. So I'm not saying that it's not important, but I'm saying it's critical, and we are working on that. But then again, at some point, if we are going to concentrate on these in-depth transformations, what I mean this is not going to happen overnight.

But then if I can turn the question back to you, had we not done the merger between Credit du Nord and Societe Generale -- and by the way, in order to ensure that we deserve customer -- the quality of customer service. Well, the answer is no because we know that the results [indiscernible] the impact of what we did will be so much better than the contrary had we not done it, right?

Now I'm not going to load everything on the merger, right? This merger is important, obviously, and it is fundamental, especially to the environment in France. But there's a number of other items that need to be considered, commercial, right, sales-related, namely. It's important for the teams, retail banking teams to obviously be the best-in-class when it comes to customer service, right? And we are working on this. We've been working on this for quite some time for more than a year now.

But again, there's no magic here. It can't happen overnight. But we are doing what needs to be done. Quality of tools that are made available to employees is also so important. I mentioned this earlier on. It's so important, especially for our guys who interact with the customers directly. So we carried out number of investments last year. There still is a lot that needs to be done, and we're going to continue to do what needs to be done.

And finally -- and I need to acknowledge this. For various reasons, I could go on for hours, but I'll stop in a few seconds, right? But we need to ensure this cultural change, right? When you commit to these huge transformations, mentioning here again, the merger, right? And this was carried out with a lot of talent by the teams.

But beyond the impact of these changes, there is obviously a lack of attention brought to customer service. So -- but this is obvious. If for 4, 5, 6 years, you can concentrate on any other topic, if you do not do customer service, customer service is going to drop. So there is something that we need to do, and that has to do with the culture, our culture. And as often in life, major changes take time to occur, to be implemented.

[Interpreted] So as I was saying, if there is somebody who wants to speak, just raise your hand.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much. [ Jean Batiste ], [indiscernible]. So during the subprime crisis, the banks ended up with some financial instruments, liquid, financial -- and so I had a question for you. Today, 15 years after the crisis, what happened to these assets? And were we able to make anything off of the backs of them?

[Interpreted] So you want to know what we made. I'll have to be able to answer you later. I don't have that figure in mind. But yes, like in other banks, we did have to use some of these assets, which were quite an important quantity. And during the financial crisis, there were two issues. The value was much lower. We had to segregate them for that reason. But also, this was worsened by the crisis itself, and this is why we had to liquidate them.

So to give you an example of what I'm saying, so this doesn't really affect us because we sold them. But what the creditors of Lehman was able to recuperate, so 15, 20 years later, it's $0.84 on the dollar, I believe. So it's very high in terms of what they were able to recuperate for Lehman Brothers. And I believe this is based on my memory. I think my memory is correct.

So our issue was different at the time. We had massive risk, which -- and the market would have liked us to see abandon those things very quickly. And so we had to -- like everyone, we had to optimize this leveraging, these sales. And we didn't have the luxury of waiting 20 years to recoup the maximum we could on our exposures.

So if you take a photo at the beginning of 2007 and a photo where we had no more exposure for the bad bank before 2020, there's only losses in millions. And we are not -- we are hoping to never find ourselves in that situation again. Any other questions?

[Interpreted] My name is [ Jean-Benoit Ricayi ] from the CFTC. So the Board is proposing that we increase the remuneration of the General Director by 85%. So these arguments were not retained by the employees. And in fact, we spoke about the fragility of these results. So what conclusions does the Board come to when it comes to the inequality of these treatments and the commitment of employees in the future?

[Interpreted] So I think we should look at Page 48, a page that we were able to look -- that we looked at before with -- during the presentation. And so here, you can see the logic that was put forward for this. So looking at what happened 3 years ago, the remuneration of the CEO was 30% lower than the average. So we had a choice of either keeping it 30% lower or to adjust it. So looking at the results that we've achieved these past 3 years, we decided that it was appropriate to adjust it to meet the average.

It's a very simple decision. It was based on very simple analysis. It reflects the performance of the Societe Generale over the last 3 years and also the signal that we want to send and the message that we want to send to the next 3 years. The policy of remuneration of the company that we have approved, all of this is part of this reasoning. And this is all the responsibility of the management, of course.

So what we are submitting to you today in terms of remuneration is part of a series of arguments that all have their logic. Of course, there is a time for each decision. 3 years ago, we made a very difficult decision because we decided to remunerate at minus 30%. But I believe that after 3 years, it was fair to adapt it and to increase it to meet the average. So there's logic behind this decision. It's rational, and it's what pushed us to make this decision and why we submitted this to you today.

There you go. Thank you very much. Now, #10?

[Interpreted] [ Charles Leclier ], I've been a shareholder for over 20 years. Congratulations, bravo, Krupa. You are the title of the [indiscernible]. And we really have to -- you have managed to do the impossible. You have turned around the markets and you made markets believe in the Societe Generale.

So two questions on your method, just to be reassured for the future. So number one, the Krupa method, managing potential risks, these risks that could be very expensive. I'm thinking about [ Cavienn ]. I'm thinking of the rates coverage. So what is -- what do you do? What is your method for avoiding this type of risk that could end up make us end up in a bad situation like in the past?

The second question, what is the Krupa method for managing investments? Could we please know the key points to know whether we should invest or not? I read recently that you have -- when it comes to financing, you have principal criteria on a checklist. And are you close to the Warren Buffett criteria, or rather, method when you invest?

And the third question, SG versus BNP, what are your 3 biggest arguments, being as objective as possible? And this is, of course, to convince hesitant investors in investing in SG. And finally, I would like to thank you, Krupa, because thanks to the increase in SG shares, I have received a prize this year.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much. Yes, I'm smiling, but your questions are very serious and they're very important for the company. And so I'm going to try and answer them.

So the first regarding risk management, I'm going to start by repeating what I said before. You have to start off by being -- you have to start off with humility. As soon as you lose that, that's when things are going to start to deteriorate. So that's the first pillar.

And I think that Pierre and I know this. We've been working together for a long time. I was -- had a chance to work with him in the past and was able to learn with him and learn how to manage risks for our largest clients. So first of all, we need to be -- have humility. And second, we have to have experience.

In a bank -- and I think this is for most industries, but in banks, experience is colossal. It's super important. We're talking about criteria, taking risks, how we get credits. More you have seen situations in a 20- or 30-year career, better you will be prepared where you have a better reference point to be able to imagine what could happen, what could go wrong.

And this is kind of the beauty of our job. Whenever somebody wants to do something very important and they're super optimistic and our client is super optimistic, they want to buy a home, they want to buy a bicycle, a company that wants to do something. They are super optimistic, but we need to be super pessimistic. And we also have to be ready to commit.

And so yes, this is why we have these stress tests. And we always have to be able to simulate what could go wrong. You need to imagine scenarios, the worst case scenario. Of course, you have to look at all the possible scenarios. And unfortunately, today, we have seen that extreme situations do occur. And so you need to look at these different scenarios and decide whether yes or no, we can manage these situations. And if we can't, then how can we adjust it to be able to take on that risk. In this way, we are prepared for difficult situations. So I hope that this gives you an idea of what our job is day-to-day, what goes behind every decision that is made when we are managing portfolios and risks. And so now my third point, concentration.

So I hope that this gives you an idea of what our job is day-to-day, what goes behind every decision that is made when we are managing portfolios and risks. And so now my third point, concentration. I think that there's something that we have learned throughout our careers is that the biggest issue is when you were too concentrated on one thing, like, for example, the subprime itself wasn't such a huge issue, but if you have billions of it, then it becomes an issue.

So the paper was -- it was toxic and the toxic hadn't -- the toxicity of it hadn't been taken into consideration. So we are very careful about this. We really are careful when it comes about where we are concentrating our efforts. And then the third point that we are responsible for here and the Board of Directors is responsible for because we validate strategies and whatnot.

We have to have a buffer when it comes to regulatory measures. And this is one of the reasons that we decided to increase our ratio from 12 to 13 because in banks, you're going to lose banks. We are going to lose money. This is part of our job. And some of intellectuals will even say, if you don't lose money, it's because you're not optimizing your activity. That's not really our opinion, but some say this.

So having 100 basis points of buffer, it means having as much capacity to be able to absorb major shocks without you, shareholders become diluted because we have lost money. So this buffer is critical for you. And if you're asking the question, if you're asking why our shares have reacted in the way that they have reacted, well, it's because we had this ratio because it removed this dilution risk that a shareholder -- shareholder holds.

And finally, the base costs and the profitability of the company, that is part of this structural resilience. And this is easily understood. When you have EUR 3.5 billion or EUR 4 billion published revenue, well, that is -- this means that it's billions more to be able to absorb a crisis. So costs, all of this that I'm talking about is part of the resilience that a banking industry has.

And so we work -- we really try to focus on all of this. So now when you talk about my method for investment, it's very simple. I don't really think we could compare -- you can compare me to Warren Buffett, and I think our jobs are completely different. We take risks first. This is something that we do on a daily basis for our clients. But the company also invests in business and development of BoursoBank and [indiscernible] and acquisitions.

And the criteria is very simple. Same criteria as would be yours. Is this capital that we're going to -- this investment, given the risks that we are going to take, is it going to be profitable in comparison with another alternative? So really, basically, is it profitable or not? Is it diluting -- or is it creating value?

So that is the heart of how we make these decision. Then, of course, there's a number of different indicators based on the different situations. And now SG versus BNP, it's a little bit difficult for me to answer. I can't really speak publicly about this. I will only say that if you look at a number of different data points, you'll have answers regarding the last 3 years.

And we are going to do everything possible so that nothing changes in this regard. Now #6.

Thank you very much for this presentation and for excellent results in 2025. I had a question regarding the ROTE. 2025, you said it was a good year for ROTE with 10.2%, and it was improved by disposals. Net gains from disposals, which happened on 5 subsidiaries for a total of around EUR 300 million.

So if we exclude those, the ROTE is much less. So in 2025, we had a very good third quarter. So ROTE was 10.7%, but it went down in the fourth quarter to 9.5% because of the rate coverage contracts that were ended. So first quarter of 2026, we have a rate that is very good, 11.7%. So my question is, are there elements of disposals? What are the elements of disposals?

And is this or is there more organic growth, which without the disposals would allow us to improve on our ROTE performance. I also had a question regarding the increase in remuneration for the CEO. So if ever we are unhappy with the 2026 ROTE, it's below 10%, is there a way for us to perhaps go back on our decision of increasing the salary by 85%, at least on the fixed salary.

And finally, BNP said during their general assembly that so there's a bunch of positions that are being rotated. What is the question regarding the competencies.

So first of all, there is a fixed salary and a variable salary. And of course, if results at the end of the year are not favorable, then that will have an effect on the variable salary. But, of course, RoTE is one of the elements that we take into consideration. So now another question regarding the RoTE. You have a very -- all of the figures that you cited were correct. And yes, this is something that we have explained very, very well in all of our financial communications.

This year, first of all, more generally, what explains these changes quarter-to-quarter? Well, in 2025, there were a bunch of variables that have to do with our transformation. So we spoke about this in the CMD of 2023. We were spending BRL 1 billion of CTA for financing our transformation. And so at the beginning of the cycle, we spent a lot and then little by little until 2026. And so there are some structural phenomenon that has to do with this transformation.

That's my first point. And of course, it's not also linear going from quarter to quarter. The second point, there's also in a bank, it's very seasonal. So quarter 1, quarter 2, there are quarters that are very active, much higher, and it's because the market is much more active.

And then you will have ROE at the beginning of the year that is going to be very high and will allow us to reach the objectives by the end of the year. So for example, first quarter, we were at 11 and something of ROCE.

And then we also paid annual tax in quarter 1, which is usually above 12%. And so what you have to keep in mind is that there's this seasonality, a natural seasonality to our activities. And this changes throughout the year. But as you can see at the end of the year, we have still been meeting our objectives. And our goal is to have a ROTE above 10%.

So there's no -- nothing to be worried about on this point for now. Now when it comes to the competence question, the way that you need to think about this is, you have to think of this system. So the 1,800 positions that we spoke about during our communication, this is a net effect. So the skill sponsorship, the question about the skill sponsorship. There is more -- so this is where the training happens. We've had this whole entire mechanism put into place to help employees get training if they want to change positions or jobs and to be able to enable them and make it -- make the internal workflow more fluid.

And we want to do this to not do what we have -- we want to do this to not do what we have done in the past, which is to have these plans when we basically lay people off and have to pay them. We have thought it to be more favorable to keep them within the company and to help them to find other positions within the company. Perhaps we have to have smaller teams in one area, but we can move those people to another area in the bank. So that's what this -- that's the process that we have committed to. Number 8?

So the transmission shock was about EUR 9 million. How will the Societe Generale.

The interpreter apologizes as she did not hear the question.

So you're touching on an essential question. So when you have excess resources, so we have communicated a lot on this topic. So when you have an available capital, there's 3 ways to invest it, either in organic growth, either in inorganic growth or by redistributing it in dividends or in other ways to the shareholders.

And you have to be very rational and almost cold when you make this decision. You put your -- if you want to do organic growth, you will put it in an Excel sheet and you will compare it to what a shareholder would get in a share buyback or in dividends. And so this is what you first have to do. You have to look at what is most profitable.

There is a concept, an Anglo-Saxon concept that I really like, and it's called stewardship, stewardship of capital. It's difficult to translate this into French. But basically, what this means is that we -- here, we are not -- we don't own the capital of the company. You are the owners of this capital. And this is very important how a company and a Board of Directors, we really cannot ever forget that we don't own this money.

We are just managing it, and it's because you trust us. And so we have to manage this money with your interest in mind and not with our fantasy or our own egos in mind. And so we need to put this into a kind of an excel file and try to see what is most profitable for the shareholder. And of course, I mean, if it was not simple, then you wouldn't need us. So we have to look into this a little bit closer. We need to constantly be thinking about the strategy of the company. Where do we have the best interest in developing?

And also in your interest, long term, where should we grow in efficiency and where should we improve the quality of our products? Of course, I'm giving you a very obvious question here, a very obvious answer to your question. But in 2023, we made a decision even during these very lean periods, we had to invest in the development of BoursoBank because we have an asset, a strategic asset that has a huge value over time. And of course, when we put it in the Excel file, it didn't really make sense right away, but we realized that over time, it would be very, very valuable to us.

And it has a capacity development that could be -- end up being one of the biggest banks in France. So first of all, it needs to be a very rational and mathematical decision. And then then we have to think about it through a strategic viewpoint. And of course, this also have to take into consideration the specific context of the companies that we're talking about.

So today, certain decisions are very difficult. But we also have our own assets, for example, [indiscernible], BoursoBank. And these are assets that we have that other banks do not have.

Thank you very much Francis from Societe Generale. So I want to speak about the employer parameter, and I'm surprised that you haven't spoken about the work from home because that's one of the reasons why we had a very bad score.

And then for the CEO, how are you going to be able to work at Total and at SG?

So now working from home. So I don't really know what your question is for the working from home. I can't really answer a question that you haven't really asked. Of course, in the barometer, there is an element related to work from home. And it's not -- and it is important. My -- the choice that I have made, however, is to not use that as a scapegoat because I could have just said to you, for example, I could just completely say that the barometer is not really useful in coming up with -- is not a good measure of other very specific and deeper things and say that the issues that we have with the barometer is just because of the work from home.

So I'm making the choice of being more sincere in the way that I answer you. Yes, working from home is a decision that we have made. And I've already said it in the past, it comes from the will to harmonize things within the bank. There are 6,000 people who will have twice what they had -- 2x more days of working from home than they had in the past. Yes, a lot of people, specifically those who work at the headquarters will have a reduction of working from home days, some 2 or 1 days a week, so 20%. But on the same time, there are 6,000 people in France that will have twice as much as they had in the past. So that's something that's important to keep that in mind.

And then there are 2 other reasons. 30 years now, I've been working in many different businesses. I started perhaps not at the very bottom of the ladder, but not too far from the bottom of the ladder. So occupied many different positions in front office and management in different countries. And I think I have a rather extensive experience of not only my job, but the jobs that we have within Societe Generale, right?

And so I am convinced that we need especially in an environment of change, right, of competition. And by the way, I mentioned this also an environment of technological change also. We need to work on site. We need to have the interaction because this is how we will make the good decisions, the best decisions. And it's this -- it's everything that is not bureaucracy, everything that is not technological that's a human factor basically that will make difference.

And finally, over 100,000 employees work for Societe Generale over the world. I don't have the precise figures, but thousands of employees because they decide to retire or because they decide to go work elsewhere and then thousands of hires of young people every year. And I haven't found our team. My team have not found a solution to in an efficient way the culture of our company, the history of the company -- the historical culture of the company and all the skills, the excellency, the expertise that are so important in our business to ensure the high level of performance.

And once again, in this environment of change, right, in the environment of changing our business, the economy and technology. So taking all of this in mind, we decided that we needed to make this decision. And yes, we assume this decision. And again, I mean, we move from 2 to 1. So it's still 20% of work that can be done from home. And also, as I said, 6,000 people who have seen their double -- their time of work from home double.

Now regarding the [indiscernible] fine I'll very brief. So this is an ongoing inquiry covering 2018 to 2022. We try to improve what needed to be improved. There is also a certain number of aspects that are still being looked into as to what should be applied in terms of the rules and regulations. So well, perhaps, we will see to appeal.

I don't know. We'll see. I mean we have processes, collective processes, individual processes to deal with these issues, a company of over 100,000 employees managing EUR 1.3 trillion that is all over the world.

And regard Total, I mean, this is quite standard in France and in Europe for executives of companies to be a member of one Board if the are executives, right? And why? Because this, in a way, creates value. well, I hope, right, create value for the company. I will be joining as a director, but also in the business that we work in.

I mean as a banker, it's not a bad thing to be in touch and closely in contact with other businesses and more specifically, in my case, with Societe Générale -- with Total to learn from their experience to learn from what they do. So this is a rather standard practice. There is an interest for Total. There is an interest for our company, and our Board is very happy to benefit from the experience of other executives who are directors of Societe Generale and to allow us to consider different points of view.

It makes, I believe, the discussions that we have with the Board of better quality. And if I may add one thing, the point of view of the Board who approved this choice and accurate statistics. So I looked at the current executives who have been in the position for 3 years, 70% are Board members of other companies and half of these are CEOs. So I'd say that actually over 80% of the executives do this common practice.

Okay. One or 2 last questions perhaps.

I'm Gillette [indiscernible] I represent SFOC and NGO solutions for our climate. The Board's response to our written question on methane carriers. The total emissions are increasing for the company. So the questions anyway are has Societe Generale fixed a threshold regarding emissions of LNG maritime freight.

And do you believe that the objective is in line with the 1.5-degree objective? And your sector policy, oil and gas is limiting the financing of oil fields and LNG terminals. Would it also justify stopping the financing of projects such as gas production, but not the transport of this gas?

Right. Well, perhaps I could say 2 words. about intensity, intensity regarding the overall emission, right? So we try to consider intensity. Why? Well, because in a certain number of sectors, namely the one hand. We believe that intensity is a better criteria. Why? Well, because in all these sectors, we do not try to lend less money, but we want to lend the money in a better way because if you take in criteria, the overall amount of emissions.

So you can actually reduce the amount of emissions, not because you are more virtuous, right? But because you just reduced your portfolio, right? So what we are trying to do is not reducing our activity in this sector. This is a sector that we want to continue to develop. But what we want to do is allow -- help our clients to be greener in a way, right, in their approach.

So the intensity is -- well, sorry, same portfolio, the intensity is decreasing because as we go on, practices are improving and more environmental friendly, let's say. So in 10, so we take 10 sectors for which we have a number of objectives, trajectory objectives. In most cases, intensity is the criteria that was chosen. In some sectors, we do not only have an intensity criteria, but also objectives in terms of nominal oil -- upstream oil and gas production and coal.

But for all the other sectors, it's the intensity criteria that we consider, and we believe it is the right one. Obviously, I understand the second part of your question, which is to say, well, isn't it paradoxical to say that, okay, you're trying to be conservative or rather exclude a certain number of infrastructures, LNG infrastructures, but not the carriers.

But regarding the infrastructures, well, there are 2 things to consider. When there is also a production because this also needs to be considered, there is another objective that we've set ourselves to not lend to oil and gas upstream projects. So when there is oil and gas upstream linked to the LNG infrastructure, we no longer finance them. But it's nonconventional gas for which we also have exclusion criteria. For the methane or LNG carriers, we don't have these exclusion criteria, right? So yes, in other words, what we do is that we have a global policy with the intensity criteria.

I will take One last question, perhaps.

Second row.

I'm a shareholder and a client, BursoBank client. One of your branches, which is at the end of my question, if I may this way. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the presentations, for the forecast, for the new road map, which you've been working on since 2023. I'm going to be talking about very specific points here regarding Societe Generale and their shareholders.

Now the Treezor was acquired in 2019. Is this still an asset of Societe Generale, if this company has been sold because in January -- as of January, this was the only information that we have. What are the financial -- what is the financial structure of the sale because this company has had a certain number of sanctions or penalties because of its losses.

The accounts that have been opened within Societe Generale without any financial assets being paid into these accounts because they are being paid to the Treezor Company, right? I think that these funds are being managed by thousands of people for STC. And this is not -- this does not comply with the French law 1970.

Is Societe Generale managing the EUR 1 million of these STCs in this Treezor branch, which I would like to know if you have sold or not.

Okay. I will try to answer this in a very short manner. So my answer is this. When you sell an asset, right, you sign an agreement, a protocol memorandum and then you close, right? So we signed and we announced this sale of this asset with the 15 others that I mentioned earlier on -- as I mentioned earlier on, sorry. So there is regulated activity. So there is a process and with obviously the -- let's say, the various authorities being involved.

Now we are not going to obviously mention anything about the financial structure of this operation because we are not entitled to do so. So not much that I can add regarding this. We are still owners of this company. And the rules that apply to this company in terms of they don't have the technicality to be honest. But any regulation that applies to this asset in France or anywhere else applies, right?

And we obviously abide by the rules and regulations that's -- any normal financial institution, right? So nothing special or specific to add and the operation is still ongoing.

Right. Well, thank you very much. Let's now proceed to the next part, namely the presentation and vote on resolutions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll now outline the purpose of each of the resolutions proposed by the Board of Directors. The full text of each resolution is included in the [indiscernible] pack, right. Voting on the resolutions will take place using text provided at the entrance. Please do not forget to confirm your vote. The results of the votes on the resolutions will be displayed on the screen.

Resolution is 64 corresponding to 600 million shares held by 30,000 shareholders represented out of the total shares carrying voting rights. So first resolution is the approval of the consolidated annual -- sorry, for the 2025 financial year.

And do not forget to vote your votes.

[Voting]

Vote is closed.

Approved. 99% in favor. Second resolution resolution is approval of the company accounts for 2025. Vote is open.

[Voting]

The vote is over. Resolution is approved 99.2%. Sorry, to the amount of EUR 1.61 per share, of which EUR 0.61 has already been paid as an interim dividend. The remaining EUR 1 will be paid on the 3rd of June 2026. And the voting is open.

Don't forget to validate.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. So the fourth resolution is the approval of the statutory auditor's report on regulated agreements.

Voting is open. Sorry, report does not mention any arrangements. Please confirm your votes.

[Voting]

The voting is closed. Resolution adopted 99.79%. Fifth resolution, the remuneration policy of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. This policy has remained unchanged. Voting is open. Please do not forget to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted 93.48%

[indiscernible] Sixth resolution. Remuneration policy for the Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer. [indiscernible] presented explained. Voting is open. Please do not forget to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Resolution is adopted. 73.7% votes in favor. Seventh resolution, remuneration policy for directors was presented by [indiscernible]. The voting is open. Please confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Vote is closed -- voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. 93.63 votes in favor. Eighth resolution. The approval of Increase in the special directors. Voting is open.

[Voting]

The voting is closed. Resolution adopted with 92.64% votes in favor. The ninth resolution is resolution is the approval of the information relating to the remuneration of each corporate officer presented by by [indiscernible]. The voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote. p

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 92.7% votes in favor. the 10th Resolution is the approval of the remuneration paid in year 2025 or awarded for 2025 to Mr Lorenzo Bini Smaghi. The remuneration is unchanged. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. 93% votes in favor. 11th resolution is the approval of the remuneration paid during the year 2025, in respect of 2025 to Mr. Slawomir Krupa. voting is open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. 91.44% of the votes are in favor. 12th resolution is the approval of remuneration paid during the year 2025 to Mr. Pierre Palmieri and the voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 91.96% votes in favor. And resolution #13, this is advisory opinion on remuneration paid in 2025 to regulated people. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 97.84% votes are in favor. 14th resolution is the ratification of the cooptation of the Mrs. Laura Barlow as Director and renewal of her term of office for 4 years. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution adopted. 98.06% of votes. 15th resolution, appointment of Dame Clara Furse as Director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Dame Clara Furse is appointed with 98.79% of votes. 16th resolution. Reappointment of the Mr. Mr Jérôme Contamine as director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Mr. Contamine is reappointed with 95.98% of votes. Resolution 17 reelection of Ms. Diane Côté’ as director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Madam Côté’ is reelected with 96% of votes. Resolution 18, this is the Authorization to buy back shares. This is same resolution every year, duration 18 months, 10% of share capital, maximum purchase price increased from EUR 75 to EUR 150 per share. Voting is now open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 98.39% of votes. Resolution 19 is the extraordinary part. This is the Delegation to the Board of Directors to increase the -- to maintain the preemptive subscription rights. Voting is now open.Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution adopted with 94.17% of votes. 20th Resolution. Delegation to the Board of Directors to increase share capital with the removal of pre-emptive

subscription rights with the [indiscernible] 10% share capital. Voting is now open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 95.37% of votes. Resolution 21, delegation to the Board of Directors to increase the share capital in consideration for contribution income with a limit of 10% of share capital income. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 95.17% of votes. So now Resolution 22, delegation to the Board of Directors to issue super subordinated bonds convertible into shares if the group has a CET of less than 5.125%. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution was adopted at 93.5%. 23rd resolution, authorization of capital increases reserved to employees, capped at 1.5% of share capital, discount 20% Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 98.79%. 24th resolution, delegation to the Board of Directors to make free allocation of performance shares to regulated and equivalent persons limit 1.15% of the share capital, of which 0.5% is for executive directors. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 95.66%. 25th resolution. Delegation to the Board to allocate the charge of performance to individuals [ unlisted and similar ]. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 98.29%. 26th resolution. Authorization granted to the Board of Directors to reduce the share capital by canceling shares, limit 10% of the share capital for a period of 24 months. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 98.03%. 27th resolution, amendment to the Articles of Association, Article 7 in the event of cooptation, a director whose cooptation is ratified by the Annual General Meeting shall be reelected for a term of 4 years. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.67%. 28th resolution. Amendment to the Article of Association, Article 7, the director representing employee shareholders shall have 2 alternatives of different genders instead of just one. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.59%. So article 29. Amendment to the Articles of Association, Article 13, removal of the possibility of holding the offices of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer concurrently. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.59%. 30th resolution on proxies. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 99.73%.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for voting. Thank you for your trust. Next year, on Thursday, the 13th of May here at the [indiscernible], we will see you again for the next general assembly. Please don't forget to return your tablet.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Société Générale First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. I will now hand over to Mr. Slawomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today on what I know is a busy morning. Leo and I are very pleased to present our results for the first quarter, in what is the final year of our current strategic road map. You know the volatility of the environment we operate in, it's complex to say the least. And yet, once again, continued our strong momentum in Q1 '26. Here are some of the highlights that demonstrate how we are progressing with discipline towards the targets we have set for 2026.

We delivered a strong profitability with a RoTE of 11.7% in Q1 '26, which is well above our full year target. Specifically, our revenues are slightly up by 0.3% versus Q1 '25 on a reported basis and up 4.4% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. As you know, our absolute commitment to cost reductions continues to yield results, further decreased our costs by minus 6% versus Q1 '25 and minus 2.6% at constant perimeter and exchange rates, translates into a cost-to-income ratio of 60.9% or 57.6% when linearizing IFRIC 21 taxes, which were fully paid in Q1 '26, in line with our end of year target of a cost-to-income ratio below 60%.

We maintain a low cost of risk at 25 basis points for the quarter, and it is at the low end of our guidance for the year. We achieved this through rigorous risk management and the quality of our credit portfolio is strong. Finally, we maintain a solid capital position with a CET1 ratio of 13.5% at the end of the first quarter.

These results made possible by focused execution and discipline are what we expect of ourselves in delivering on our financial targets.

Now let me hand over to Leo to review our Q1 '26 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. Moving on to Slide 6, we can see the key drivers of the revenue evolution in Q1 '26. Group posted a 0.3% increase in reported revenues versus Q1 '25. First impact that we can see on the bridge, it's driven by the impact of disposals completed in 2025 with an overall impact amounting to minus EUR 154 million in Q1 '26. It's worth remembering that the overall revenue disposal impact for '26 versus '25 is largely concentrated in Q1 '26.

As a reminder, the main disposals completed in '25 were GAF private banking activities in the U.K. and Switzerland and Guinea Conakry. On the other hand, at constant perimeter and exchange rates, group revenues are strongly up by 4.4% versus Q1 '25.

Focusing on the businesses, revenues in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance increased by 10.7% at constant perimeter and exchange rates, mainly driven by a strong momentum in net interest income, which grew by 13.8%. Revenues at Global Banking & Investor Solutions were slightly down this quarter by 0.5% at constant perimeter and exchange rates versus a very high Q1 '25 due to less conducive market conditions. Finally, revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services continued to grow by 2.9% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

As Slawomir just stated, our commitment to reducing our cost base is absolute. And this is precisely what is shown in this slide. Our costs are decreasing by 6% between Q1 '25 and Q1 '26 on a reported basis and by 2.6% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. This decrease is resulting from disposals, which explain the variation of EUR 100 million, an FX impact of minus EUR 57 million, lower transformation charges as guided by EUR 62 million and a cost decrease of EUR 55 million, reflecting the savings generated quarter after quarter.

The result, the group's operating leverage is improving, as you can see on the right-hand side of the slide. Indeed, the group cost-to-income ratio is falling by more than 4 percentage points from 65% in Q1 '25 to 6.9% in Q1 '26 or 57.6% with IFRIC 21 linearization, which will already be below or below 60% 2026 targets.

One last important point I would like to highlight on this slide is that all pillars are within their 2026 cost to income ratio target.

Moving on to cost of risk on Slide 7. Cost of risk for the quarter stands at 25 basis points. This is at the low end of our 2026 guidance range between 25 and 30 basis points, thanks to our sound risk management framework. The cost of risk this quarter mainly comprises of Stage 3 provisions, which account for EUR 348 million and declined by 20% versus Q4 to '25. In stage 1 and 2 provisions, we had a limited net allowance of EUR 7 million, which conceals our prudent approach in an uncertain and complex environment, including forward-looking overlays relating to the geopolitical crisis, which were broadly offset by some reversals.

As a result, total outstanding in Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remained stable at a high level of EUR 2.9 billion, representing around 2 years of cost of risk. Overall asset quality, on the other hand, remains very solid, as illustrated by the NPL ratio at 2.75% in Q1 '26, decreasing when compared to both last quarter and last year. And finally, the net coverage ratio remains high at 82% in Q1 '26, stable versus Q4 '25.

Now turning to Slide 8, where we can see the evolution of our strong capital position. Group CET1 ratio stands at 13.5% at the end of Q1 '26, representing a strong buffer over MDA of around 325 basis points. It is stable compared to Q4 '25 level. Going through the bridge on the slide from left to right, retained earnings contributed to an increase of 20 basis points after accruing a 50% payout. Out organic growth represents an impact of minus 2 basis points given the evolution of market parameters during the last quarter, OCI and PVA represent an impact of minus 3 basis points.

As stated in the EUD, the consolidation of Bernstein activities in the U.S. had an impact of minus 6 basis points. And finally, we have regulatory and other impacts, which represent minus 7 basis points. In addition, as you can see at the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On Slide 9, liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 334 billion in Q1 '26, with a balanced mix between cash and securities. The liquidity profile of the group remains strong with sound liquidity ratios. The LCR ratio stands at 149% this quarter, and the NSFR ratio was 117%, both well above regulatory requirements and in line with our targets. 55% of the 2026 long-term funding program has already been completed, driven by good access to liquidity in all currencies on the back of strong long-term ratings from all agencies.

The deposit base remains strong, and highly diversified. And overall, the loan-to-depo ratio stands at 76% at group level. On Slide 10, we show a summary of the P&L of the group for Q1 '26 which we will cover in more detail in the following slides.

Let's move now to the individual businesses, starting on Slide 12 with SocGen Network, Private Banking and insurance. In Q1 '26, loans outstandings were stable compared with last year. If we exclude state guaranteed loans, this is PGEs. Outstanding deposits fell by 2% versus Q1 '25, within the context of continued growth of retail savings and investment products. These off-balance sheet products contribute to the continued strong momentum in overall asset gathering. On one hand, Private Banking reached a record high of EUR 138 billion at the end of March '26, increasing by 6% versus Q1 '25.

On the other side, life insurance outstandings reached a record level of EUR 159 billion, increasing by 8% versus Q1 '25, thanks to record high net inflows.

Moving now onto BoursoBank. As we can see commercial performance remains very strong within the assets under administration gathering, which continued to grow steadily, reaching EUR 80 billion at the end of March or around EUR 9,000 per client. This represents a 15% increase versus Q1 '25, helped by the continued strong increase in deposits of 12% versus Q1 '25. Similarly, life insurance outstandings increased by 14% versus Q1 '25 with a high proportion, 48% of unit-linked products.

BoursoBank also saw record number of market orders at EUR 4 million. representing an increase of 30% compared to Q1 '25. On the lending side, total loans outstandings are up by 8% versus Q1 '25. BoursoBank serves now 8.9 million clients. This quarter, BoursoBank achieved the best NPS score in the French banking sector. Bank was also awarded the #1 position in customer relationship among French banks.

In Q1 '26, BoursoBank net income stands at EUR 92 million, well on track to reach the 2026 target of EUR 300 million. Finally, the RONE for the bank stood at 65.9%, a very good proof of the profitability of this model.

Looking now at the whole pillar on Slide 14. French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance posted a strong increase in revenues of 8.9% versus Q1 '25, which include a 12% growth in NII. At the same time, operating expenses fell by 4.6% from Q1 '25. As a result, the cost-to-income ratio stood at 59.7% in Q1 '26, which represents a substantial improvement of 8.4 percentage points since Q1 '25.

All in all, the net income stands at EUR 625 million for the quarter or 48.4% up versus Q1 '25, with the RONE at 13.7% versus 9.5% last year.

Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 15. The Global Markets consolidated another good quarter compared to a high base in Q1 '25 with a revenue decrease of 3.9% versus Q1 '25 and a slight increase of 0.5% at constant currency. Equities posted a record quarter with revenues up 5.5% versus Q1 '25. We adjust for the material depreciation of the U.S. dollars versus Q1 '25, equity revenues would have increased by 10.9% at constant currency.

This sound quarter was supported by strong activity levels in flow products. Performance in financial activities was also strong. showing increased volumes in prime brokerage. In Fixed Income and Currencies, revenues declined by 18.2% versus Q1 '25 or by 15.1% at constant currency. Same as in previous quarters, we were impacted by our large weighting in rates Europe. Lower revenues resulted from a high volatility, tight spread environment, which limited our ability to monetize flows.

Lastly, Securities Services revenues grew by 7.7% versus Q1 '25 on the back of a strong commercial momentum in all of the key markets.

Let's turn now to Slide 16 on the evolution of Financing and Advisory. Revenues declined by 8.6% versus Q1 '25 and by 3.8% at constant currency. Revenues in Global Banking & Advisory declined by 10.7% versus Q1 '25 or by 5% at constant currency. The comparative reflects a strong base effect as Q1 '25 was our best Q1 ever, and it also reflects softer activity in Investment Banking.

Having said that, the commercial momentum remains solid and origination revenues continued to increase across key sectors, including infrastructure or telecom and media.

Lastly, in Transaction Banking and Payment Services, revenues declined by 2.4% versus Q1 '25 on a reported basis, but remained stable when adjusted for the currency impact. The strong commercial activity with sustained growth in corporate deposits was offset by the negative impact of interest rates.

And now moving to Slide 17 for the overall view of GBIS. At the pillar level, revenues declined by 4.9% versus Q1 '25. In the quarter, we maintained a disciplined cost margin management and the reduction of operating expenses by minus 1.9% versus Q1 '25, resulted in a cost-to-income ratio of 62.5% in Q1 '26. At the same time, cost of risk remained low at 12 basis points in Q1 '26, almost stable versus Q1 '25.

All in all, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 773 million in Q1 '26, down by 9.7% versus Q1 '25 and resulted into a high RONE of 18.3%.

Pivot now in International Banking in Slide 18. This quarter, the business posted higher revenues up 2% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. We saw a strong commercial momentum in both Czech Republic and Romania. Overall loans were up 6% and deposits 10% compared to Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. We observed stable revenues over this period mainly due to positive one-off on fee income in Q1 '25 in both countries, while NII continued to increase.

In Africa, mixed situations in geographies led to broadly stable outstandings in both loan and deposits versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rate. Revenues on the other hand, increased by 5% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, thanks to higher level, both in NII and fees.

Moving on to financial Mobility and Financial Services in Slide 20. The division grew by 3.7% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. This is excluding [indiscernible], which was disposed in Q1 '25. Ayvens posted a revenue growth of 1.7% versus Q1 '25 at SocGen level, supported by higher margins. The strategic focus on profitability is paying off, with a strong margin at 587 basis points, up by 25 basis points compared to Q1 '25.

The normalization of results of used car sales is still ongoing, but partially offset by the lower level of depreciation adjustments. The used car sales results per car stood at EUR 470 in Q1 '26, within the target range of EUR 600 to EUR 200 for the year. When adjusted for nonrecurring items, the revenues in total decreased by 1.6% in Q1 '26.

Consumer Finance business posted a strong financial performance this quarter, with revenues up 13.9%, notably, thanks to better margins despite a challenging environment.

Now pillar level on Slide 20. Mobility delivered an increase in revenues of 2.9% in Q1 '26 versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. On the other hand, we maintain a very disciplined cost management, which can be seen in the strong decrease of cost by 5.3% in Q1 '26 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. As a result, the cost to income ratio improved significantly by 5.3 percentage points versus Q1 '25, standing at 53.7%.

Cost of rates this quarter stood at 40 basis points compared to 31 basis points in Q1 '25, which was a low base and included some write-backs. All in all, MIBS posted a net income of EUR 365 million, representing an increase of 21.6% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, reaching a RONE of 13.7% up by 2.5 percentage points.

To conclude with these quarterly results, let's move on quickly to Slide 21 with the corporate center. This quarter, the disposal of real estate property in France was booking net profit or losses from other assets. As a reminder, in Q1 '25, the accounting impact from the disposals of SGAF private banking in Switzerland and the U.K. were also booked in net profits or losses from other assets.

Let me now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. Now with regards to sustainable development, we continue to pursue the ambitions we set in the decarbonization of portfolios, and we continue to deliver solutions to our clients facing new challenges. With the global transition lagging, for instance, the need to attract to climate events presents new challenges but also new opportunities. The United Nations study projects the demand for adaptation investments to reach more than $1 trillion per year by 2030.

Our deep expertise in climate transitions, our sector knowledge and our long-standing client relationships give us a unique position to be the partner of choice for our clients adapting to climate change. For instance, we developed unique solutions with regards to water, providing financing to landmark projects around the world, notably in destination and last scale water treatment projects.

We also supported one of the largest projects in the U.S. to establish new forests on lands that were not forest before, a process called forestation. All these efforts continue to be recognized by external stakeholders with top ratings and industry awards, disciplined execution, higher efficiency, higher profitability and consistent performance quarter after quarter. These are the cornerstones on which we deliver on our targets and continue to expect this from us because this is what we expect of ourselves.

Thank you very much. We will now open the Q&A session and kindly remind everyone to limit themselves to 2 questions per person. The floor is yours.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

So 2 questions, please. The first one, I mean, it's good to see that earnings grew and you reported a good RoTE despite a weak CIB. And also the mix looks better with more sustainable, I would say, retail business in France. But I mean, can you still comment a bit on the CIB? Just to understand what worked and did not work in this quarter, especially in regards to the U.S. bank's performance. I know it's different geography and mix. But there were some good and bad volatility and how actually your business performed that environment?

And maybe you can comment on the FX effects from Q2 and how that could impact your business in the IB? And the second question is on BoursoBank. Thanks for sharing the net profit for the quarter. You are good on track for the EUR 300 million for this year, but we can't not notice that you've slowed down a bit the client acquisition. I mean the question is more to be fair on beyond '26, I understand how do you square or reconcile between big ambitions to grow clients in BursoBank and actually the profitability of this division.

Thank you, Tarik. So on the CIB, you see it in the figures. You have markets down 3.9%, which is a combination of a very strong record quarter for equities, which rode the market conditions, if you will, very well across the entire product suite and another performance of fixed income, which is due largely to the mix, right? So remember, our main business within our fixed income division is euro rates. And I'm sure you've noticed across the publications of most of our competitors that this particular business because of the moves in terms of rates, short-term rates in Europe and volatility was one which was dragging the performance down because basically the hedging conditions were much more difficult.

And so that's the heart of the answer. I'll point to another very big difference in the mix is that what we call principal commodities, which is a business which we used to run, I don't know, 6 years ago or so and which we closed back then, was a strong contributor to the fixed income mix of some of our competitors. So here, I mean nothing else than simply market conditions, which were particularly unfavorable to what is the biggest business we have in our mix.

So I just want to still point you to indeed, the RONE of that subdivision, markets and investors solutions, which is 25.4%. So that's for the market, sorry. And then in terms of the -- and you have a ForEx effect, indeed, and it's well seen, for instance, in the F&A numbers, which are roughly 10% down on a reported basis, which translates into a 5% down in -- at constant FX rates. And this is mostly explained by first of all, very high performance, a record quarter last year, the effects, as I just gave you the figures. And yes, slightly subdued market conditions in the pure IB space for obvious reasons.

But again, nothing structural or yes, particularly strong in terms of effect there. So going forward, I mean, we have a portion of our business, which is in CIB dollar-denominated. And of course, there will be impacts both ways, depending on what happens on the macro side on the FX front.

In terms of BoursoBank, I mean, yes, of course, there is a slowdown in acquisition, and this was exactly the commitment we made, which is to deliver a certain level of bottom line. And as I commented in the past, which also gives us the opportunity to challenge ourselves in terms of the acquisition costs, the acquisition strategy and so on and so forth. But indeed, in 2026, the mix that we chose to deliver is a mix where growth slows down significantly and where the profitability goes up significantly, as you can see in Q1.

Beyond '26, the BoursoBank assets and opportunity from a strategic standpoint is one of substantial growth and substantial profitable growth and this is how we will be managing this and at 10 million, 10 million clients, this is not a mature level for this asset. We believe that down the road, target in terms of number of clients on the French market for BoursoBank will be more 20% to 25%. It's going to take the amount of time it's going to take.

And the way to deliver this growth there'll be a way where we balance in a slightly different way, the growth versus the profitability. And we will be targeting basically the maximum amount of growth above a certain hurdle rate in terms of returns. And we will be discussing this in detail in September.

The next question is from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

Yes. I'd like to ask a question on Bourso again. Obviously, thank you for providing us with the net profit number this year. this quarter, and it's a lot more than expected. Can I just ask you for more details around the P&L drivers of that performance? Because I see also you call out in the slide that you had a record number of market orders at Bourso, so I guess on the retail brokerage side. So can you maybe help us understand this improvement in the net profit within Bourso? How much is revenues, cost? What are the main drivers there?

And then maybe a broader question for you, Slawomir, if I may. The European Commission just finished the consultation period on the competitiveness of the banking industry. So I just wanted to ask you for your view there. What would you like to see happening later this year from the European Commission? What do you think we need to do to improve the competitiveness of our banking industry?

So on BoursoBank, can I start by saying you're talking about an improvement in profitability, but you didn't have the starting number, right? So you don't really know that. No, I'm kidding, of course. It is improving both on a reported and underlying basis, if you will, versus what we had in the past, why for a very simple reason because of the growth, which is twofold. It's an absolute growth, right, that we experienced last year at a very high pace. It's still a net growth in the number of clients this quarter. So that is obviously a driver of profitability in itself, but also the phenomenon of maturity of the client base.

And so we -- this is something we follow very closely. Every vintage in terms of acquisition year, if you will, has an improvement curve in terms of assets that clients leave with us and products and services that they purchase from us. And so as each and every vintage matures, this is a strong driver of increased revenues for BoursoBank.

Now I'm not going to give you the detailed speed. We're going to give you more color in September about this works, but I'm going to give you some color, which is it's a bank, right? It's a real bank, providing the entire suite of products. So -- and you see some of the figures about the deposits. You know that we're talking about deposits in the range of EUR 45 billion to EUR 50 billion, EUR 48 billion, if I remember well, and assets under administration, which are much higher above EUR 80 billion.

So this is obviously a key driver, right, of profitability, like for any bank. And then, yes, BoursoBank is also a leading broker online broker, and this is originally what the Bourso Ama was, and that's also supporting the profitability as well as upgraded portfolio, which is not a focus from a business mix perspective, but there is a credit portfolio, which also yield obviously NII and so on and so forth. And as you've seen, maybe, we're building constantly the product offering, both in terms of investment products, but also packaged deals for called for instance, BoursoBank for a more affluent clients who choose to bank even more with BoursoBank.

So there are multiple ways for us to make money there like in any bank. And to your point about the cost, while yes, servicing these 9 million clients with a little bit more than 1,000 people at a very, very low cost to serve, right? And the combination of all this, right, contains capital usage, strong growth, strong growth through acquisition and maturing of the client base over time and a very full-fledged offer, creates a lot of opportunities to generate money and because of the cost to serve at a very high level of only, as you can see.

In terms of the EU commission and competitiveness of the European banking sector, I mean, this could be a very long conversation, and I know you guys are busy today. So I think you are busy, always busy, but particularly today. And so I would point to in the end, we, I think, in the banking sector seek very simple things that the overall capital requirements across all the stack across all the buffers across all the ways, capital requirements are set in Europe. This is simplified, right?

We don't need 10 lines, we could live with 3, so to speak. It's an image that I'm using here that while simplifying, we also take a hard look at overlaps because it is obvious that between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, you have overlaps sometimes conceptual on specific lines of the requirements, right, and buffers and so on and so forth. But also profoundly by the sheer virtue that the increase of RWA consumption, the Pillar 1 and all kinds of other actions that will end game model requirements and so on and so on. The inflation of the underlying RWA obviously create a mechanical overlap because the Pillar 2 is expressed in the percentage of the Pillar 1, right?

And so what we want is the simplification, right? And the recognition, simply the recognition that they are inflationary overlaps in the mechanics. It's pretty simple, straightforward. Why? Because we believe that -- and you know the macro numbers in the last 15 years that European banks, as an industry are well capitalized and that -- in the end, the resilience is insured by both the existing level of capital and by sound practices in terms of risk management and sound practices in terms of supervisory functions. So that's a big one.

And there, we all believe that there is room to at least contain the inflation and hopefully, find mechanisms. I'm not saying it's easy from a regulatory or legislative perspective to find mechanisms to ease burden from this perspective. In order not to please us, although there's nothing wrong with that, but in order to make sure that Europe has the proper resources to support its growth agenda and the investment needs and investment financing gap that was well identified over the last couple of years.

This is the heart of it, right? And then in details, we can argue this or that technical aspect. But at the heart of it, this is what we, I think, all look for.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

Just the first one, if I could ask on French retail. And just to understand a little bit sort of given the inflation data going up and rate potentially as well, shot-term rates, what are your expectations for the impact of Livret A later this year, what's your sensitivity and sort of do you think this could create more terming out of deposits and change in the deposit mix and derail or that recovery in the NII?

My second question is on capital. Just to go back to your slide on CET1 bridge. Just a quick question, first of all, sort of what the regulatory impacts are? And then also like going forward, I mean, we're going to get more clarity around FRTB. Just wanted to know your thoughts a little bit about what your expectation is? And also just to confirm a little bit like the impact of the ECB systemic buffer which will raise that capital requirements for you, so just trying to think about how that impacts your distribution?

All right. I'll take the NII, I'll start on capital, and I'll give the floor to Leo for some more detailed elements. So on NII, as we've told you in the past, the positive trend that you see is fundamentally supported from an NII perspective by indeed a lowering cost of fund and in particular, the Livret A but overall, that was the trend and it is supporting in Q1 this and the repricing of the back book in the context where volumes are, let's put it at the strategic level are fairly stable, right, a little bit up.

Private clients a little bit down. I'm talking about the loans here, a little down in SMEs and so on and so forth, but broadly stable, same for the deposits, right? So this is the trend, and this trend caters for modest to moderate increase tailwind from an NII perspective for the foreseeable future. Now indeed, if inflation spikes up, the main direct impact is the increase of the rate of the Livret A and also potentially, and you're mentioning this in your question, impact on behaviors and therefore, on volumes, in particular, in terms of interest-bearing deposits across the board.

So here, two things. One, at the current level, so slightly above 2% of inflation knowing that the formula is 50% rate, 50% inflation, we have something which could be, right? We'll see what the situation is at that time, which could be a very, very slight increase of the Livret A pricing in August, which -- well, first of all, we already have in our trajectory, so to speak, in our budgeting exercise. But it's a really minor say, 10, 15, I mean, 10 basis points potential impact today, if we were to project what we see today. So not something significant, which brings me to the fact that if the inflation spikes somewhat slowly, right?

And obviously, if it goes down afterwards because -- let's imagine the conflict is shorter and that things normalize, et cetera. So this is really depending on the macro scenario. But if inflation spikes slowly than you have, in my view, also exit there, where you don't have a linear impact on the behavior of clients as this rate goes up, if the rate goes up slowly, right?

So that's the current assumption that we have. Obviously, taking everything I said today, if you have a different scenario, you will have different outcomes, right, if things were to move more significantly or faster. That's the situation. But again, today, in our central scenario, we don't see that dynamic that you experience -- we experienced right now in terms of NII to change substantially.

In terms of the capital, I'll address 2 aspects. So the regulatory -- the business as usual, we discussed that many times in the past in Europe with the supervisors. You have impacts going both ways. We had positive ones last year. This time, it's a few basis points the other way around. It's the, let's say, business as usual in terms of the supervisory actions in Europe.

And second thing from -- I'll let Leo comment more specifically the bridge again, and maybe on the buffer on the standing buffer that you referred to, but let me put it this way, with the kind, and this was the whole purpose of the strategy with the kind of buffers that we have, well, the answer is there will be no impact on distribution because we believe that currently at 325 basis points of CET1 above requirements, we have more than ample room to manage whatever headwinds happened on that front. And so no impact on distribution. Leo, maybe just...

Sure. I mean on the reg, I think it's clear. It's just normal course of business. Some quarters, we have some releases as we saw last year. Some quarters we have a few impact -- a few basis points of impact, but nothing out of the ordinary. On the other systemically important institution buffer, as you know, in Europe, we need to take the maximum of the GSIB and the OCII buffer. The GSIB is assessed by the IFRS B and the OCII. This is where the change has been. Also previously was assessed by the national regulators. So in our case, it was ACPR, and from this year onwards, it's the B, you can override on this buffer.

The buffer has increased. For us, it's 25 basis points. So because we're in the bucket #5 as many other banks in Europe, and this will come in the form of plus 12 basis points next year in '27 and another 12.5 basis points in '28. Obviously, this was well known, and it was already included in the group's capital trajectory and therefore, it doesn't change at all our mind with regards to the target for CET1 because it was already included as Slawomir just mentioned, the potential excess capital.

And FRTB, any thoughts?

Then, it looks like our concerns about level playing field are shared more and more, a wider group of decision makers, right? And I think this topic is going clearly in the right direction, but we like to a final written confirmation, so to speak, before we take this into account directly in our thinking. But things are going in the right direction, clearly.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have two. So about the overlay, the you took in the quarter, which was offset by provision -- by releases, sorry, in Stage 1, Stage 2, how large was that? And how do you see the situation evolving? As in what oil price you're assuming, could you take some more in Q2? Any thoughts on that?

And then secondly, sorry, going back to BoursoBank, as Slawomir, you mentioned 25 million clients long-term goal. Does that imply also moving the current clients, the retail part, not all the clients, but the more retail part of your networks, on to BoursoBank? Or is that just organic growth that you envision for this asset?

Thanks for your questions. On the overlay, it's a simple answer. It's EUR 80 million. And it's within a view that today, the base case scenario we have is for the conflict to ease rather in the short term rather than medium term. And the macro impact to be contained. Yes, shaving off, say, 50, 75 basis points of GDP growth in Europe or in France, which we potentially already see happening, but something which is contained in nature in terms of depth, if you will, of the impact and something which does not trigger a monetary policy response. That's the base case scenario, right?

Then again, if this central assumption of the length of the duration of the conflict is proven wrong, well then, of course, the impact on both growth, on inflation, on supply chain and so on and so forth, and therefore, potentially on more sticky inflation and therefore, a policy response will be higher, right? And therefore, the impact on GDP would be higher as well. In which case, obviously, we will reevaluate that. We will obviously evaluate that also in Q2 going more into the details because the way we work on forward-looking phase or assumptions is among other things by looking at the in-depth analysis of this potential sector-specific impact, that's the logic of the modeling that we have there.

And so we will be updating this constantly. But within our current central scenario, we don't believe that the impact would be very significant. And one last comment here, I want to point you to the fact that in the end, we look at this is that at central piece of our risk management strategy, which is diversification, business perspective, from geographies perspective, from a industry sector perspective is the key. And we believe that from this perspective, we'll rather well have, so to speak, to go through all kinds of scenarios.

In terms of the BursoBank, I mean, my statement is a strategic one. And so it means that we're talking about -- here about what is the size of this banking asset in France at, let's say, maturity, right? So today, in that strategic long-term statement, there are no assumptions about the transfers from the SGRF, like our historical network.

The next question is from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

Just a couple of follow-ups from me, please. Firstly, on the markets revenues, I think you addressed fixed income. But if I could just touch upon equities, this is the first quarter where you had the full consolidation of Bernstein U.S. And I don't think that's in the year-on-year 11%. So it looks like your equity revenues were probably flattish, if you were to exclude that would be my guess, but happy for you to clarify that point. So perhaps you could just touch on why your year-on-year equity progression is also less than the counterparts?

And then second question, French retail, just coming back on the cost opportunity. You've obviously seen good progression on cost but can you just touch a bit more on how far you are through planned launch, closures, how the natural attrition run rate is looking in terms of voluntary redundancies? Any more color you can give there would be helpful.

Thank you. In terms of equities, the way you should think about this is that the biggest difference here, let's say, peers, but then of course, it depends if you're looking at the Americans or the others, but biggest difference is, one, obviously, the share of the U.S., right, in our business is smaller -- significantly smaller, of course, than the U.S. banks and smaller than some of our European peers. So that's one explanation factor for the trend that you described. That's one.

And second, it's the prime brokerage business, right, which is different, first of all, in size and obviously, in a quarter like the one we've just closed, that business is a big contributor at some of the other houses in terms of revenues. And so it's both in size as far as we're concerned, in particular on the cash equity prime brokerage, but the second piece is also like the equity content in the prime business that we have is also lower at our shop versus the big American peers and some of the European ones that are active in prime brokerage. So this is the heart of the explanation, indeed.

And remember also a strong, strong performance last year in the context of liberation Day and so on and so forth and all the stress that was happening that was happening around the tariff narrative back then.

In terms of the costs, it's -- hopefully, you see it in the figures, we're working hard across all the topics, right, from efficiency, in terms of the structure and nature and sheer efficiency of the spend in technology, to very granular thousands of initiatives across the entire group, aim at looking at everything that can be done better from an efficiency perspective. So I would say we're full steam on something which is not only a plan with a list of things to do but also something which changes the way we operate the firm, the way we engage basically in terms of spending.

And it is producing results, which are structural and which will continue to fuel both our performance in terms of reaching the target that we have for the year. Longer term, and again, we'll have a deeper discussion in September, but we will continue to fuel longer term. Our focus on efficiency, which remains, as you know, and you've heard me say this many times, I want to focus for the firm.

The next question is from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

I've just got 2, I think, quick numbers questions left. So BRD, the disclosure in constant currency, I just wondered how we should think about BRD contribution in reported terms for the rest of the year given the FX moves? Anything we should think about carefully there? And then second, the RWA disclosure in GBIS. I just wondered if you could give us any steer on how you expect leverage exposure in the markets business to trend either this year or over the next years? I appreciate that. Maybe that's a question for September, but just any comments you have on leverage growth -- leverage exposure growth versus growth in that business.

I'll start with the leverage exposure growth. You have -- I mean, strategically, we do plan on -- and we said this already, and there is an RWA growth on an organic basis forecasted for this year, notable amount of this is allocated to GBIS, mostly on F&A, but not only. And from a leverage ratio perspective, we don't plan to adjust our current targets and our current delivery, which as you've seen is fairly consistent around 4.4% in terms of the ratio, and that's our policy. We don't plan on changing that in any way, right, any substantial way, certainly not a strategic way.

In terms of the BRD, Chris, can you just -- I'm not sure I got the exact question. Can you repeat it, please?

There's just a big move in FX, if I think about the year-over-year consideration through the rest of this year. And obviously, the numbers you're giving in the presentation around constant currency. So I was just trying to square the disclosure between what they give in local currency and what you're getting in constant currency and trying to figure out if you already know setup head how to think about loans and deposits through the rest of this year on a reported basis.

Listen, I'll ask the team to get back to you precisely. I mean there's nothing strategic going on there, but let me ask the team to address this with your directly.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

Just on the BoursoBank numbers. It seems pretty clear that the improving profitability was driven by the falling customer acquisition costs. in the quarter. I'm just trying to quantify potentially the uplift on the revenue side, which would seem to me like you spent probably last year something like EUR 230 million to EUR 250 million on customer acquisition costs, if my estimates are right. So if that can fall say by half, that's a pretty sizable uplift, but it would get you probably on my numbers into something like a low 40s cost to income for this year. Is there an ideal cost-to-income ratio on a forward basis with which you'd run this business?

I mean, you're already delivering a pretty stellar RONE, but I'm just trying to think through the, I suppose, the uplift to the numbers in the near term versus outer year delivery.

So let me put it this way, right? I mean, without answering directly your question, I'm going to give you color and point to a few elements, which is we've been consistently saying that BoursoBank was profitable in the last few years, right, actually throughout the trajectory of the CMD. You know and you see this in acquisition numbers that in order to deliver on the commitment that we have in terms of the bottom line of EUR 300 million, which is EUR 400 million of top line and basically another EUR 200 million bottom line is a EUR 400 million roughly top line.

Well, you see more or less what the uplift is, right? And indeed, we commented on this in the past, it is a substantial input into the overall cost to income of the entire pillar, right, RPBI. So this is -- these are the numbers, right? Going forward, and again, we'll give you significantly more details in September. But the logic is not so much to the cost to income as the RONE, right? So the idea is we'll find the right balance, and we will discuss that in September, between maximizing growth because this is what this asset is. It's a powerful, extremely efficient growth asset that is building, not only delivering, but building a platform for high profitability on the French retail market.

And so we have half to from a strategic standpoint, fully lean into the potential that this asset represents for the group, but also as the maturity of the overall organization in there, so to speak, has materially increased at now 9 million clients while delivering above a certain hurdle level of RONE and that is going to be discussed in September. But that is the -- that's the minimum RONE. And then above that, everything is going to be invested in growth. But again, maybe with a better mix in terms of how we do this, right, maybe not only fees but some different channels as well.

So we are challenging ourselves in terms of the cost of acquisition in absolute terms and also in the mix of that cost of acquisition, also observing and paying attention to our competitors.

Slawomir, seems very interesting indeed and it's -- I asked the question because if you look at Q1 earnings from Bourso, it's probably in my estimation, not far off of what you would have earned is probably a bit below what you would have earned in the full year of '25, so I think it's a very interesting point for September.

Next question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

I just wanted to ask about the RWA growth, especially in the GBIS division. I guess the number of players saw quite meaningful increase here that also led to somewhat more stronger revenue growth. And I mean, I guess you could have said we put less capital to work, and that's why our revenues are maybe not as strong. but the fact that you didn't mention it, is that basically just not the driver. It's just down to your business mix and positioning? And then following on from the RWA growth, I think you guided previously for this year, you expect organic growth to take of around 25 basis points of the core Tier 1 ratio, Q1 was 7 basis points.

So do you think the growth that might be the headwind to CapEx from growth at the current stage might be somewhat lower than you consider?

So bear with me as I tried to answer your question and you tell me if I got you well. So on the first one, yes, I mean you have allocation of capital. But indeed, in Q1, the -- I mean, long story short, the 2 big impacts are the ones that you're pointing to, which is the mix impact on the fixed income side and which is not, again, driven by either way by capital, right? I mean it's a hedging conditions mostly and the nature of the commercial activity. And again, with the mix that we described without the principal commodities business, in particular, which I think is a big differentiator this quarter.

And the second thing is the FX and some, let's say, slowing down on the fee business, which is also not a intensive in GBIS. So it's exactly, I think, what you said, which is the mix and the FX and the slowing down of the noncapital intensive businesses, which explained the trend of Q1.

In terms of the organic growth for the year. I mean we have an allocation of organic RWA to organic growth, which is 2% growth this year. And that's it, right? I mean it's going to be generating revenues at a significant marginal rate of return. But obviously, right? I mean just for the sake of the reasoning, if we had other quarters where either hedging conditions or a combination of hedging conditions and fee income, noncapital-intensive fee income would be subdued because of market conditions, you would see similar patterns, right, if I got your question well.

The next question is from Jacques-Henri Gaulard of Kepler Cheuvreux.

Well done for the quarter actually despite where the stock price is doing. Two questions. The first one even if it didn't matter before you took over, Slawomir, you're now operating with minority interest, which represents about EUR 1 billion of net profit annualized. Isn't that really something that starts to bug you and which is not effectively quite a major issue in getting this investment case further?

And the second question really I'm surprised. I mean the economic data we're getting are really bad. I mean we have the Brent at $125. We have German employment going up. France is really going more or less nowhere. And isn't that in your interest considering the culture you have and what you have shown so far to really play a lower profile by the time you get to the CMD rather than going all out with targets that would be difficult to actually meet?

A question about September actually and the targets for the next plan. But I'll start with this one. Listen, I mean, don't you know us?

Yes.

So you should expect from us what we have delivered so far. Let me put it this way, yes. In terms of how we think about targets, how we think about the path of the bank, et cetera? We want to be a reliable partner, right, to our clients, our investors and to all our stakeholders, right? And that's the paramount in how we think about strategic planning. So that's for September.

And in terms of the minorities, I mean, we've had this conversation many times, in the end is taking a situation which is indeed an inheritance. How do we take it forward, right? And you know the parameters, right? And we've been clear in the past that the usage of capital and excess capital has to be rational from a return perspective and from a strategic perspective. And so consideration of both the implied prices changing the situation that you just described, plus our vision in terms of the balance in terms of concentration risk in the in the business mix of the group lead us to leave things as they are as of now, especially in the context where, so far, other uses for returning the capital to shareholders were clearly more efficient, right? So I mean, you know the conversation we've had it in the past, but is this theoretically optimal? Yes, not.

The next question is from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

Two, please. Firstly, on asset quality, with oil prices around $120 a barrel, assuming it kind of persists for some time, interested in hearing your thoughts on any direct risks for SocGen? And when it comes to Middle East exposures, previously, you had said single-digit billion exposures. Can you give more color on any risks you foresee if the current conflict persists?

And secondly, a follow-up to the French retail NII. Previously, I remember NII sensitivity of around EUR 50 million for a 25 basis point change in rates, would this still be the case? Or is there any change in your hedging policies?

Thank you. On asset quality. So again, direct impact of sustained high prices in terms of energy is twofold. On the one hand, it's slightly supportive of some of the businesses in the markets because while we don't have principal commodities, we do have our prime services business an exposure to the commodities markets. And therefore, it's a slight positive from this perspective. The implied volatility when it is within range is also, as you've seen in the past, [Audio Gap] to some extent, this quarter, [Audio Gap] in equities, in particular, is also moderately [Audio Gap] the growth rate will go down, right?

Our assumption is by 50 to 75 basis points for the Eurozone across the various countries. And so it's going to weigh a little bit on the asset quality. But again, in that sense of not that much in our view, but it is going to weigh on the volumes, right? And on the volumes in terms of business opportunities. So that's the central scenario. And then, again, you have all the colors of the -- that you can imagine, all the shades that you can imagine, depending on how long the conflict lasts, how high the prices are how big the impact on the macro side is.

But today, we don't expect at this point, something that would be particularly problematic in terms of asset quality. In terms of the Middle East, it's EUR 8 billion exposure, very diversified in terms of, I mean, geographies within the Middle East. And very importantly, it's also very high-grade exposure as far as we're concerned and often secured.

So this is something which is extremely contained, and we feel comfortable with that. In terms of the NII, the sensitivity, yes, it's so true. I mean we have an overall sensitivity for a parallel shift up of the curve, which is a positive to rates going up. So that's the heart of the matter. Although I want to highlight that as far as retail is concerned, we have a policy, which is one of maintaining a very low sensitivity for this business, right? So hedge year 1 and year 2 of the NII to a very, very low sensitivity. When I say low here, it's close to 0, right? That's the policy.

And so the purpose of this one is really to follow in a smooth way whatever the rates are doing into the philosophy of the hedging there. But overall, there is a sensitivity of positive sensitivity for a parallel shift of the curve sometimes shift up.

The next question is from Matt Clark of Mediobanca.

So 2 questions, retrading old ground, I'm afraid. Firstly, going back to the Financing & Advisory division, risk-weighted assets there have increased 9% over 2 quarters, if I've got it right. Is that the bulk of your kind of additional deployment there done? Are you happy with your capital deployed in that business? Or should we expect it to keep going up? And what kind of lag until that capital deployment reaches kind of run rate profitability and revenue-generating terms?

And then second question is on French Retail Banking net interest income. Earlier, you described a modest tailwind on NII from the, I guess, the rollover effect on the back book, but you've seen what I would think is much more than a modest tailwind over the past couple of quarters. Would you agree with that, i.e., we should impute that the growth we've seen over the last couple of quarters has been driven more by other factors rather than purely the rollover tailwind?

It's -- in terms of the F&A question, it's -- to be clear, the one of the -- if not today, the preferred spot for organic capital deployment. So you should expect us to be within the overall guidance that we have but fairly focused on allocating capital to this division. The lag is in terms of reaching the full return on these investments. It's -- I mean, it's dependent a little bit on the market conditions, right, especially on the fee generating businesses. And so here, there is some macro cyclicality to the equation, if you will. But it's fairly quick on the other hand, right?

So in normal market conditions, we should continue to generate the kind of NBI and goodwill that we are used to generate there, which, on a marginal basis, right, are driving substantial returns, net returns on a marginal basis because of the fixed cost base that we have there, right? And then obviously, the variable being post the modest investments and variable compensation. So the high operating leverage investment spot for us.

In terms of the NII, well, let me put it this way. Yes, I can't disagree with your statement, meaning 10% because if you remove the effect of this French thing, which is called Tcell, where you have regularly updates to duration metrics. It's a French peculiarity. And this quarter, it's a positive effect, which brings down the 13% that you see to something closer to 10%. So safe for that aspect, yes, 10% is characterized by more than modest or moderate. And it is mostly driven, like we said, by the repricing that we were able to make.

Remember, we were also very, very conservative in terms of mortgage origination at the wrong time, if you will, in the past, in the last 3 years, we were extremely conservative from this perspective. And so we are helped by that -- these conservative decisions from the past as well in terms of how the back book reprices. That's another one. And finally, yes, volumes which are fairly stable, but with a mix, which is slightly more favorable because we have a little bit of growth on the private side -- private client side and a little bit of a decrease on the SME side. The mix, and yes, it's better than modest or moderate we're suggesting.

The final question, sir, is from Alberto Toni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

I just had one on SRD, do you think that SRDs can be at this point in time, an opportunity to further optimize your capital or perhaps do you fear that given the private credit market conditions somehow it may be more complicated to refinance the existing position that you already have outstanding when they come to maturity?

Thank you. So two comments. First, as you know, we've talked about that in the past, we have historically not been, let's say, as active in this market as, let's say, the average of the industry, have been active. We are active. It's business as usual for a bank to do this. But we were, on average, less active than the average of the industry. And two, we mostly looked at these transactions from a risk management perspective and not from a capital management perspective, which doesn't mean that people are wrong if they do it for capital management reasons, but that's the nature of how we worked on this in the past.

Addressing your second question, yes, yes, we will continue to work on them. And now we have no concerns in terms of the capacity or pricing for a very simple reason is that, again, on the private credit side, you look at the actual defaults and the actual credit data as far as private credit is concerned, the sector is still -- I mean, for every significant and good player that is still extremely healthy, right? So actually, we don't see beyond the noise about gating and so on and so forth. We don't see today a material change in the dynamics of that market, right?

And lastly, when you do an SRD, obviously, your own track record matters. And I would want to point you to our track record in terms of net cost of risk over the last say, 3 or 4 decades overall on the books that are usually subject to SRTs, and it's a very strong track record, which obviously is a selling point when you either refinance or structure in ties.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time. I know again that you were very particularly busy today. So good luck with that. Thank you very much for your time, and talk to you soon. Bye-bye.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's Societe Generale conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here for our first fireside chat with Slawomir Krupa, CEO of Societe Generale. Slawomir, thank you for being with us.

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

I have a few questions. But first, I want to ask a question to the audience, actually, a polling question. So, what's most important for SocGen's share price performance over the coming 12 months? Is it the launch of a new buyback in the second half, beating on French retail, disposals, delivering the cost income below 60%, the key target for '26, the CMD or asset quality. A lot to choose from, let's say.

We don't have all of the above?

Of course, the CMD.

Yes. We're working on that. I don't know. No spoilers today, I think, but it depends on you.

I'll try. I'll try. We will get into some specific topics, but I need to start with a question on what's happening in the world. So Iran war pushing the oil price high, a lot of volatility, a lot of uncertainty. How is your business impacted by that?

So short term, the impact is not massive. Of course, because what happens is we have one set of things which we're certain of is that, it does impact quite profoundly, I think, sentiment across most asset classes one way or the other. And it obviously does impact the energy prices.

What we're not certain of, and frankly, we don't know anything about that is how long the war lasts. And how these two first statements I made are going to evolve over time. If the war is short-lived, so to speak, which, I guess, is still a scenario from a geopolitical fiscal standpoint. Well, then I think that it's going to be a significant blip but not much more than that, right?

If the war lasts long, you guys know that sentiment across both consumer and corporate and energy prices are about the most powerful drivers of macroeconomics, right? And from this perspective, the impact will be bigger, but it's going to happen later on. So that's how we think about this.

We navigate the volatility. We navigate the shifts we're just talking about this, like almost every day, there's a shift in the very short-term sentiment. So we're navigating this.

And from a strategic standpoint, it's back to a fundamental question of concentration risk. And in this particular case, our exposure to -- directly to Middle East is not significant. We're not disclosing the figure, but if you take some of the things we said about Middle East and Africa and some of the statements we made about the RWAs of our African subsidiaries. If you go through all these data, you'll discover that the exposure to Middle East is very small, a few billions actually, right?

So concentration risk. And from this perspective, we feel protected as far as the area is concerned. And now concentration risk is one of the key, key features of risk management, in my view, has always been.

And if I take most of the sectors that could be more heavily affected, none of them is higher than 1% of EAD, right? So we feel focused, concerned about the long-term impact on the macro of the world and some regions in particular, but also resilient.

Thank you. So if then I move on to a more strategic question. You've been CEO of SocGen for 3 years, and you started with different priorities, capital costs, you executed very quickly on the capital side, above 13%. What is your biggest strategic priority for 2026? So what's top of mind for you now aside from everything that's happening in the world?

Well, in the end, it is about increasing operating leverage for 2026, but frankly, as a long-term objective. And this is why we have the guidance that you know, which is growing revenues by 2% plus and reducing costs in absolute terms by 3%. And this continues to be the name of the game. It's somewhat obvious because it's both building intrinsic capacity to increase profitability as you grow, but also, obviously, to build in resilience as you decrease your cost base, right?

And so more specifically, delivering on all the targets of the CMD is obviously #1 priority. And in the sense, of 9.6% ROTE for 2025, excluding the exceptional items that supported our performance, we feel comfortable that we will reach the upgraded target we have for the ROTE above 10%. And it's going to stem from continued growth across the businesses of a strong capital base, right? So sound growth and cost of risk under control.

We maintain the guidance at 25 to 30 basis points. And support from lower cost of funding in French retail and let's say, the 1% to 2% underlying growth rate for most of the inventories, if you will, in the business. BoursoBank's objective to reach EUR 300 million is going to be supporting the top line in retail by roughly EUR 400 million and continued sound performance of our GBIS business, while Ayvens is going to basically finish the job and benefit from the synergies that we've been extracting from the deal. And so all these components will deliver the CMD objectives that we had set.

And if we talk about capital now, you have some excess capital. When you think about order of priorities for what to do with the excess capital, how do you think about distribution, organic growth or perhaps inorganic growth?

So as I said many times, our target ratio is 13%. So anything sustainably above is considered excess capital that needs a strategic decision to be made in terms of deployment. And so from a process standpoint, maybe first, we said at the last results publication that we would be addressing this topic of excess capital once a year at the Q2 release.

The message we wanted to convey is, one, that no need to speculate every quarter about what's going to happen, right? That's helpful, I guess.

Second message linked to the first one is that it's not a mechanical exercise, right? So we don't meet like every quarter and just see, okay, today, this is -- this is the ratio. Let's do something with excess capital. It's a strategic decision, the deployment of excess capital, and it needs some maturing, if you will. Right?

And so, I mean, the easiest way we came up with this is this idea that by the middle of the year where you also have a good understanding of what's happening in a given year in most circumstances, it's a good moment to make this decision.

And then it's a balance, theoretically the balance between the three opportunities that you mentioned, organic growth, inorganic and return to shareholders, but a very rational one, right? So growth on an organic basis, once you have the right capital base, which is the case today, is essential because it's our business, right? It's our business, it's our clients.

And when there are sound growth opportunities within an environment in terms of risks that is, let's say, normal through the cycle environment. It's a very good way to deploy capital because it builds long-term sustainability of the firm. And on a marginal basis, it's obviously, especially in some of our businesses, a very high return actually on the invested capital above 20%.

For instance, in the business like F&A, but frankly, in a lot of businesses, because the fixed cost nature of a lot of our businesses is helping with the operating leverage.

In terms of the return to shareholders, below or at book, at tangible book, it is a very compelling opportunity to deploy capital with no execution risk, which we obviously take into account comparing it to the other opportunities.

In terms of the inorganic, we're constantly looking at bolt-on acquisitions. The problem is if you want to stick to rigorous capital management and stewardship of capital, one, it needs to be meaningful from a strategic industrial perspective, so to speak. And it's not like this happens every day to come across these kinds of opportunities.

And the second point is, obviously, the price. And today, the combination of these two requirements, so to speak, doesn't yield much good file, so to speak. So that's how we think about this. But again, within the framework of, we are in the business of being stewards of this capital. This is a rational, precise fact and data-driven exercise.

Perfect. So I want to touch upon another hot topic, AI, artificial intelligence, which has taken center stage in the market. Starting from software going to different sectors, how do you see -- so let's start with the broad question. How do you see the opportunities or the threats to your current business model coming from AI?

So well, first of all, a bit of, again, process answer before going to the substance. It is a critical topic for everybody, right? So I'm stating the obvious here. But this led us a couple of years ago already to do two main things. One, to create a separate company, which we call SocGen AI, it's working only for us, but where we wanted to locate, if you will, some specific expertise and the capacity to look at the bank from the outside in. Right? Without all the, let's say, let's call them conflicts of interest of legacy approaches versus new approaches, et cetera. That's one.

And two, we have a pretty strong governance where the leadership team is involved, including myself on an operational basis to make sure that we focus the resources. It's always resources, it's always costs, et cetera, on the right topics, right? Because on AI, you can go very, very shallow and very, very wide, right? If you just opened, let's say, opened the box, right? So that's one.

On substance, I think that today, the level of reliability of the tools that you can put out or into your processes, combined with the level of regulatory, supervisory really expectations, right, in terms of the quality and documentation of your tools when it touches something that has a regulatory content, which, as you know, in our case, is virtually anything we do that such as clients or risk management.

Well, then the burden of proof, if you will, is so high today that we don't have in our industry, in my view, today, major applications at scale in production for major topics, right? We have tons of experimentation all over the bank. But I think this is something which is going to slow down real adoption, right, for a while.

Now on the flip side, and this is why we've made the decisions we've made. It is going to be a massive factor of change in our industry. Because in the end, we are a huge digital factory, right, that's processing data all day long. And that has a number of advisory and sales teams around that product, so to speak. And so if you think about this like that, ultimately, the level of disruption and opportunity in terms of the cost base efficiency, client satisfaction is going to be massive, right? And this is how we think about it.

And when you say massive, have you tried to quantify it, the SocGen AI, helping you quantify?

Today, there's no -- today, there's -- it's too early, frankly, right? Take the number one, obviously, and you guys know that. The number one most advanced opportunity is today in coding and development, right, IT development. So normally and which we've done, right, we deployed the AI platforms to our entire development staff. You can expect easily cost efficiencies, 20% plus. I'm saying easily, right? I mean, push to the boundaries. And if you look through to improvements that are going to happen in the tools themselves. And recently, there was new releases of the coding platforms that brought yet another wave of massive improvements, you could go much higher.

But then, remember also that there is a level of as always, right, of consumption of resources, computing and all kinds of other resources that are needed for AI to work, right? So I mean, 5 years from now in this space on balance, right, between the reduction in workforce that is going to be in clearly in 10%, 20% increments at least, but against the cost of operating it. I mean, it's going to be lower for sure and better quality, which is two great news.

But is this going to be minus 80%? Frankly, I don't think so.

And if I stay on this topic, and I think about how AI impact the businesses that you lend to the corporate. How do you assess that business? Because the market has been testing, especially in the software space, but also beyond software, quite a significant challenge for some business models.

I mean, so this is bread and butter work for us, obviously. So we have included specific angles to analyze this, mostly two concepts. One is what we call substitution risk. I mean, it's our own concept, but we'd simply try to monitor how a particular business can simply disappear or have some of its features, some of its products, services disappear simply because the ultimate client can do it himself or herself with some new AI tools.

And the other concept is what's the downside risk to the revenues because of the commoditization that could happen, right? So we added explicitly these two angles to our analytical framework, which forever had the technology disruption risk embedded in this, right? Because some of the big problems in credit in general, right, and 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 30 years ago, was a technology breakthrough in a particular value chain was always a risk which moved you from let's say, normal deterioration or upgrade in operating performance to, well, binary outcomes, right? So it's not different from this perspective.

But then what we also have explicitly is an assessment of a company's ability to adapt. And I think this is extremely important, right? And in my humble view, in some of the headline sentiment trading about this topic like a month ago, I think, again, in my humble view, we were losing sight a little bit of the adaptation capability.

And if you have an analogy with what happened 25 years ago with Internet and let's say the digitalization of a whole swath of the economy, well, I mean, yes, you had huge new players and some of them are very well-known magnificent companies today that emerged and became huge in the marketplace.

Well, a lot of the incumbents also adapted well and just eventually reinforce their leadership. And so I think this is what's going to happen, right? I'm not sure that all of the legacy companies across all the sectors are going to be disrupted. I think some of them will be. But if they are able to adapt, they also have the means to invest today, and they are going to be the winners in the future. So the combination of the risk but adaptation capabilities is how we look at the world today.

Thank you. And I want to open it up to the audience in one moment, but I'll just ask one more. Connected again to the AI topic, but this time on private credit. So the market is worried about private credit, BDCs in particular. And I noticed in Q4 that within F&A, you said, "Oh, we grow fund financing." So, how do you think about this business? What risks do you see? Or how perhaps you think you're senior enough that you don't see many risks? I would love your thoughts on private credit.

So first, a few, again, like cornerstone comments. It's in our business in terms of risk management, the topic of concentration risk is key. I already talked about this earlier. It obviously applies very much to this business.

So the first answer is fund financing, which, by the way, is not only private credit when I refer to this in our company, it's not only private credit, some other collateral as well. But it's roughly, it's a portion of our business with financial sponsors and our entire business with financial sponsors across all the asset classes, all the types of business, et cetera, in terms of risk is roughly EUR 20 billion, including securitization, right? And so that's the first point.

And private credit is only a portion of that, a significant portion of that. But in the spirit of what I said about concentration, it's fairly balanced, right? So that's one.

Second rule, you engage in businesses you know well. So we've been doing fund financing for 25, 30 years, right? And we've been doing private credit for 25, 30 years. So my first comment about what I -- my perception of the market is, is, there was a lot of latecomers to the party. And when you're a latecomer to a party that you don't understand well or you don't have a lot of expertise in, you are going to run into trouble, right? So that's my current view of what's going on.

Going back to the features of the business, then what you want to do is to work with prime clients, right? Same thing. You want to engage in your businesses. And it's the same when you engage in, say, or in gas industry or tech industry overall or health care industry, whatever you want to work with the clients that are strong in their market, right? So it's another feature of our business.

And this is also one of the reasons why, for instance, in the none of the instances that were in the press in the last few months. We had nothing to do with any of the topics that were in the press recently.

More specifically on the structures you referred to this. Again, concentration risk. When you look through to the collateral in our business there, we're talking about several thousands of names, right? And this is another feature. You need to have diversification on a look-through basis at the collateral level, not only at the client level, but at the collateral level. I mean, it's an essential feature of this business, because this is what makes it resilient through the cycle.

There will be cycles, right? There will be cycles in the essence of a bank's job, right, is to go through all kinds of credit cycles because we go through all kinds of macroeconomic cycles, but that diversification is absolutely key.

And then, yes, the structure itself, this collateral for us is consistent the way we finance this with an investment-grade rating for almost the entire exposure we have to the sector. And so, when you combine all the features that I just referred to, today, we obviously monitor the markets like any other, and it's a market which has some signs of overheating for sure, and some signs of turning sentiment. But from an underlying perspective, we feel our portfolio is very strong.

Thank you. I'll pause here for a moment. I want to see if the room has questions. If not, I can happily continue. Okay? It's the first fireside chat, so let's -- I leave the room to warm up. And I'll then ask you about French retail.

So if you think about 2026 and I think about the step-up in profitability, a good chunk comes from French retail, in particular, BoursoBank. So, and I know you mentioned it already earlier, EUR 300 million coming from BoursoBank. But how should we think about the delta year-on-year. And yes, if you have any comments on French Retail even more in general?

So the delta year-on-year, you should think about this as, I mean, a little less than EUR 400 million, because we clearly said that for the last 2.5 years, BoursoBank was actually profitable and able to deliver both that positive contribution, albeit small, while growing at a very high pace, plus 1.8 million, 1.9 million clients last year with that positive bottom line. But clearly, the vast majority it will come in 2026 in terms of the improvement from wherever they were to EUR 400 million of additional NBI. And it is going to be driven by two main factors in 2026, which are important actually long term, which is one, acquisition costs. Clearly, the acquisition costs in 2026 are going to be substantially trimmed down.

And two, remember, though, as it is a very high-growth business, you have a phenomenon which is significant, especially at the size that BoursoBank is right now, which is the maturing of the historical vintages, right? Because obviously, when you acquire a client, the level of AUA, so both deposits, but also the savings that are basically in the life insurance wrapper in France grow.

And so you start from, say, we have some rules, right? Just not to be completely stupid with the acquisition cost. So you do have to deposit some money if you want to get your little acquisition fee, so to speak. But it's small, right? It's a few hundred euros and the average AUA today is EUR 9,000. So you understand and say 60% of that on average are deposits, right? And so the maturity...

9,000 per customer?

Yes. And so this phenomenon of maturing of the vintages is obviously helping the top line as well. This allows to have some form of a balance, right? And this is going forward, also what we will be seeking, which is the combination of three statements, if I may say so.

One, it is a growth asset. Right? And at EUR 10 million, say, we're at EUR 8.8 billion at the end of last year, but at EUR 10 million roughly clients in France, this is -- we're not done growing. Right? It would be a mistake strategically to, let's say, stop aggressive growth at EUR 10 million. This thing needs to have by some date. I can't tell you when, but it has to be more in the 20 million or 25 million clients range to be for us to fully take advantage of a remarkable opportunity that this thing is.

Now from the size of where we are right now, this growth needs to be more contributive to the profitability of the bank. And so it's going to be a balance between the growth statement they made, but the optimization of the acquisition costs, that's the second statement.

And third, the increased cross-selling and the increased value per client within the portfolio that we have. And this will deliver both growth, but with a certain minimum rate of return in terms of ROTE, that would be contributive to the group.

Yes, we published a note on Friday actually mapping the whole French Retail banks and BoursoBank featured as having grown significantly in terms of primary relationships also since '22. But having some room to go more on cross-selling. So that's definitely the opportunity.

Absolutely. And remember, right, we monitor cannibalization, obviously, very carefully. And it's been consistently around our level of market share. So every 1 million clients we acquire in the market, 100,000 comes from us, 900,000 come from our competition. We like that.

Great. I'll move on to GBIS now. We understand, so we had some market guidance from some of your peers, especially Americans. We understand the year has started well. But, in fact, the guidance for SocGen is more conservative on the base case having revenues down. So why would that be the case? Why shouldn't we just look at peers and extrapolate something similar for SocGen? That's on global markets. And then I have another question on F&A, but maybe we'll start there.

It's the idea that, well, first of all, you always need to keep in mind the fact that from a business mix, both geographies and products, we are slightly different from the average market. The quick one is much smaller prime brokerage, smaller cash equity even if we made good progress by acquiring Bernstein. And then in terms of the FIC side, fixed income side, much more geared towards rates and frankly, euro rates than the other components, even if we do most of the sub-asset classes.

And in terms of geography, obviously, more focused on Europe, even if we have a very sound and growing business in America, it's obviously not the majority of our business.

When you take this, in many instances, this is going to have us outperform typically '22, '23, '24, part of '24, it's going to have us slightly underperformed last year, right, because of the FIC and euro rates, in particular, being less of a contributor and so on and so forth. So that's one.

Second thing, as I said very clearly, in terms of strategic intent, we are focused on profitability and stability more than on growth. And this is not just an empty statement, it actually shows in the figures, right? If you look at the last 5 years, this statement I made in 2021 when I took over CIB, which was stability and an ability to capture part of the growth opportunities that we see in the market. That's exactly what we're doing, and it obviously translates into a number of decisions, right, both from a commercial standpoint in terms of capital allocation, in terms of risk management and so on and so forth.

And the idea that we can run a very stable business around, say, these [indiscernible] so currently, the guidance is above the top of the range at 5.7%. The idea that we can run this business in a very controlled way around that mark 5.7%, 5.5%, 6% last year, more or less with a 20% ROE and the right level of diversification and our clients happy. I mean, it's something which we want to do this way, right? And so you always have some of everything I just said, infusing, if you will, the way we extract the value that's available in any market.

Right.

Hope that's clear. If you have follow-ups, I can.

Well, some more guidance in the quarter will be welcome. But I know SocGen normally doesn't give it. So okay, F&A. F&A was very strong in Q4, and I think you have quite a differentiated business model there. So can you talk us through what is differentiated for SocGen and what is the outlook for this business? Because this is where, I guess, there is quite a bit of growth for you to capture.

So what's differentiating. I think -- and you know because you know as well that it's not recent, right? I mean, I remember when I did the Investor Day for CIB in '21, I think I came out with the guidance. I was already a little conservative on the edges of, I think, 3% or 4% CAGR. And I think for the first 18 months, whatever we printed in the teens, right, in terms of growth.

And if you look at the track record in terms of risk management, it's very strong. So what's differentiating really is that most of these franchises, a little bit like the fund financing are decades old. Right? So what we do there are businesses where we've been around for clients, usually, right, for the ones who are privately owned, we work for the grandfather or the father, right, or the person running it today, right, so to speak, it's just an image right.

But we've been around for a very long time, meaning we have access to a very granular, wide set of opportunities with hundreds of clients all over the world, right? And this makes it, I was going to say easy, nothing is easy in our business, right? But it makes it easier, let's say, that probably is one of the differentiating factor to capture growth of -- in terms of high quality, in terms of risk and in terms of pricing, wherever it is, so to speak, right?

So this ability to be present in these situations all over the world for the most part is what drives this ability to grow sustainably while managing risks in a very good way. And these businesses are what are supporting clients in infrastructure, very broadly understood, right? So not only transport infrastructure, but all of the energy infrastructures obviously, all of the infrastructure is linked to renewables and all these investments all over the world and real estate, some leveraged finance, but very contained in size, and we're talking about EUR 5 billion, EUR 6 billion of exposure there and so on and so forth, right? And so the granularity of this business, and it's very, very long experience and long relationships that we have is what I think helps us perform there.

I think at some point, you made a comment that the demand for this business was so high that you were actually turning down some opportunities. Is that still the case? Is that the momentum, the need for investment is still there and you still keep looking on?

It's so strong. I mean, so going back to Iran, I mean, typically, if there is a more significant macro and long-lasting macro impact, it's going to weigh a little bit on this. But to your point, the need for some of these investments is so fundamental, right? It's so structural, but it's also protecting us from the space.

Especially in Europe, I would add.

Especially in Europe, of course. And yes, maybe one last comment. We have increased our focus in the last 2 years -- 2, 3 years on the OTD piece of this distribution. And so we increased growth origination, which obviously translates mechanically into an ability to do even more when the opportunity is there.

Clear. I'll try one last time to see if there are -- there is one, yes, questions. And if you raise your hand, I don't think they see you. Thank you.

Ann from [indiscernible] Going back to private credit and the collateral you mentioned, have you started to revalue part of the collateral? What kind of LTVs would you apply? And do you see any risk of a material repricing of some assets with what's going on with the BDCs, for example?

And second question, it's on ratings. So you mentioned it's IG rating. But is that your own rating or external ratings? Because as well in the industry, you have late comers and you can question the methodology even of the old agencies like Moody's when you have the BDCs being rated BBB-, although you have different risk profile, you can question as well whether -- so could we feel like a rating cliff and some implication as well?

So starting with the rating, it's -- no, it's internal rating, right? I mean it's about ROA, again, back to my comment about us doing this for a few decades. So that's one thing.

In terms of the valuation of the collateral, we don't see at this point. And again, going back to diversification, we also pay attention to sector diversification, right? So there's a very wide diversification from this perspective.

And today, the level of repricing of that collateral is non-significant, right? So the impact we see on this portfolio is not significant, right? And the problem credits across thousands of names is marginal, marginal, right? So I think this is what's the most important, right?

In the end, -- in the end, for the most part in the last, say, decade, right, this thing really took off. I mean, again, it's not a new business. It existed 20 years ago, right? But it took off in the last decade. For the most part, it was also consistent, especially in the U.S. with banks and mostly local ones, right, retrenching somewhat from lending structurally in the post-crisis moment and also seeing the opportunity from a capital management perspective, I guess, right, of this way of doing business.

And -- but it was somewhat normal credit, right? So I mean, because there's this whole hype today about private credit. What I mean in the end, historically, in the last 10 years, this was normal credit granting done by people who are doing a good job, right? So as the market was overheating, let's say, in the last couple of years, you had late comers who started to do things that were less sensible. Let's put it this way. And to some extent, the market reacts reasonably quickly to these excesses and is, I think, sorting it out.

Now from the BDC question perspective that you just had, I mean, in the end, could some rating action have an impact -- further impact on sentiment and maybe on clients on their clients' behavior, I mean, certainly, right? But again, that should not affect the -- in itself, the quality of the credit of the collateral, right? So again, there is going to be, let's say, a process of cleaning up the market, right? That's for sure. But today, I don't see -- I don't see this being a systemic problem in any way, shape or form.

Great. Slawomir, I want to close, like we started. The polling question said, CMD most important thing. You're not going to tell us the new ROTE target, but at least what axis or what themes should we expect?

I mean, I almost already said it, but I'll give it a different maybe spin is, when we started this journey, this particular journey, because the journey started 160 years ago, but this one, CMD in 2023, the diagnosis was that we needed to strengthen the foundations of the firm first, right, before going further in terms of growth or in terms of expansion or for that matter in terms of distribution.

I remember some people were waiting for some big distribution announcement in 2023. I mean, how absurd would that have been if we went out with some distribution targets off a low capital base. Anyway, you understand my point.

So now that we have this foundations capital, but also a better cost base, right, not perfect, but a better cost base. We can grow more meaningfully and in a controlled way, right? Of course, in terms of risk management, this is a feature of what we're doing, but also in terms of cost, basically, we're better at spending now that we've made significant efforts in terms of efficiency. So the future is increasing operating leverage by being very focused on costs because we have room to do better and while taking advantage of a better cost base and a strong capital base to grow.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Soci�t� G�n�rale conference call. Gentlemen, please go ahead.

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 EUR 27.3 billion and for group net income, which reached the EUR 6 billion mark. The 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 '25. 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 you know, 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 disposal over the past year. That's that 2% is far better than what we targeted, which was a decrease of at least 1% and 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 EUR 2 billion through 2 additional share buybacks.

As a result, the Board has decided to propose a total ordinary distribution of EUR 2.7 billion, up 54% compared to 2024, including a dividend per share of EUR 1.61 and a share buyback of EUR 1.462 billion. 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 to significantly 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. results, 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 a record high assets under management, both in life insurance and private banking activities, where Bank 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 with average client maintains a balance of around EUR 9,000 in assets under administration, remained profitable for a third year in a row, proving the strength and sustainability of its business model. BIS had a record year in terms of revenues, delivering another excellent performance with a high RONE of 16.7% under Basel IV.

The result of our strategy, Global Markets continue to deliver current and predictable revenues reaching in 2025, a 16-year high and with a high RONE above 20%. FMA increased substantially its origination volumes at a high marginal rate of return, thanks to increased capital velocity. Business also benefits from strong positioning on key sectors like energy and infrastructure.

Within International Retail, KB and BRD consistently demonstrated solid commercial performance with the successful optimization and continued digitalization of their respective distribution networks. And last, our teams at Ayven 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 Ayven to maintain a sound position while reaching its 2025 financial targets. In light of this performance, the total distribution for 2025 will amount to EUR 4.679 billion, a growth of 169% versus last year.

On ordinary distribution for 2025, we are proposing a dividend per share of EUR 1.61, of which EUR 0.61 were already paid in October 2025 through the introduction of our first interim dividend. As a result, the final dividend of EUR 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 EUR 1.462 billion, up 68% versus last year. We have already obtained the ECB approval for this program. There's 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 you know, in 2025, the group launched 2 extraordinary share buybacks for a total amount of EUR 2 billion. Please note here that in the resolutions, authorizing share buybacks is mandatory to include a maximum purchase price.

The resolution voted during the last AGM when the share was around EUR 40, maximum purchase price authorized was EUR 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. And as stated last year, in the best interest of shareholders, we are proactively managing our capital above 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 road map to date leads us to upgrade our ROTE target versus the one set at the CMD in 2023. So 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'll 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 planned acquisition costs as we target a net profit above EUR 300 million in 2026 at BoursoBank.

Global Markets revenues are expected to be above the top end of the guidance range between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion. This new range is in line with our former guidance actually as we fully consolidate Bernstein U.S. starting January 1. And of course, cost control remains a top priority for the group. We're 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 U.S. and is now between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion. It's 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 deeper dive deeper into the details of Q4 '25 performance. The group's net income stands at EUR 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 minus 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 EUR 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, which 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 Center grew by EUR 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 EUR 89 million, which more than offsets the EUR 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 accounts for EUR 435 million and remained broadly stable versus Q3 '25. In Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions, we had a limited net reversal of EUR 26 million, which conceals our prudent approach.

As a result, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remained high at EUR 2.9 billion and stable from last quarter. Asset quality remains solid, as illustrated by the NPL at 2.8% in Q4, broadly stable when compared with last year and last quarter. And finally, the net coverage ratio remained 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 NPA. The ratio also reflects the minus 27 basis point impact from new additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion, which we announced and started executing in November. Before adjusting the additional buyback, the CET1 ratio increased 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 minus 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 on the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements. On Slide 15, liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 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.

On 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 subject 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 the 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, we adjust for disposals and reached EUR 137 billion at the end of December '25. This is EUR 2 billion higher than at the end of September '25. On the other side, life insurance outstanding reached EUR 158 billion, increasing by 8% versus Q4 '24 or by EUR 5 billion versus Q3 '25, thanks to continued strong net inflows. Moving now 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 EUR 78 billion at the end of December or around EUR 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. Bank 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. And 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, represents a substantial improvement of 10 percentage points from 76.4% in 2024. All in all, net income lands at EUR 1,815 million for the year or up 80% versus 2024 with a ROE above 10% under Basel IV versus 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 EUR 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 impact.

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 the 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. You can see that GBIS recorded record revenues this year at EUR 10.4 billion, growing by 2.6% versus 2024. That combined the 1% growth in Global Markets and Investor Services with a 5% growth in Financing & Advisory.

Moreover, we managed to grow our revenue base while maintaining our strict cost discipline showed by reduction in operating expenses by minus 1% versus 2024. The results just widened and the cost of -- 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.

So all in all, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 2.9 billion in '25, up by 3.7% versus '24, which translates into a high ROE 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 7% in deposits versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

The 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. 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 staff. Ayvens revenues grew by 15% versus Q4 '24 on a reported basis, while when adjusted for depreciation and nonrecurring 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 EUR 702 compared to EUR 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 EUR 360 million, while the average UCS results for the full year '25 stand at EUR 1,075 per unit.

This is at the high end of the EUR 700 to EUR 1,100 guidance. And 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 MIBS pillar, you 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. The 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. And all this led to a net income of EUR 1.5 billion in '25, increasing by 28% after disposals and FX adjustments. This translates into a robust ROE 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 Center. In 2025, revenues increased by more than EUR 160 million, thanks to continued efficient liquidity management and improving funding conditions. Operating expenses in '25 include EUR 100 million related to the global employee share ownership program recorded in Q2 this year, which compared to only EUR 3 million in '24.

In addition, the accounting impact for the various asset disposals closed this year, mostly SG Equipment Finance, Private Banking in Switzerland and the U.K. generated a positive impact accounted in net profits or losses from other assets of around EUR 300 million. On a quarterly basis, revenues increased by more than EUR 150 million for the same reasons I just mentioned for the full year, while costs are up by around EUR 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 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 EUR 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. They have been upgraded to AAA by MSCI, making us 1 of only 2 major European banks to have received the star ESG rating. In conclusion, 2025 was a defining year for us. strong improvement in our performance, we still have a lot more work to do to realize our ambitions.

Our objectives are clear and our progress is consistent, and we remain focused on delivering on the upgraded 2026 targets, and we will give you more details on the next phase of our plan during our CMD on September 21.

Thank you very much, and let's now start the Q&A [Operator Instructions].

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

Yes. The first question I wanted to ask you is specifically on BoursoBank Bank because I think you said in the presentation that this is your third year in a row of being profitable, if I got it right Bourso. Could you give us a number because you give us the net profit target for next year -- I mean, this year, '26 of EUR 300 million, but so we have an idea of how big a swing this could be for the profit in French retail and at group level.

And 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 not running at 1x the tangible book and you have this ROTE that is upgraded for this year, but still at 10% plus.

So we need to start to have a better understanding on where it could go into the next 2 to 3 years. So 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. 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 have said minus EUR 100 million at the CMD, minus EUR 150 million of GOI to support the growth ambition. It has actually been positive.

And -- but 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 million is, if not the best ever in terms of growth, close to it, right? So basically, it's been positive.

So huge improvement over the minus EUR 150 million GOI that was initially our thinking. But obviously, at the annual level, not something that is very significant at this point. So the EUR 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 double the our reported ROE, ROE performance if we compare the current performance versus the average of 2018 to 2022, for instance. So first spoiler alert, we're not going to double in the next phase of the plan. So that's one thing. But equally, you should take comfort in what we've done so far and in the way we try to speak about ourselves.

So 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?

And 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?

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

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

A couple of questions on my side. First, on the -- on costs, just taken on the previous question. I want to go all the way to the plan, which I understand that cost will be a pillar -- cornerstone of your strategy. But looking at '27, I mean, you said '26 cost will be down, but there's still some effect of 3% effect of disposals. '27 will be a cleaner year from that aspect of scope effect. Should we still expect cost to go down in '27 versus '26?

I mean you've talked in your introductory remarks about continuing trend and relentless effort to pursue that. So can you give an indication on '27? And on capital return, I mean, you took a decision to do it once a year in -- your competitor yesterday brought up FLTB as a kind of still a question mark, similar to what you've been doing last year, actually same time.

Are you also factoring in 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 13.6 7% in Q2, keeping a small buffer, there is still a EUR 2 billion headroom of buyback. I mean you've asked for EUR 1.5 billion for the full year ordinary buyback. Is EUR 2 billion not too much to ask ECB in one go? I'll leave it there.

All right. So first of all, thank you, Tarik. First of all, I have to present the cost number for '26 is a pretty clean one. because actually, it is in reported, obviously, as everything we do, right? And everything is on a reported basis. And we will not have major differences because most of the disposals were closed early last year. And so the 3% cost reduction in 2026 is actually a pretty clean number and doesn't benefit substantially from perimeter changes. So 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? So 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 few years, yes, 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 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 of times because we were getting out of a phase, which was, as you know, completely different, one of saving capital, one of restricting distribution, et cetera, et cetera. And 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. But it is always a strategic decision, like I said in the past, between organic growth, return to shareholders or inorganic growth opportunities. And so from this perspective, we believe that this, let's say, once a year communication on this topic, 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. So 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 insight into long-term capital projections and understand our trajectory at a very deep level. So it's not about logistics of approval. It's really about this idea that we have, and 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, et cetera, the decision -- strategic decision on exceptional distribution in Q2 and so on and so forth. So that's how you should think about this.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have 2. If I look at your target for '26, so first of all, taking a step back, you beat '25 where you had already upgraded the target. And so '26 doesn't seem particularly difficult to beat, especially on the cost side. So 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 minus 3% or even more? And then secondly, F&A was quite high in the quarter. And you talked about financing activities led by infrastructure, transportation and fund financing. So is there -- 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 yes, 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 very much. Listen, on the -- whether the minus 3% target is easy or difficult, Well, I'll leave that, obviously, with everybody on the call to make their own mind, but I'm going to still share my view. I mean, we're talking about 3% absolute decrease on a reported basis, and as I said earlier, without major perimeter changes. So from where we are, I mean, it's a fairly ambitious target. Let me put it this way.

Now you do have our track record. So do we have the habit of giving you stretched targets that we're not going to meet? No, right? On the base case scenario, we do definitely intend to meet this target. If we can do better, we will. But 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, let's say, in normal circumstances. But on the cost side, I mean, normal circumstances are the rule.

How -- it's everything we've already been doing. But as we go, right, so 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, et cetera, as you may have seen in the press recently.

So it's really the continuation and the deepening of the work group-wide that we have been doing on efficiency throughout the group, right? And so this will continue to deliver not only actually in 2026, but it's 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? So that's the spirit here.

And then some technicalities, you will have lower CTA expenses because we -- for the program that we had during the CMD, we've spent most of the CTA already. So there's a marginal spend to come in 2026. So that also supports the trajectory. But fundamentally, it's all the work we're doing. And as you may have seen in the latest adjustment project of adjustment that we announced and filed with the unions in France, we are also very careful to optimize execution, right?

And 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 you know, of course, has been historically a growth engine of GBIS and with a very good risk return profile.

And 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.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

So 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, I mean, volumes are still somewhat very moderate in France and feed volumes at Ayvens also are sort of still going down. So just wondering kind of like 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?

And my second question is on Global Markets. I was just trying to understand, if you take a step back, why compared to not just U.S. peers, but like 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. So on the 2% RWA increase on an organic basis allocated to businesses. So 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. So I agree with you. The loan growth in France, especially on the retail side, should remain positive, but 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 this 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 adjusts itself to both some rate environment and margin compression trends and working a lot on the margin on striking the right contracts on making sure that we do the right thing from this perspective, that we protect the value basically from a margin perspective, and you've seen the results of that.

And the second piece is obviously risk management in a world which in these businesses was potentially challenged by some of the shifts in residual value or in all the electric vehicles topics, right? And so 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?

So 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 a good way, in an efficient and profitable way.

And finally, GBIS, starting with F&A, financing and advisory, but also within the cash management business as well can do better and will be one of the preferred spots for investments and again, providing high marginal returns. So that's the story on the organic growth. And your second question on Global Markets. It's really -- I mean, if you take a step back, it's a mix of -- if you look at the entire year, we're talking about the very good performance, which is the best revenue generation in 16 years, one.

Two, and consolidating in 2025, which was a high point. And we're now close to EUR 6 billion, as you have seen. So 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 peers in the following way, right? One, we have exited commodities a way back and commodities were a driver 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. And so 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. But today, if you take a snapshot, it's a much smaller business at our shop than some of the others. And finally, our share in the business mix in terms of the U.S. business is also smaller, obviously, than our American peers, but also our competitors more actively, but also when you compare to some of our European competitors. And so when you combine all of this, you have most of the difference of Q4.

But again, within a year, which has been good. I'm not going to go through some technical aspects. There is still some of that day 1. I mean, we were actually very dynamic in producing some of the solutions that carry negative day 1 accounting as they are originated when the origination is more dynamic stronger, right?

But this is like a couple of percentage points, let's say, of difference since we're at minus 8% and the others are basically plus 5% in Europe. The rest of the gap is almost entirely explained by business and geographical mix differences. Two last comments on this topic. one, our U.S. business has grown in dollars. Remember also that we're reporting in euros, has grown 39%, which is actually well above the market average even in the U.S.

So just showing you how we operate there successfully, but it's a 20%, 25% share of our Global Markets business. So that's one. And the last comment is going to your risk consideration and capital consumption consideration. Yes, in the last 5 years, we have dramatically turned 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 ROE of 20%. I gave it all so that you have all the facts.

The next question is from Jeremy Sigee of BNP Paribas Exane.

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?

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

Thank you. So first topic on the markets, Global Markets target. So yes, I mean, we don't want to touch this at this point. So we simply adjusted for the perimeter change, if you will. And 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. So that's what we're saying, right?

And the indication that you should, in my view, take from these statements is that we recognize and facts support this recognition that this is a target which -- target range, which has been conservative in a world which was, again, to say the least unusual if you compare the last few years versus, let's say, the previous decade.

And so today, we think that, again, 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.

The next question comes from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

So I guess a couple of questions for me. A little bit of a follow-up on the markets. I think Slawomir 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 U.S., put more balance sheet to work, expand the product offering in FICC?

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 will be a bit of a headwind versus peers and other quarters, that will be a bit of a tailwind. So that's the first question.

And 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. So just can you help us understand what the relative financial and nonfinancial advantages are of pivoting to a completely off-the-shelf solution versus the alternatives?

So on -- the first question, on markets, I think a few -- it's a very important question. Thank you. So one, yes, 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 the -- 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 U.S.

So yes, we are -- and Bernstein is the other example that you gave, of course. And so 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 both bigger over time, but also more -- even more diversified basically. But so far, it's exactly what you described. And actually, if you look at the patterns over the last few quarters and years, it were -- these were sometimes headwinds like in Q4 2025, but sometimes significant tailwinds when we were in some of the years of more significant trends and moves on the rate markets and in particular, in Europe.

So it's exactly what you described, but we are working on making it different. Just one, for instance, example is the U.S. 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 investments 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 let's have this very big program to increase very substantially the fix size, and we're going to be competing with everybody across all the sub-asset classes, et cetera, never worked, right?

So what we're doing right now is 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? And I don't believe in big moves, except when we had the opportunity to buy Bernstein, we did it. But 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 market. In terms of the AI question and internal off the shelf, et cetera. I mean 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, et cetera, is still partially unclear, right?

Today, what works is effective summary and translation of text, effective extraction of data from large pools of more or less structured data and where it really works is indeed in IT services and coding, et cetera. These are the 3 areas where this new technology is actually able to perform at scale at a high level of reliability. And I remind you that in our business, the level of expectations from supervisors on, for instance, model validation is extremely high, right?

So 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. And 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 topic, you 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, et cetera, 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.

So it's a combination of we have our own internal approach to look at the use cases and at the opportunities, et cetera. But yes, trying to use the best of the breed in terms of technology.

The next question is from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

If I could have a follow-up on Global Markets. You mentioned in answer to Jeremy's question that the EUR 5.1 billion to EUR 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 EUR 5.1 billion to EUR 5.7 billion? Or is it predicated on your base case that you're going to 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 was anything one-off in that NII result? And also how you expect the net interest margin to trend going forward into 2026?

So 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.

So 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. So 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? So on what we see as being our operational target and on the basis of which we communicate the annual targets for the group. So that's the underlying process, right? And so you should take away that it's based on this range, but it's not based on the low end of that range. It's based on the budget.

And 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. So that's that. In terms of the NII in Q4, you have a few things. There's no one-off. There's no one-off. It's the full effect of the Livret A repricing down, which happened in August. So 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.

And you have the continued process of repricing of the back book, right? And so 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.

So you have the pieces that explain the Q4 dynamic, which is indeed positive. Going forward, what we expect is basically a continuation of 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.

So 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 macro dynamics in France, which at this point in time, we forecast to be in terms of loan growth, typically a slight increase during the year.

The next question, sir, is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

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? So in other words, if you were to print greater than the EUR 5.7 billion, we could assume a return on tangible above that.

So 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 2 can be compared. So that's question number one. And 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. And then I think last year it was 50-50. Could it be 40 divi and 60 buyback next year? I guess, how do we think about calibrating that going forward?

Thank you. Thank you very much. On the first question, so once again, our targets overall, the targets that we disclose here and commit to for the year are based on what we target operationally and the process that underpins this is obviously the process of budgeting. So the 10% ROTE target, above 10% ROTE target is not based on the bottom range of the market 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. So that's how you should think about this, right? Now slightly above top of the range, it's still less than what we've done this year.

So 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. But that's how you should think about the targets are our best view of what we're going to achieve next year. So that's for the first question. And the second one, sorry, I'm blanking out.

Okay, the distribution. So 55 -- 45. So 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 a 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. So 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 calibration, I mean, 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. And the choice was made that with a 48% increase in dividend and the share where they traded, this seemed within the policy that I just referred to, the right choice.

The next question, sir, is from Pierre Chedeville of CIC Market Solutions.

Yes. 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 peers, which is targeting 10 million clients, I think, in 2027. And I was wondering if at the end of the day, your target of EUR 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. So 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 2 businesses, Protection and P&C?

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

And 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 and for the year in a row, BoursoBank remains the leading bank in France in terms of client feedback. And in terms of -- 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%.

So 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. So we're focused on this.

Now is there going to be a slowdown in expenses in 2026, in particular, yes. But that doesn't mean that there's going to be a mechanical effect, one-for-one 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, there's -- let's say, I mean, in the end, you have choices to make, right? There are a lot of products in a bank that is -- that are offered to the customers.

And you're focusing on this particular one, which has been basically stable. The premium are basically stable year-on-year. But 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?

And we're leading the market from this perspective in a very substantial and meaningful way. So this is how you should look at this, right, that we make choices, including from a commercial standpoint. across all the businesses in French Retail in particular, has nothing to do with combined ratio, which is more than comfortable.

The next question is from Matthew Clark of Mediobanca.

A couple of questions, please. Firstly, on the fee revenues in the French retail banking business. I mean, I think you've just described that the acquisition cost part of that is going to be coming down next year. But 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? And 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. So on your first question, I mean, 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 the financial fees, more than compensating a 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.

So that trend is mostly behind us for 2026. And 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. But like everything else we do in a controlled way and making sure that there's both an ability to self-finance, so to speak, this growth, but also that the returns remain meaningful. But from a rate perspective, the headwind that it was in particular, in '25 is mostly behind us.

The next question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

The first is just on the core Tier 1 ratio at year-end 2026. Can you just talk about your thinking why is now specified at above 13% versus the 13% before? And then when you come to the second quarter and assess your potential extra distribution, what factors would you take into account? And should we look at the base last year, the EUR 1 billion or EUR 2 billion as a base basically?

And then maybe just lastly, a tricky one, I guess you have the Capital Markets Day only in September, but is capital distribution another area that could be a topic?

So if I forget something, let's -- please remind me, right? So first was CET1, so the fact that we added a little sign. So don't read too much into this, right? It's just like think about above 13% as 13.00001 is above 13%, right? Just to be clear, I mean, 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 doesn't -- 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. So 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. But of course, you will get much more color on these topics and a perspective that will cover the plan the plan -- the entire plan, right?

So I think there's going to be a lot of content. But again, with the strategic thinking framework, which will remain unchanged. In terms of the one or EUR 2 billion in Q2, basically, well, we'll discuss that in Q2, right? Let me put it this way.

But what factors will you be looking at basically as the capital ratio or...

No, the factors is always the same. Okay. Thank you. No, listen, it's always the same story, right? It's always the same answer. It's -- I want to come back to this and make sure that this part is really heard. It's a strategic decision, right? This is not some everyday housekeeping, right? I have something left on my table, so I'm going to dispose of it, right, the fastest way I can.

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

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

I have 2, please. The first one is on the tax rate. What do you expect for the tax rate for next year, also taking into account the changes in French law? And secondly, on the cost of risk on the French retail, what is the outlook there, please?

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, et cetera, we are not experimenting a massive impact of some of the tax decisions in France.

The impacts are rather marginal. But on the details, I'll let Leo answer in the second. In terms of the NCR 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?

So 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. So very consistent with the market trends at a granular level, nothing specific, neither from a specific fire perspective or specific sector to report at this point. Leo, on the tax rate, some more color.

Sure. So 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 relatively lower tax rate. So they had an impact on the mix.

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. So this year, we're not going to have so many capital gains coming through the P&L, and therefore, we will not have that mix impact, if you wish. So 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. So we don't expect any big impact coming from the tax -- the potential tax changes within France for the overall tax rate. So basically, higher than 2025, but lower than 2024.

The final question, sir, is from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

I have 2. So I hear your -- hope I'm audible. So I hear your previous criteria for inorganic growth, but hypothetically speaking, should the relative valuation between SocGen and Ayvens shares turn more favorable for you, would you still be hesitant to buying out Ayvens minorities?

In other words, is the residual value risk considering the fast-evolving automotive market, a constraint in your thought process? That is the first one. And 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?

All right. So thank you. On the inorganic growth question and specifically pointing to the, let's say, theoretical opportunity of buying minority stakes in Ayvens o increase our ownership there. So 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.

So if we're talking about growth, whether organic or inorganic, the question is going to also be -- always be what is the expected marginal return and what is the risk attached to this investment, be it again organic or inorganic. So 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 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? So 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?

So I'm not saying never because you never should say never. But today, there is no strategic intent to do this because we believe that between the 0 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. So 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 U.S. overall.

So here, I'm not talking about the markets only, but the U.S. overall is roughly 27%, 30%, say, 25% to 30% of the overall GBIS business. In terms of the market, it's more or less the same, 25% to 30% U.S. from a geographical perspective. Then you can imagine a pretty significant weight of Europe and marginal and the marginal -- more marginal representation in Asia, but it's still meaningful, but smaller than the other 2 regions.

And 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. And in fixed income, you need to think about the mix as versus the average market, basically less commodities because there's none. So 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. So that's the color on fixed income and from a geographical standpoint there, heavy weighting towards Europe and Asia versus the U.S.

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, but we don't disclose further percentages. Thank you.

Mr. Krupa, there are no more questions registered at this time, sir.

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 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.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for attending this session. I'm Delphine Lee from the European Bank's team at JPMorgan. And I have the pleasure to have Leopoldo Alvear today, CFO of SocGen, with us. Thank you, Leo, for coming.

Pleasure is all mine. Thank you very much for having me over.

Great. So maybe we dive directly to capital and distribution, if you don't mind.

Okay.

So I mean, CET1 is well above your target of 13%, and you've just announced another EUR 1 billion share buyback. Now going forward, do you intend to assess the amount of buybacks only once a year with full year results? Or are you keeping a buffer as well for FRTB? And also, with a stronger organic capital generation than in the [Audio Gap] you consider structurally increasing your ordinary payout policy from 50%?

All right. Thank you. So I think we haven't changed our policy here. So we announced 3 years ago that we wanted to run the bank with 13% CET1. We've been able -- that was a target basically for 2026. By the end of 2026, we've been able to achieve the target well ahead of schedule. But we don't want to build a buffer on the buffer. In other words, the 13% already incorporates a buffer, a management buffer, which is the one that we announced back in 2023.

So we just announced the second extraordinary buyback or extraordinary distribution this Monday. We announced the first one in July. We ended the execution of that one just before the presentation of the third quarter. And we announced the second one this Monday, basically. And we aim to keep on doing the same thing going forward. In other words, every time we have excess capital, we will decide whether to invest that in organic growth, as long as we can grow the bank without changing our risk profile while generating an extra return on the one that we are making.

We can also employ that capital in inorganic acquisitions should we find anything that was appealing for our shareholders, or we will return the capital to the owners, which are the shareholders, because at the end of the day, we are only steward-shipping the capital. So depending on what's the best return, that's what we would do. And currently, share buybacks where we are trading are certainly a very good opportunity for our shareholders, especially because they entail no risk, if you wish. And again, this is always a decision that needs to be made by the Board of Directors of the bank, which is the case so far.

When we look at the distribution of capital, we like to basically separate what we have, what we call, recurrent distribution, which would be the payout that we give out every day -- every year and the excess capital distribution. Within the recurrent part, last year, we upgraded and increased our payout from the region of 40% to 50% to 50%. Why? Basically because of 2 reasons. On the one hand, we had already achieved the capital targets we were aiming to achieve. In other words, the buildup phase was already behind us. And second, we had increased our profitability. In other words, with the 50% of retained earnings, we can still cope to increase the balance sheet of the bank, which at the end of the day is what we should be aiming for. In other words, this 50% is recurrent. It's something that we can do every year despite growing our balance sheet.

Now with the remainder, what we say, it's this excess capital distribution. And what we have shared with the market, it's basically that we will do it if we have generated excess capital, which is what we're doing every quarter. Now we're generating capital around 10 basis points in average every quarter, and we will devote it to the 3 things that I mentioned, either organic, inorganic or excess distribution. So I don't think anything will change on that regard.

And on top of that, as per the recurrent policy, what we introduced also in July, was the introduction of an interim cash dividend, which has already been paid. It was announced in July, it was paid in October, and this should be going forward. In the past, as per the payout, what we have done, it's basically a 50-50% split between cash dividend and share buyback. I think as long as the cash part of the equation can grow, perhaps we could be a little bit more flexible on the 50-50 split. But again, as always, this is a Board decision. So bottom line, I don't think anything has changed. We are delivering what we promised, which is that we increased our payout ratio. We put an interim dividend on the table, and we are distributing the excess capital when we generate it.

And do you think French politics can derail your medium-term ambitions to return that capital to shareholders or...

So while there's been a lot of noise about some of the proposals that are out there within the budgeting process, at this point, I have no further visibility. So it's still under the negotiation of the different parties. We don't know when we're going to get this kind of agreement, or if there's going to be a budget. We personally believe that the chances of these extraordinary tax on buybacks are slim, but we will need to wait.

In any case, again, nothing will change from our standpoint. We will always be very disciplined as to what to do with the capital. And of course, we will always take into account what are the financials behind the potential distribution of that capital to shareholders and what makes sense from a mathematical standpoint for our shareholders. Again, my message here would be the one that I tried to deliver before. The capital is not ours, belongs to our shareholders. We will try to do what's best for them in any given circumstances.

Great. Thank you. Now moving on to profitability and costs. With expenses down minus 2% year-on-year so far this year. I mean, you've done a great job at reducing costs, but consensus is still somewhat skeptical about the target of below 60% for cost-to-income ratio in 2026. How do you intend to meet your cost-to-income target? Maybe I'll start with that.

Sure. So when we disclosed our strategic plan 2.5 years ago -- or 3 years ago, basically in September '23, we were aiming to fulfill 2 or 3 targets. So the first one, we were aiming to change the governance and the culture of the bank, and we are in the middle of doing that. We wanted to streamline the bank to basically retain what was core for the bank and dispose those activities that were not -- we didn't think were core because they were not bringing synergies, they were not in the right places, or didn't make the right profitability. We wanted to raise our capital to 13%. The fact that we did the streamlining faster and probably on the higher range of what we were expecting has brought us to the position that we have today where we're well ahead of the schedule on capital, and we have excess capital at this point. And finally, we wanted to increase the returns of the bank, and that was basically driven by the cost-to-income.

When I was looking at the bank last year before joining, my conclusion was that, of course, we're in the right banking business. So we lend and therefore, there are risks involved. When I look over the last 6 years, the cost of risk has been relatively stable if we strip out COVID in '20 and the reversal of COVID in '21. And we've been in the mid-25 -- mid-20s space on that regard. So basically, the big issue of the bank was always the cost-to-income in order to foster profitability.

Back in 2023, our cost-to-income was in the mid-70s space. And that's where we set this target, which was honestly a challenging target for us, to reach this 60% by next year. In '24, we brought down the cost-to-income below 70%. We were aiming this year to bring it down by 66%. In June, we upgraded that guidance towards below 65%, because we were doing better in both revenues and costs. Nine months of the year, we are around 64% or a little bit short or shy of 64%. So well on track to, in my opinion, deliver the target set for '25. And then we have a further step to take, which is the 60% for 2026. I mean the commitment of the management is absolute. We know that we have been able to regain some confidence from the market, and therefore, we need to deliver on all the targets that we promised. And therefore, our commitment for the 60% is absolute for next year.

How are we going to achieve it? Well, I think, obviously, it's a ratio that combines revenues and costs as asset ratio says. On the revenue side, I think we're going to keep on seeing some expansion on French retail, just like we've seen this year for the different trends that we've seen behind. We're certainly going to see an expansion in BoursoBank, because another one of the targets and guidances that we set with the market was that BoursoBank should make next year EUR 300 million of net profit. So if you gross that up by taxes, that's basically MBI, because it will be driven significantly by a reduction of the acquisition of new clients. So that's a big boost on revenues on that side. We should also probably see some expansion on financial in the part of Financial Advisory of our CIB business. So we think that revenues can grow a little bit next year. Nothing super spectacular, but the trend should continue to be positive on that regard.

And on the cost side of things, basically, what we need, we're going to see a further reduction. When we said we wanted to be in the 60% of cost-to-income, that embedded that we were going to invest EUR 1 billion in basically restructuring charges or cost to achieve, which in our case is booked in the OpEx line. So north of EUR 600 million, close to EUR 650 million of those EUR 1 billion were already invested in '24. A big chunk of the remainder will be invested in '25. That's one of the reasons cost-to-income is coming down this year, and it will go further down in '26, because we won't have those restructuring charges as part of the OpEx.

Second thing that we will see next year, it's some cost cutting still coming from the merger of our 2 brick-and-mortar retail networks, so basically Crédit du Nord and Societe Generale. We will also see, obviously, some cost cutting coming from Ayvens. So Ayvens itself launched in '23, again, a strategic plan, which lasts until next year. And they're aiming this year for a cost-to-income in the 57% space and a 52% next year. So for certain, we're going to see a reduction in costs coming from Ayvens and therefore, at a group level.

We're also putting a lot of cost discipline since this year on the FTEs. So basically, we have attrition. We have an attrition rate all over in the group and especially in France, and we are putting tight control on basically the replacement rate of that attrition. We are controlling all the cost. We have a cost control tower. And we are also having a different view on the IT expenditure. IT expenditure for bank is huge. It's a big part of the costs, and we are trying to reshuffle the IT investment towards a more productive one. We already saw last year that the total IT expenditure went down for the first time in 15 years for SocGen, or more. We've seen the same this year. We shall be seeing that in the coming years, not only in '26, but beyond '26, because it is more a multiyear program, if you wish.

So these are more or less the context or the levers that we want to push to reach that 60%. And again, as I started saying, our commitment is absolute in that regard. And honestly, I don't think it even finishes in '26, because if I look at the landscape of banks, I mean, going from mid-70s to 60% in 3 years, in my opinion, is a good achievement. But obviously, we need to move forward. We need to go further down on that cost-to-income ratio if we want to increase our profitability beyond '26. And obviously, that is our focus.

And again, it will be a mix of -- because nothing is black or white in life, it will be a mix of further increase of the revenues. And I think certainly, we will have opportunities. We will have opportunities there in French retail. We will have opportunities there in Financial Advisory. We will have opportunities in Ayvens. Once it's finished the merger, I think it will be a very profitable part of the business to put some RWAs to work.

But it will also be costs, because it's not only the cost-to-income, because cost-to-income, it's comparable to other players, but up to a point, because some other bank -- for example, I don't think a bank with the kind of mix of businesses that we have can aim to have a cost-to-income in the low 40s space, because we're a different animal, if you wish. Our CIB weighs more, which has a higher cost-to-income and so on and so forth. But when we look not only at the cost-to-income, but at costs and we look at ratios like costs on RWA, we are higher than our peers. We are probably at around 4.5% and the best-in-class in that regard is probably more in the 3.5% space. So I think there is also going to be -- I mean, the discipline on cost will go beyond certainly 2026.

And RoTE is progressing well towards 9%, 10% target in '26. Longer term, why would the profitability be structurally lower than the sectors?

So again, I don't think now -- once we've streamlined the bank, I don't think there's anything in the perimeter of the bank that would prevent us to keep on increasing our profitability. And the increase of that profitability, all things being equal, will be based on a further reduction on the cost-to-income. And again, this is an expansion of revenues, which I think after '27, some of our businesses are still in the restructuring mode, like Ayvens. It's a #1 player. So certainly could expand the revenues going forward. But also, as I mentioned, French retail. Also, I think, on the Financial Advisory world of things. And certainly on the reduction and firm cost discipline on all the cost side of things beyond '26. So again, it's a cost-to-income issue.

Yes. Okay. Great. Coming back to French retail. Net interest income has finally rebounded in Q3 with some encouraging signs on the lending volumes. Have you seen any impact from the political uncertainty? And when can we see better trends for deposits? And one of your French peers expect French retail revenues to grow more than 5% in coming years. Can SocGen deliver the same growth? And if not, why?

Okay. So going one by one on the few questions that you mentioned. Yes, I think we've seen a clear trend this year on French retail. So it's been going up through the course of the different quarters. If I look at Q3 on Q2, NII was up 3.5%. So we are already seeing the realization of those trends. I think French retail will keep on this trend going forward. So we should be seeing a slight increase in revenues going forward in the coming quarters.

This is driven basically by 3 or 4 levers. So on the one hand, it's by the stabilization of the mix of deposits. I think this has taken longer than other geographies in Europe for a number of reasons. Among them, for example, when I look at France, we don't have such a homogeneous loan-to-depo among the different banks as the one that I had in Spain, where all banks were below 90%. So here there's a little bit more of a variety of situations, and that fosters volumes and therefore, there's more competition. But now we see that the mix between term and deposits have come to an end or actually, it's perhaps slightly going down now in this quarter, but at least it's stabilized, if you wish.

And then on the other hand, the cost of those deposits, which in France are very much triggered by the regulated products, by the Libra and the so, again, are coming down, because rates are coming down. So overall, the cost of funding is coming down, and it's coming down for everybody in the sector. So I agree with you that some of the trends that some of our competitors may be sharing, we're in the same place, if you wish.

The second lever that could foster NII growth in the future or is fostering right now, it's the repricing of the fixed assets, especially the mortgages. And this is already happening, but it will take a long time, because these are relatively long duration assets, 8 to 10 years. So we will see it, but it will be slow, but it's also a positive trend, if you wish, going forward. And the third one could be volumes, okay? Volumes is very much linked to the macro and very much linked to GDP, if you wish. We are in an environment where we see that France is in the 1% space growth for this year and probably the coming years, a little bit more if we add inflation. So we could have some volume growth. Again, not something very spectacular, because it's driven by the macro basically. But all in all, these trends are certainly showing the right direction that we shall be seeing NII growing in the coming years.

As to give a specific guidance, we don't provide it, honestly, because there's too many moving parts. I mentioned, it's a number of clients. It's the mix between site and term. It's the cost of funding, which is driven by external parties. It's the volume growth, which is driven by GDP or the macro. But all in all, everything, it's in the right direction. Everything shows that everything should be growing, and therefore, we should keep on seeing an expansion not only in '25, but obviously in the years to come, because we all play with the same grounds and roads, if you wish.

And you're not seeing any impact from the political...

Sorry, you mentioned that one. Honestly, no. I mean, nothing on the asset quality side, and I don't know if that was your question, but on the asset quality side, this is much more driven longer term, especially in individuals, because it's basically driven by GDP, it's driven by unemployment rate, and it's driven by real estate prices and all those things. I mean, while mild in the case of GDP, but it's positive. So it's not impacting -- we're not seeing anything on the unemployment. We're not seeing anything on the price of real estate. On the other hand, a slow growth does have an impact on loan demand, but that was already the case before. So nothing new that we have seen.

And then finally, if you wish, because we're talking about NII, but it's worth remembering that the full revenues of this segment is slightly different from other geographies because, for example, if I compare to Spain, we have 50% of NII and 50% of fee business in France, while Spain is probably 2/3 and 1/3, which gives again stability to the revenue line and actually fees in France have a very good trajectory, because they're very much based also on the fact that a vast part of the savings of the country go off balance sheet towards the insurance wrappers or the mutual funds. Actually, we've seen that the client funds are growing through the course of all this year.

Great. And I now ask on the BoursoBank. The bank has already achieved this target of 8 million clients. Do you still expect to slow down the pace of client acquisitions to achieve the more than EUR 300 million net profit target for '26? Or I mean, how far are the profits from that level?

So again, we'll come back to our commitments as per the CMD. And in BoursoBank, we had basically 2. So one was to achieve 8 million clients by the end of '26, and the second one was to also achieve EUR 300 million in net profit. So we're committed to all our targets, and it couldn't be less in BoursoBank. On the client side of things, we've been able to reach the target well ahead of schedule. So basically, we were already at 8 million clients in July, basically. And at the end of Q3, we are at around 8.3 million clients. And we're going to keep on growing our clients during the course of '25 for certain with the same pace.

I think, honestly, this is an asset I didn't know when I joined. I was very surprised about it. I think it's an asset that has huge potential, coming from retail, which is the vast part of my previous experience. This is an asset which is growing 20% clients every year, 75% growth in '21, so a huge expansion, while they're only losing less than 4% of the clients every 12 months, which, again, in my experience in digital deposits or digital clients or digital banking, it's a rate that I haven't seen.

Especially if you take into account that by definition, when you join BoursoBank, you need to be bancarized, because that's the strategy we decided. So basically, you are joining BoursoBank, and BoursoBank is your second bank by definition, if you wish. And you're joining because you're being offered a good proposal. So the fact that 12 months down the road, you are still a client of BoursoBank, and less than 4% are leaving, that can only be driven by the fact that you're being engaged into more relationship with the bank, if you wish. And that's driven again by the fact that we have the products and we have the NPS, because we're #1 NPS in France. We basically deliver what we promised, and that's why people are retaining BoursoBank.

So that has also helped on the fact that we have achieved the amount of clients with lower expense than when we thought. When we disclosed this back in '23, we shared with the market that we thought that reaching the 8 million threshold of clients was going to cost us around EUR 150 million of negative GOI, and we've never had negative GOI since '23. So it's been cheaper, if you wish, than expected. Now for next year, we want to show the monetization of our clients, again, and share it with everybody. So we're fully committed to delivering the EUR 300 million of net income. That's actually, I just mentioned before, one of the triggers that should help us reach the 60% cost-to-income.

And what we're revisiting right now, it's our overall strategy, because we also think that it would probably be the wrong strategic decision to stop growing our client base, because, again, as I mentioned before, well, this is a bank which has north of 8 million clients and 1,100 employees. So this is a bank that, in my opinion, has the option to be a significant player in the French market, a significant disruptor in the French market.

When I look at what a retail bank needs to deliver or provide, well, if I oversimplify, there's 3 things that you need for a retail bank to work. So first, you need to be able to provide the products. And the fact that BoursoBank started as a broker a long time ago has made it possible that they offer 40, 50 products, so basically 99% of what any given client could need, if you wish to. Second, obviously, you need to provide those products competitively. So basically, you need to be able to provide good prices. The fact that you have 1,100 workforce allows you to be cheap, so it's basically competitive.

And then the third thing that you need is that the client has that need. My point being that you need to work on the vintages in the mid, long term. You cannot monetize everything in 2 years because, for example, if the amount of clients or the average of clients that we have in BoursoBank, which are obviously different from the ones that we have in the book are younger, I might have the best mortgage in place, but they need to have the need of buying a house. And it will come, but not necessarily in the first 6 months.

My point being, when I look at the NBI per client in my brick-and-mortar network. And in BoursoBank, one is significantly higher than the other, because the vintages are much longer. But we are seeing already the monetization of the current vintages. This can be seen, for example, on the assets under management per client. We have 10,000 -- we have EUR 76 billion in assets under management in BoursoBank. So that's roughly EUR 10,000 per client, which is a very sizable amount in retail overall, not even in digital. So back to your question, yes, we are aiming to reach a EUR 300 million threshold of net income next year, while we're studying opportunities on how to keep on growing our client base, because I think it's the right strategic decision going forward.

Okay. Great. Now turning to GBIS. It is on track to deliver another strong year on very supportive market conditions. That said, your equities business seemed to have underperformed peers recently. What is driving this? And also, do you have any concerns on your exposures to private credit? And how is your partnership with Brookfield going?

All right. So basically, the business is doing good. So it's been doing good all through the year. It's done good in the third quarter. GBIS, our CIB business has grown -- revenues went up 2% this quarter and costs were down 1%. So basically, the jaws are expanding rapidly. We reached RONE in the north of 17%. So again, pretty healthy. When we break down that between the 2 main businesses that we have, which are, on the one hand, the markets, and on the other hand, GLBA. Markets were slightly up versus probably record year last year. So the base was very high last year, while GLBA was 7% ahead of last year. Overall, the business, GBIS, was ahead of consensus -- slightly ahead of consensus. When we look specifically -- so we're happy with the evolution of the business, if I may, on a super conducive 2024 altogether, a record year 2024.

When we look at the markets business, again, we are up versus probably a record third quarter last year, as I mentioned, with a significant impact of day 1 accounting. So you might remember last year, in this business, we made in the full 2024, EUR 5.9 billion of revenues. And when we were guiding for '25, we guided for EUR 5.5 billion. That was based on 2 things and we disclosed this and shared this with the market last year.

The first one was that last year, we had a positive impact coming in from day 1 accounting of EUR 200 million, which we were not expecting for this year. And a significant chunk of that was in the third quarter. So that's an impact from one quarter to the other. The second one was that last year, we had very conducive conditions, market conditions, and we thought perhaps this year, we wouldn't. I think we are now well on track to have a very, very good year overall in the markets business.

This quarter, specifically, if we were to adjust for this day 1 accounting, which last year was positive. And this quarter actually is negative because we've been very active commercially. This means that we have built reserves, which has a negative impact in P&L, but it's actually good, because we will see those reserves coming through. In the future, the Global Markets business would have grown above double digit, basically with our peers, if you wish. On top of that, we have been -- and sorry, within these Global Markets, we had an evolution of equities minus 7%, which again, without the day 1 accounting, would have been high single digit, and then FIC, which was basically plus 7%, so it did well already.

On top of this revenue evolution, we were very disciplined in costs. Costs went down 5%. So the gross operating income for the business year-on-year was plus 12%. As per the equities itself, we also need to take into account the mix of our businesses. We are more leveraged towards secured financing or basically quantitative market making. And for those businesses, probably the volatility in the market has been less conducive than for prime brokerage or cash equities, which is where we have a lower market share in this regard. So the combination of all things are explaining the evolution. Honestly, in our case, we are quite happy about the evolution through the course of the year.

Okay. And...

Sorry, and you talked about private credit.

Private credit, yes.

So our exposure to private credit, it's small. We disclosed it in Q3. We have around 1.3% of EAD or 1.9% if we include securitizations. We had no exposure to any of the names that have been on the headline in the last few months. We focus this business only with the top Tier 1 players, and we never write a specific underlying based on names, but based on the overcollateralization of the underlying of the specific transaction, based always on a very granular and diversified base. So that's our focus here. I mean, in general, for the banking industry, diversification is a key to control risk, specifically in this business, which is a business in which we've been working for a long time. It's not something that we are a newcomer into a crowded place. So we've been in this space for a long time. So we're certainly not going to be rushing to get positions where we are not comfortable with the risk.

I mean we're not changing certainly our risk approach to this or any other business given now that we have excess capital. It could be easy for the bank, for example, a bank as large as us to grow rapidly, that would lead us probably to the wrong place in the future. We're not doing that. We are being quite cautious on that regard. And actually, you mentioned Brookfield. I think this is a good example. We're doing less good than we expected. We're growing slower than we expected within our Brookfield JV. Why? Because we're offering products with lower risk and therefore, lower yield and the market now has more appetite for higher yield. I think at some point, this will come back, and we are still very hopeful on this joint venture. And I think these kind of products will again have some demand in the future. But right now, the market is more focused on riskier products than the ones that we are offering on the table.

Great. Maybe I can ask on Ayvens as well. I mean, when do you expect to see some improvement in the fleet volumes? And how much can total margins improve from the current levels of 570 basis points roughly?

So Ayvens, the group decided last year to change a little bit the strategy based on the market conditions. So we pulled the brakes on the fleet production because we thought that the margins at which they were being printed were too competitive. And also, we had uncertainties as to the evolution and the residual value of electric vehicles. Honestly, now in hindsight, I was not there, so looking back from the future, I think it was the right decision to be made. We've seen since then a significant margin expansion towards the 570 that you were mentioning a minute ago, while some of our peers are below 500 basis points and reducing margins while we have increased margins.

And also, we reviewed all the residual value of our electric vehicles last year. And although we do it every quarter, we have not had to do any further appraisals or impacts. We have not taken any impact through the course of this year. Now the fleet is relatively stable. We have around 3.2 million cars. We have been revisiting our position this year with brokers in the U.K., with the fleet in Germany or in Turkey for inflation, so on and so forth. And I think we've done that job.

In the middle of that, we're in the middle of the merger of ALD and LeasePlan, which is a complex merger, because it entails a very large amount of geographies and countries, so a big number of legal entities plus the merger of different platforms plus, just not to avoid any kind of fine, becoming a bank. So it's a complex situation. We are well on track. We are aiming to have a cost-to-income of 57% this year and then 52% next year. I think next year, we should see a stability on the earning assets. And I think there's certainly an opportunity, while protecting margins, as you mentioned. And I think there's certainly an opportunity to grow that fleet from there onwards.

We're #1 player. So we have the size, increasing our fleet once we have certainty, and we have the grounds for the merger in place, and therefore, we are more agile to do it, and have more resources to do it. it's certainly somewhere where the operational leverage is very high. For every other car that we sell, we don't necessarily need more people to do it. So it's a big operational leverage on 50% of the income, which is that leasing.

On the maintenance part, there is, of course, some cost involved. But overall, the operational leverage is very high. So this is a business that next year shall be making mid-teen returns on return on tangible equity, so above the group. So it's going to be accretive for the group. So certainly, once the grounds for that growth are without putting in risk the margins, we are certainly going to be there.

Okay. Wonderful. Just conscious of time, so maybe I can stop here and checking if anyone has any questions in the audience. Don't be shy. No? Yes, Gigi.

It's Gigi Sparling from JPMorgan. You talked a little bit earlier about the share buyback proposals in the budget. But could you talk a little bit more broadly about the political landscape in France? Some of the comments which have come out of various political parties seem quite anti-bank, for example, cap on bank fees. Do you have any thoughts about what's going on behind the scenes, please?

So not much to say about behind the scenes, to be honest with you. I think, my personal view, what we're seeing in France, it's a very fragmented parliament. I mean it's something similar to what I've seen perhaps in the previous -- my country of origin, where we've had a fragmented parliament for a number of years already. The good thing is that the governance in Europe is very strong. So even if you don't have an agreement, the budgets are rolled over. So we can look at Spain. I think we haven't had a budget for the last 3 years, and I'm not sure whether we're going to have a budget anytime soon. But the previous budget is rolled over. And therefore, there's no lockdown like in the U.S.

As a matter of fact, when rolling out budget, that's even good for deficit, because you don't roll out inflation. So if that was to happen in France, for example, we could see a reduction of EUR 25 billion to EUR 30 billion in deficit. I don't know if it's going to happen or not. Obviously, you don't have the insight, but it wouldn't be the worst scenario from a deficit standpoint.

Again, what we've seen is that in fragmented parliaments, you see a lot of proposals. And again, I've seen this in my previous country of origin for a few years. The vast majority of those proposals never come through. Is this going to be the case in France? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see in that regard. But certainly, when you're talking about fees, when I look at the fees that we are charging in France compared to the fees that are being charged in the rest of Europe, in France are already lower. So there's no specific reason to push for lower fees because we are charging more than others because we are in a completely different situation in that regard.

Any other questions?

I'll ask a question.

Yes.

Stephen Kirk from Caxton. Do your cost saving targets have much baked in for benefits from AI? When you talk about your cost-to-income targets, which are already quite impressive. But it strikes me that you either believe AI is going to change the world or it's not. And if it is, I can't see why it won't have a sort of radical effect on the cost basis of banks. I mean, for instance, one of the big lawyers in London this morning has said they're going to reduce admin staff by 10%. So you're starting to see some quite dramatic announcements. Yet we haven't really heard anything from any of the banks on it.

Sure. So I think, on the targets that I set for 2026, I'm not counting on AI. So that's basically driven by other -- the rest of the layer, the levers that I tried to explain before. I think AI right now, it's very efficient on coding. I think AI is very efficient on summarizing large amounts of information or even extracting information from very different data sets, if you wish. I certainly think there is a big potential in AI for all industries. And of course, banks will be one of those. I am not so certain that, that's going to be so fast in the banking industry because, for example, I can see opportunities in AI in the models, for example, in modelization of all our relationships.

But again, all those models need to go through the supervision of regulators. And I'm sure regulators will ask for a proof. So basically, some period where you have 2 models running in parallel, where you have the former old model, if you wish, and the new AI model, and they will need some time to prove that the models are working at the same speed or better speed, if you wish, that they are reliable at the end of the day. So it's not something that you -- I mean, in my experience, certainly, I've never had a model approved with the regulator in none of my shops in a couple of quarters. It takes much longer than that.

So I do think there are theoretically vast opportunities coming out of AI. And for certain, that would impact the cost basis of banks. I think this is something that we will see down the road. We're not counting on that on '26. But of course, as you can imagine, we're trying to do a lot of things on that regard. But I think it's more something that we will see beyond 2026.

Great. I think we're running out of time. But Leo, thank you very much for your insights. Thank you, everyone, for attending this session. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to the Societe Generale Conference Call. Mr. Slawomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Leopoldo Alvear, Chief Financial Officer, will present the group's third quarter and nine months 2025 results. [Operator Instructions]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Societe Generale Conference Call. Gentlemen, please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our nine-month 2025 financial results presentation. I am pleased you could join us today.

In line with previous quarters, we are once again achieving a solid performance. The financial indicators remain above our annual financial targets. Our quarterly and nine-month revenues have grown significantly compared to last year. This is happening while we continue to demonstrate discipline with regards to RWA organic growth, strict cost control and risk management.

Over the first nine months of the year, revenues were up by 6.7% compared to last year, reaching EUR 20.5 billion at the end of September, excluding asset disposals. This highlights the strength and relevance of our commercial franchises and validates our strategic decision to be a more compact and synergistic group that focuses on its strengths.

At the same time, we remain committed to reducing our cost base in a structural and sustainable manner. Costs are down by more than 2% for the first nine months of the year, excluding asset disposals versus nine months '24. The result, very strong positive jaws and the cost-to-income ratio of 63.3% over the first nine months of the year. That's better than our 2025 target of below 65%.

In terms of credit risk, for the first nine months, the cost of risk remains in line with our guidance at 25 basis points. Asset quality remains sound as we continue to navigate the macro environment. Overall, the group net income reached EUR 4.6 billion in nine months ' 25 and a group return on tangible equity of 10.5%. That represents an increase by 3.4 percentage points versus nine months '24, and it puts us well on track to meet our 2025 target of a ROTE around 9%. These solid earnings contribute to the further strengthening of our capital position. The CET1 ratio is up by 20 basis points this quarter despite a slight increase in organic RWA. And ultimately, the CET1 ratio stands at 13.7% at the end of September 2025.

As mentioned last quarter, it takes into account the EUR 1 billion additional share buyback program, which was completed this month. This performance keeps us above the updated targets we set for 2025. It marks another step in the right direction, but our goal is to do better, and we will. Making the bank even stronger will require continued focus, perseverance and determination.

A little more than two years ago, we held our CMD. And since then, we have made tangible progress. First and foremost, the bank has a much stronger capital base. This is a cornerstone of our strategic road map to ensure greater stability amid the inherent fluctuations of the macro environment. And with a CET1 ratio of 13.7% in the Basel IV regulatory environment, the group is well above its target of 13%. This allows us to successfully pursue our dual ambitions of supporting our sustainable growth and providing additional returns to shareholders.

With regards to operational efficiency, there is certainly more to do. But to date, the group has already significantly improved its operating leverage. That is reflected in the sharp drop in the cost-to-income ratio, which improved from more than 70% on average over the five years before the CMD to 63.3% over the first nine months of 2025.

Again, this is primarily the result of our relentless and successful execution of our cost-saving initiatives across all businesses. This is also the result of the solid and improving commercial performance of our core businesses. Consequently, the group significantly increased its profitability, its ROTE, which almost doubled despite a higher denominator as it rose from 5.8% on average over the 2018-2022 period to 10.5% in nine months '25. Coupled with the implementation of share buyback programs, which have been increasing for two years, this has resulted in a substantial boost in EPS. When you compare the nine months 2025 with the average nine-month period during the five years preceding the CMD, that EPS rose almost 180%.

Increasing profitability in a sustainable manner and ensuring greater value creation for shareholders are at the heart of our commitments. In this, we are at the beginning of a rewarding journey. There is still a lot to do to get where we want to be, but real tangible results have pointed us in the right direction.

Now let me hand over to Leo, who is going to take you through our Q3 '25 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. As usual, let's now dig into the financial performance for the third quarter. The group results once again are a very solid set of results this quarter with a group net income of EUR 1.5 billion, second highest third quarter since 2006, leading to a quarterly return on tangible equity at 10.7% versus 9.6% in the same quarter last year. This excellent performance is the result of sustained strong commercial activity, which led to another solid increase in revenues, combined with continued strict cost discipline, leading to a strong positive jaw evolution.

In details, revenues were up by 3% versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals, and even by 7.7% when excluding also the circa EUR 300 million exceptional income booked in Q3 '24 to close out our past presence in Russia. At the same time, costs continue to decrease in absolute terms and are down by 1.1%, excluding asset disposals, demonstrating our ongoing strict cost discipline. This consequently translates into further improvement in operational leverage with a cost-to-income ratio of 61% in Q3 '25 versus 63.3% in Q3 '24 and below our annual target of 65%.

Regarding asset quality, the cost of risk remains contained at 26 basis points and within the lower range of our annual guidance. We've also made further progress in streamlining our business portfolio with the closing of the disposals in Guinea Conakry and in Mauritania.

Let's now move to Slide 7 to go through the revenue bridge, which you may now be familiar with. Excluding asset disposals for comparison purposes, which generated around EUR 400 million of NBI in Q3 '24, group revenues increased by 3% in Q3 '25 compared with last year. And as I just mentioned, by 7.7% if we were also to restate the exceptional income recorded last year in the Corporate Center in connection with the closeout of our Romanian exposure in Russia.

As illustrated in the chart, all businesses contributed positively to this solid increase. French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, the revenues grew by 4.5% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals. The rise is mostly driven by both NII and insurance revenues, which are up by 4.7% and 6.9%, respectively. On Global Banking and Investor Solutions, revenues increased by 1.6% compared to a very strong Q3 '24, thus consolidating a high revenue base around EUR 2.5 billion this quarter, thanks to solid performance in FICC and Financing and Advisory.

The commercial performance of the businesses within Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services are also strong with a 9.1% increase in revenues in Q3 '24, excluding asset disposals. Finally, if we include the exceptional -- exclude the exceptional income of EUR 287 million related to the exit of Russia, revenues at Corporate Center increased by EUR 175 million, mainly due to sound and improved liquidity management.

On the cost front, on Slide 8, we can see that operating expenses fell further in Q3 compared with last year, not only at group level, but also across all pillars. It perfectly illustrates how the new cost policy launched since the CMD has spread throughout the bank. Overall, on a year-on-year basis, costs are down by 1.1% this quarter, excluding disposals and by 6.2% on a reported basis. Similarly, the cost-to-income ratio declined further in the third quarter compared with last year as did the ratios for all the pillars. The group cost-to-income ratio landed at 61% in Q3, a level well below the annual target. After the first nine months of '25, the group reports a cost-to-income ratio of 63%, which makes us very confident in our ability to achieve our 2025 adjusted target for a cost-to-income ratio below 65%.

Let's now have a look at the asset quality evolution on Slide 9. The cost of risk stands at 26 basis points this quarter and 25 for the first nine months of 2025. In both cases, in the lower range of our annual guidance. This quarter's cost of risk mainly comprises Stage 3 provisions. which accounts for EUR 437 million, with notably a transfer of provisions from Stage 2 to Stage 3, which contribute to a net reversal of EUR 68 million in S1 and S2 provisions. On the later, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remain high at EUR 2.9 billion or 2x 2024's cost of risk. Asset quality remains robust as illustrated by the NPL ratio at 2.77%, stable from the last quarter. It is important to highlight that the group has not -- is not exposed to the recent U.S. defaulted companies, which made the headlines, and we have a negligible exposure to U.S. regional banks. Finally, the net coverage ratio remains high at 82% in Q3, up 1 percentage point from Q2 '25.

Let's now turn on to capital on Slide 10. Thanks to very strong earnings, which contributed with 18 basis points in Q3 after accruing 50% payout, the CET1 ratio of the group increased further to reach 13.7% at the end of September '25 versus 13.5% at the end of June, which represents a level around 340 basis points above MDA. The other moving parts have a global minimal net impact of 3 basis points and are split between, on the one hand, a positive impact of 7 basis points related to the group employee share ownership as stated in a dedicated press release published on 24 July, and on the other, limited negative impacts related to the RWA variation for around 5 basis points and some regulatory impacts for 4 basis points, which come after a positive contribution of 8 basis points on that topic in Q2 '25, while other items have a limited 1 basis point net impact this quarter. Last, as you can see at the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all the other capital ratios remain comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On Slide 11, we can see that liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 328 billion, with a relatively balanced mix between cash and securities. Regarding the liquidity profile of the group, we maintained a strong liquidity ratios with an LCR at 147% this quarter and an NSFR ratio of 117%, which in both cases, represent a buffer around EUR 90 billion. We completed the 2025 long-term funding program in Q3 on very competitive terms and have even begun the prefunding of '26 program with a new senior nonpreferred debt in U.S. dollars successfully issued in September. Access to liquidity remains very good in our currencies and the deposit base remains strong, granular and highly diversified, having grown by EUR 10 billion in the quarter. Overall, the loan-to-depo ratio stands at 75% at group level.

In Slide 12, we show a summary of the P&L for the group for Q3, which we will cover in more detail in the following slides.

So let's move now to business performances on Slide 14, starting as usual with SocGen Network, Private Banking and Insurance. In Q3 '25, loans outstanding increased by 1% compared to last year, with both retail and corporate loans growing, excluding for the later state guaranteed loans, PGEs. Home loan production continues to increase strongly this quarter by 74% versus Q3 '24. Volumes of deposits are down by 5% versus last year or by 2% versus Q2 '25 in the context of continued strong growth of retail savings and investment products, which are off-balance sheet products and contribute to the continued strong momentum in asset gathering.

As we can see on one side, AUMs in private banking increased by 7% versus Q3 '24 if we adjust for disposals and reached EUR 135 billion at the end of September, EUR 3 billion more than at the end of June '25. On the other side, life insurance outstandings reached EUR 153 billion, increasing by 6% versus Q3 '24 and representing EUR 3 more billion than in June '25, thanks to continued strong net inflows.

Moving on to BoursoBank. As highlighted last quarter, thanks to a sustained growth pace of acquisition over the last two years, BoursoBank has reached its CMD target of 8 million clients, nearly 18 months ahead of its initial objective. In Q3, BoursoBank gained nearly 400,000 new clients. Since Q3 '24, it represents an increase of 1.5 million clients or 22% with a consistently low churn rate below 4%.

Assets under administration continued to grow steadily. They reached EUR 76 billion at the end of September or circa EUR 10,000 per client, which represents an 18% increase versus Q3 '24, thanks in particular to the continued strong increase in deposits of 17% versus Q3 '24. Similarly, life insurance outstanding increased by 11% versus Q3 '24, with net inflows 4x higher than in Q3 '24, while market orders grew by 38% compared to last year. On the lending side, total loans outstanding are 8% up versus Q3 '24.

Looking at the whole pillar on Slide 16. We can see that net income lands at EUR 439 million for this third quarter or 18% higher than in Q3 '24, with a RONE close to 10% under Basel IV requirements, which compares to an 8.2% last year under the previous Basel III standards. This is driven by, on the one hand, a solid increase in revenues by 4.5% versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals, largely linked to a 4.7% increase in NII despite the absence this quarter of positive base effect impact related to short-term hedges. And on the other hand, cost improvement. This is a decrease of minus 0.3% of operating expenses compared to Q3 '24, excluding disposals. Both movements lead to a cost-to-income ratio of 65.7% in Q3 versus 70.1% in Q3 '24. On the asset side, cost of risk lands at 33 basis points in Q3 '25.

Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 17. Starting with Global Markets. Market activities continue to generate a high level of revenues, above EUR 1.4 billion during this quarter. They are up by 0.5% in Q3 '25 versus an already very strong Q3 '24 despite unfavorable FX impact and one-day accounting base effects. Note that restated from this day one P&L impact, Global Markets revenues would have grown by double digit. The increase in reported revenues was mostly driven this quarter by our FICC platform, whose performance improved by 12% versus last year, thanks in particular to strong momentum in derivatives and financing with growing activity in FX and rates.

With regards to equity activities, revenues remained high at EUR 824 million in Q3 '25. Year-on-year comparisons show a 7% decrease due to both a very strong basis for comparison, where Q3 '24 was the highest third quarter in 16 years in this activity and the aforementioned FX and day one accounting impacts. In Securities Services, revenues eased by minus 1% versus Q3 '24 as a result of a decrease in interest rate despite steady commercial momentum in the quarter in SGSS.

Let's turn now to Slide 18 to comment on the evolution of our financing and advisory platform. which performed very well in Q3 '25 with a 4.2% increase in revenues versus the same period last year. This strong outcome is driven by a solid growth in Global Banking and Advisory by nearly 7% versus Q3 '24, thanks in particular to both solid performance of financing activities overall with continued strong momentum in terms of origination and distribution. In addition, our DCM and ECM platforms benefited from solid dynamics in the market. With regards to transaction banking services, revenues slightly declined by 2.5% in Q3 versus Q3 '24 due to lower rates, which masked the good overall commercial performance illustrated by the continued increase in deposits.

So overall, GBIS delivers another solid performance as illustrated on Slide 19, with revenues reaching EUR 2.5 billion in Q3 '25, up 1.6% versus a very high Q3 '24, making this quarter the best Q3 for GBIS since 2009. We continue to drive costs down with expenses decreasing by 0.8% in the quarter, and the cost-to-income ratio declined 1.5 percentage points from 61.5% in Q3 '24 to 60% in Q3 '25, while the cost of risk remained moderate at 13 basis points this quarter. As a result, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 734 million in Q3 '25, translating into a high RONE of 17.4% under Basel IV.

Moving on to the International Retail Banking on Slide 20. We can see that both Europe and Africa posted good performance this quarter, with revenues up by 4.6% compared to Q3 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. In Europe, loans are up by 6% and deposits by 2% versus Q3 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. While revenues increased by 4% versus the same quarter last year at constant exchange rate and perimeter, supported by higher net interest income in both KB and BRD. In Africa, loans are resilient with a slight decrease of 1% versus last year at constant exchange rate and perimeter, while deposits continue to increase by 4% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24. When we look at revenues, they increased strongly this quarter by 5% at constant exchange rate and perimeter, largely driven by a solid level of fees across most regions.

Turning now to Mobility Financial Services. The combined business posted another strong increase in revenues this quarter by 12.4% at constant exchange rate and perimeter. Ayvens revenues contribution to SocGen is increasing by 13.2% versus Q3 '24, benefiting from positive base effect related to depreciation adjustments and nonrecurring items. When adjusted for those inspects, revenues are stable with two opposite trends largely anticipated. First, a continued increase in margin, which reaches 593 basis points in Q3 versus 521 in Q3 '24, which is basically driven by the strategy implemented that comprises this quarter some nonrecurrent elements. On the contrary, as expected and guided, an ongoing normalization of used car sales results per unit at EUR 1,100 this quarter versus EUR 1,420 in Q3 '24. Together with a tight monitoring of costs, the cost to income improved strongly this quarter to 53%, excluding UCS and nonrecurring items versus 63% in Q3 '24. Finally, regarding Consumer Finance, business delivered a good quarter with revenues up by 6.6% versus Q3 '24, still benefiting from margin expansion, mainly in France.

So in terms of the overall financial performance of the pillar on Slide 22, we see very strong positive jaws again this quarter, thanks to a solid increase in revenues of 8.7% on one hand, while on the other, a decrease in cost by 3.9% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24, both at constant perimeter and exchange rate. And this is notably driven by mobility and Financial Services. The cost of risk is also down at 37 basis points in the quarter versus 48 in Q3 '24. Overall, the whole pillar posted a net income of EUR 393 million, up 19.2% versus Q3 '24, adjusting for the perimeter and exchange rates. Finally, the RONE improved by 1.7 percentage points versus last year and reached 14.9% under Basel IV in Q3 '25.

To conclude with the quarterly results, let's move now to Slide 23 with Corporate Center. Year-on-year revenues are down by circa EUR 100 million due to the base effect linked to the circa EUR 300 million of exceptional income accounted in Q3 '24 related to the closing of the remaining exposure that we had in Russia. Excluding this one-off, revenues continued to improve this quarter, thanks to continued efficient liquidity management. In addition, the closing of the sale of our subsidiary in Guinea Conakry generated a positive impact accounted in net profit or losses from other assets.

Let me now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. As you can see, despite the shifting landscape, we continue to deliver on the commitments the group has made in regards to our sustainability road map. We are progressing well towards our targets in terms of financing the energy transition, and we continue to demonstrate our pioneering spirit with bold and innovative transactions. We are also driving sustainable finance through partnerships, deepening our collaboration with the IFC, for instance, and developing new collaborations with other multilateral organizations.

In conclusion, our objectives are clear and our progress is measurable. We continuously assess both in order to keep our momentum going so we can achieve our goals. We remain firmly on track, and our determination is unwavering, and we are fully committed to ensuring success.

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.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

Two on capital, please. I mean, congrats first on this strong print again. But my question, and I think one missing part, I would say, in this print to me at least, was potentially managing more your excess capital through distribution and buybacks. So I think I have a very simple question here. Did you -- and can you share with us if you actually asked for it and didn't get the answer in time? Because you repeated many, many times that there's no point to build buffers on buffers and now it's literally you're talking 2.5 years of organic generation of buffer. So can you share with us more color.

And then I'm sure you've seen the news and share price action that the [ Barnier ] has managed to pass an amendment in the parliament on this discussion on budget on the income side, taxing from 8% to 33%, and most importantly, increasing the scope to share price or acquisition price rather than the nominal value. So, in this context, I know it's early, so -- but just maybe you can share your thoughts. In this context, would you see better value in using excess capital for buyback minorities of Ayvens or maybe you can accelerate distribution before these things go through?

Thank you, Tarik. So on the buyback, let's try and be very, very clear. So one, you know the framework. The framework is indeed, one, no intention to accumulate excess capital. Two, when considering excess capital, considering organic growth at high marginal rates of return, inorganic growth if and when it makes sense with a very conservative approach to execution risk and expected returns and return to shareholders preferably right now because of the math, still favorable to the buyback in the form of buybacks. So that's the framework. I'm repeating it so that it's very clear.

Second statement, we have been having this conversation for a while, so to speak. And I think we have been strategically predictable from this perspective. And so you should expect us to remain predictable from this perspective. Now equally at the bank conference recently, I said that buybacks and these decisions because of various factors are not necessarily quarterly processes. And finally, I would point to the fact that this quarter, we are announcing a buyback at the Ayvens level, right? This is the -- these are the parameters of what I can say.

Now in terms of the amendment that you're referring to, so for us, our understanding at this point is that it's not intended to be on the value, but indeed on the nominal. But more importantly, I would not want to comment on tax too much, especially on the race that we do observe these past few weeks and days even in the parliamentary debate. That's not my job, not my role. Obviously, if and when things are stabilized and become law, we will adjust our thinking, and you should expect us to be the most rational players out there in terms of dealing with whatever the framework is. But again, right, I would not be at this point, focusing too much on the race that you can see in terms of proposals that you can see like literally every night in France today.

Let's take a step back. France has a history of being overall, overall the rational jurisdiction where, as you can see, even this year, companies are able to go through the instability, go through some of the news flow and continue to do their job, and I expect the jurisdiction to overall remain similar in the years to come.

The next question is from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

I wanted to ask you a first question on the cost of risk in French Retail Banking. It picked up slightly this quarter. So maybe if you could elaborate if it's a single file, it's coming from several. Is it the sign of the beginning of a slight deterioration there?

And then the second question is on the equities revenues. You mentioned in the slide pack, the negative impact from the day one P&L year-on-year. Was that very concentrated on Q3 last year and therefore, unlikely to be a drag from here? Or is there potentially a bit more drag year-on-year coming from that in the coming quarters?

Thank you. Hi, Flora. So, CNR, net cost of risk -- NCR, sorry, net cost of risk in French retail. So it fairly stable in the retail individual client part at a reasonably low level, nothing very material happening there. And indeed, you have an increase in the SME segment with basically no big files, no one-offs, but more something which is in line with what you may have seen as a market feature with the increase with the bankruptcy rate in France. So this is the explanation. It remains contained. As you can see, the cost of risk is still low. But indeed, this is the dynamic that we've seen in Q3. And we don't expect today any material deterioration at this point in time in the coming quarters, but there is a slight increase in bankruptcy rates in France.

So, in terms of the equities and the specific day one question, which indeed is the most of the explanation for the performance of equities this quarter. It's very simple. It was concentrated -- the positive impact was concentrated last year on Q3. And this year, it's a drag, which -- the absence of which would have resulted in a growth of double digit of the market revenues. So you can see it's a substantial feature, which is a positive one because, as you know, a negative impact of day one is the sign of a very strong production, right, of a very strong origination in terms of commercial activity. But indeed, it is a drag.

Now today, it's dependent on market conditions. But today, there is no reason to believe that it will remain the same constant in the coming quarters. At this point in time, it's more of a Q3 phenomenon.

The next question is from Jason Napier of UBS.

The first one, BoursoBank has turned in another really strong quarter for customer acquisitions. There's some concern amongst investors that when a good thing is going so well that you might choose to extend the investment in customer acquisitions substantially further than might have been expected. Perhaps in simple terms, could you just talk about what we should be thinking in terms of fee income -- net fee income uplift next year and the year after as you presumably do start to invest less in customer acquisition offers?

And then secondly, congrats on another quarter of very widespread beats on the cost line. I wonder whether you could talk a little bit about whether you have any sense as to what a more modern SocGen cost/income ratio might look like. We've just come off another company call talking about real hope that AI might substantially change the efficiency of modern banks. I just wonder whether you could talk about where you see the sort of medium-term cost income for the group.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So, on BoursoBank first, we have committed to delivering EUR 300 million of bottom line in BoursoBank in 2026. And we will deliver a bottom line of EUR 300 million at least in BoursoBank in 2026. And it is one of the drivers, one of the main drivers of actually reaching another very important objective, which is the 60% cost-to-income ratio at French retail banking. So, from this perspective, again, you should expect us to be predictable and to stick to our commitments.

And to your point, it will be achieved by a different balance, right, a different balance in terms of customer acquisition costs both in volume and in value because we also are working hard to deliver growth at a lower cost. And as you know, because we've spoken about this in the past, we had projected a GOI investment, a negative GOI throughout the plan to reach BoursoBank's Bank's objectives in terms of customer acquisition of minus EUR 150 million. The reality is that we have executed the plan and actually more than executed the plan with largely positive contribution from BoursoBank. So working on volumes, working on cost of the customer acquisition is what's going to help us achieve the objective, still generating growth, but again, with a different balance so that we can deliver on our commitments.

In terms of the cost line, I mean, I'm not going to go beyond in terms of guidance here beyond what we have for 2026, which is, as you know, a 60% target -- below 60% target for the group and for French retail. But I can tell you two things, right, before moving to AI is that we are, and you see this quarter after quarter, working very diligently, and we are very focused on continuing to improve our efficiency, right? We recognize that there's substantial room to do better.

I said in the past that I don't see any reason, any philosophical or otherwise reason for SocGen not to be delivering something which a comparable business model and jurisdiction, but something that would be much closer, if not within the best average performance of the European banks, again, adjusted for business mix and jurisdiction, but which clearly points to something in the next cycle that would be, well, significantly lower than 60%. I'm not saying anything that you wouldn't expect here, but that's how we're thinking.

Then the AI piece, I think it's an absolutely critical topic for anyone really, but for banks indeed because of the nature of our business where you do have a lot of processes and technology, which resembles to some extent, a big factory where you would expect naturally significant improvements in efficiency and in the cost base linked to AI.

I think what we need to recognize is that in our heavily regulated environment, the pace of final implementation at scale of these tools will be a process, right? You know how demanding the regulators and supervisors are in terms of model validation. You can imagine that for something processing sensitive data and processes in a highly regulated banking environment, you will have expectations in terms of the quality of the modeling underpinning the AI solutions.

So it will happen. It will happen at scale, and it will continue to drive substantially the costs down and actually the client satisfaction and the quality of service and actually maybe quality of risk management up, but it's something which will be taking some time, in my view, to be really at scale and widely adopted within the banks.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have two. The first one is a follow-up on the capital distribution point. Some banks are doing buybacks twice a year, and some banks just do a large one in Q4, for example. So how should we think about the cadence of your buyback? Should we think that come Q4, you most likely distribute everything down to 13% or close to that? Or would you keep something for the second half of the year?

And then secondly, HSBC took a provision on some tax -- withholding tax trading issues related to France. I'm wondering if there is any read across for SocGen or if you have any comments here?

So, on the first point, it is true that as much as we had already in place the normal distribution, annual distribution buyback part of this policy. It's true that we executed our first additional share buyback this year. And so we're in the, let's say, the beginning of a process, which will eventually have some regularity depending on the performance, et cetera, and the excess capital position.

But indeed, the way we think about it is that we do have the annual distribution as part of the Q4 -- and during the year, depending on the position, at this point, it's more position driven, right, and taking into account all the processes that are involved in potential additional distribution, we follow this pace, if you will, right? I hope that, that's clearer than the usual Fed chair explanation, but this is where we are.

But, sorry, so just to follow up to make sure I understand. Of course, you have a 50% payout half-half the buyback. So we all expect that in Q4. But I think it will be rational to expect an additional one given the excess capital starting point. Is that not a realistic expectation for Q4?

I mean I don't want to comment on the expectation, but I'm going to comment on something else you said, would it be rational? Yes, it would be rational.

Question on the tax side for -- with the competitor that you mentioned. Of course, I don't know much about that rumor, and we don't comment specifically on the situations. All I can tell you is that we have not booked anything nor are planning in the short term to book anything on this topic at SocGen Ten.

The next question is from Jeremy Sigee of BNP Paribas Exane.

A couple of follow-ups on topics that have already been touched on. Firstly, I just wanted to check, you're not changing your full year '25 guidance, but you're obviously way ahead at the nine-month stage. I just wanted to check that you're not flagging deterioration or adjustment back down again in Q4. We shouldn't interpret anything from that. Is that a fair thing to say?

And then second question, just you mentioned, obviously, we've seen the Ayvens share buyback. I just wondered how you position in relation to that. I can't see whether you've said that you're going to participate in the buyback or whether this is an opportunity to adjust your own shareholding in Ayvens.

Hi. Thank you. So, on the first question, an important question. I'll be very clear is to be interpreted exactly the way you said it. So there's absolutely no message regarding the Q4. It's a process thing whereby we do not update our annual targets every quarter. And we do confirm, and we said it very clearly that we are above -- well above our full year 2025 target and that you should infer from this that in normal market conditions, which is our base case expectations at this point, we will, of course, outperform the target, right, just mathematically.

One only nuance, which we have discussed in the past is -- you should, in normal business circumstances, expect the Q4 to have a run rate slightly different from the average of the year because of usually, right, the seasonality of costs with all kinds of true-ups that happen in Q4 and also with sometimes a slightly softer revenue generation, especially in the CIB. But apart from this totally business as usual phenomenon, yes, clearly, if you do simple math and assuming normal market conditions, we would outperform the targets.

In terms of the stake in Ayvens, post share buyback, we're going to move from roughly 53% to 55% of ownership. And this is the only thing that's going to happen. We're very happy with this position. We have full control. We work hard on making this asset, and you can see the improvement, including this quarter, making this asset as profitable and as strong as possible, and we're happy with the current situation and with the increase to 55%.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

I guess just coming back to the -- I guess, two things. Coming back to the capital distribution question. As I read this amendment, it does look like it's on the -- what they refer to as the valeur de chaque and not the valeur nominale. And I'm wondering if that sticks through the budget process, how would you then think about mediating your capital returns and managing the capital returns because that's clearly less effective. So I guess a thought process on that.

And then I can't -- I didn't hear you answer Tarik's question necessarily as to whether or not you'd actually applied for a buyback this time. So I'm confused as to why Ayvens went for one and you didn't in the second quarter. So that's question on capital return.

And then more of a fundamental question on the business. Can you just talk about some of your cross-selling potentials in France because you've got life insurance, private banking AUMs at a record high. You've got home loan production up 74% year-on-year. I guess, how can we expect this home loan production to translate through to cross-selling? And how are you benefiting from that today?

Thank you. So, on the capital distribution, yes, first, you didn't hear my answer to Tarik's question because I didn't answer directly whether we have filed...

I was being diplomatic.

Yes. I know. Thank you for that. And simply because, I mean, if I start to comment on what I'm filing or not filing with the ECB, we're filing so many things every week that it would be a difficult process to follow.

Listen, again, right, take comfort from some of my other answers. We have been extremely rational and consistent in looking at this. And while going through all the processes involved, and ultimately, by the way, the decision of the Board, but we do intend to remain rational, extremely rational as it pertains to managing the excess capital. And today, risk-adjusted, the SBB is obviously the best option.

In terms of the tax thing, again, right, I mean, this just came out. I don't want to comment specifically. If it were to stick, so hypothetically, this was your question. If it were to stick and be really substantial and not on nominal value, therefore, not so substantial, we would simply adjust the maths, right? And again, choosing between organic, inorganic and any inorganic opportunity that we would have. And SBB, we would very rationally, like you would expect us to do, including, of course, like considering the cash distribution as well, we would make rational mathematically sound decisions in terms of how to deal with the excess capital.

In terms of the cross-selling opportunity and home loans, you're spot on. I mean, in many jurisdictions, not all of them. But clearly, in France, the home loan is an anchor product, an anchor product because, one, its features, including its long-term fixed rate features usually at competitive rates because of the market dynamics is making the customer stick with you for usually a long time, right? I mean the number is actually in decades. And so it allows you to develop a relationship across the entire offering of the bank, and you pointed that out, our performance, both in terms of the private banking. I'll come back to private banking for a second -- in a second. But in terms of the private banking, but also in terms of all the investment products. And you see that our pace of fundraising in the life insurance investment envelope is extremely high. It's market-leading and is extremely high.

Just to give you a sense, it's a pace which is well, well, well above almost double the size of our inventories in the space. So we're doing extremely well there. The Private Bank is doing extremely well. And the private bank is deeply connected with our retail operations. So it's not -- you have obviously an ultra-high net worth team and segment, if you will, but it is also very connected and by connected, some of the teams are actually embedded within the teams of the retail bank so that we can extract structurally on an industrial basis, if you will, the growth in value and the growth in assets that our individual customers experience throughout life. And usually, yes, it started with home loans. So this is exactly the strategy.

The only thing I'll add is, nevertheless, you still need to make sure, right, that basically the investments you're making in terms of the home loans are worth it and that you have constantly an investment case that works mathematically.

What I'm trying to say here is there have been times in the French market, take, for instance, '22 and '23, where the market was pricing this product because of all kinds of usually rate considerations, but not only eventually the competitive dynamics at a deeply, deeply negative level in terms of margins. So we had retrenched substantially at the time with production rates down 70% because while the logic of the anchor product and the investment in the long-term relationship is a prevailing one in the French market, on the other hand, there are a level of prices, which obviously don't make sense in terms of this investment. So we have been, I think, very nimble and conservative when considering this. But yes, the level of cross-selling is very important within this pillar.

The next question is from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

Two quick questions, both on equities. First, how far through the build-out of the cash equities platform would you say you are, I guess, for about 18 months or so on from the announcement on Bernstein? And how would you assess the market share opportunity on the one hand there versus the potential for, I guess, increased competitive pressure and capital release on the other?

And then the second question, it's a bit of a follow-up to the earlier question on withholding tax. I guess thanks for the clarity there. What would the threshold be for either taking a provision or settling? I guess, how do you see this playing out from your side? And how should we think about the quantum of the outstanding risk?

Thank you. So, on your first question, we're well advanced now. And we will be closing in '25 our first full year with the caveat, which we discussed in the past in this call, that the U.S. operations are not yet fully integrated. They will be next year. So -- but you're talking about the contribution from Bernstein basically of roughly EUR 200 million already, right? So it's a substantial enhancement to the franchise. And if you see some of our rankings, it has helped us break into the top 10. And if you look at some of what we have been able to achieve in the U.S. market in terms of primary equity, having, for the first time, run a significant bookrunner mandate and which delivered -- I'm not going to comment on with the number, but not insignificant contribution to our primary equity. So let me put it this way.

All the assumptions are valid. So in terms of the trading revenues, we are firmly holding at the addition of our respective market shares. The team is happy. The retention level is extremely high, much higher than what we expected.

In terms of the research, we are making the forays that we were expecting. And the only disappointment it's not about us. It's about the primary equity market in Europe, which, as you know, has been more than subdued in the last few years. So we're happy, and we will be continuing to investing and with the integration of the U.S. -- full integration of the U.S. platform next year, we'll be making another step in this direction.

In terms of the withholding tax, I mean, again, right, I mean, you can't expect me to comment specifically on these kind of files. But my earlier answer was clear. And the way you should think about this is -- let me put it this way, right? If we have the stance, which obviously, as you can imagine, as a matter of process, it is not just a discretionary decision of management, but it goes through all the governance, including the auditors, is that it points to a position that we think we have in this matter.

The next question comes from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

I think most of my questions have been answered, but perhaps I can do one on French retail and one on international retail. OpEx management, you previously answered about no reason why you can't be comparable to other European banks after adjusting for business mix and jurisdiction. And I think thus far, your cost saves have been pretty broad-based. But from here, the major levers you can pull in French retail? Or do you think it is much broader than that? And I'm thinking more about headcount considering the amount that your branch network has come down by?

And then second question on international retail. Are you happy with the perimeter now?

And can you just touch upon some of the volume growth you're seeing both in Czech and Romania?

Thank you. So, on the very last piece, I'll leave the floor to Pierre on the volumes in Czech Republic and Romania, and I'll address all the others.

In terms of the -- my comment about jurisdictions is simply -- or business mix is simply to recognize that if somebody has a very pure, for instance, retail banking mix, monoline mix in a jurisdiction that happens at that point in time to benefit from strong dynamics in terms of rates, for instance, while, obviously, you would not be able to compare just the cost to incomes one-for-one between us and that particular player. But on the other hand, I would like you to focus more, if I may, on the fact that this is not an excuse for us not to do our job and to continue to reduce our costs versus the per unit of revenue, of course.

But also another way of looking at it per unit of RWA, right? This is another way we're looking at it. And we think that these metrics help level the playing field, so to speak. And we clearly are aiming at continuing to increase substantially our efficiency and to decrease substantially over time our cost to income at the group level, but also at the French retail level, right, we have been improving there substantially, but we're still at 57% in Q3 '25. So you have already a pretty healthy improvement to be expected next year. But even beyond that, we do believe that we can do better, and we are working on ways to operate this business with a lower, lower cost structure as simple as that. I mean, we have been late to the game of efficiency, but we are now fully, fully committed and working on this with a lot of focus.

In terms of -- I feel like I'm missing your other question.

I think it was the perimeter of the international....

Yes, the perimeter of international retail, and then on to Pierre for the volume.

On the perimeter, we're -- listen, we're happy in the sense that virtually all our assets, not all of them, but really, really most of them deliver stable performance at a high level of return and are also managed in a very sound manner in terms of risks.

Now in the end, what we said about how we're going to manage our portfolio -- business portfolio remains true, right? So we need to make sure constantly that ROE headline is high, that ROE is above cost of equity in a sustainable manner. and some other parameters. I'm not going to list them each time, but I'll add the level of tail risk as well. And from this perspective, if and when we believe that we should be making adjustments, we will continue to make adjustments. But overall, today, the portfolio is delivering a sound average performance.

Pierre, on the volumes of KB and BRD?

Yes. So in terms of volumes at a constant perimeter and change, for KB, we see an increase in loans by 4% and a flat deposit level compared to last year.

As far as Romania is concerned, it's a big increase by 13.5% in terms of customer loans and 10% in terms of customer deposits. So this translates into an increase in NBI in both globally in Europe by 6.6% in Romania, again, at constant perimeter and change, 9% in terms of NII and 2.4% in terms of fees.

What is important is that BRD is gaining market share. The market share is up 35 bps. As far as KB is concerned, in terms of NBI, the NII is increasing by 1.7% and the fees by 2%.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

My first one, sorry to come back on this issue of the tax on buybacks and dividends. Sorry, it's just an important one. So on this topic, would you consider changing a little bit of the mix between buybacks and dividends because it looks like the tax on the dividends could be a bit lower. And how -- so from what you said earlier, I understand that you would reconsider the bit the usage of excess capital. in favor of inorganic, which would be the rational thing to do versus buybacks. So just on the inorganic, I mean, what areas would you kind of focus on?

Then my second question is also on some of the proposals that seem to be, I think, discussed today in Parliament and in France around the banking fees, the proposals from the National Rally to kind of like cap fees. So just wondering how much of an impact could that represent for your French retail business?

Thank you, Delphine. Listen, I mean, again, I need to start with the same introduction. I can't move into the business of commenting on the current -- and you know that, right? I mean country here, it is a political race for headlines, right? So I can't possibly be in the business of commenting a very intense and intensifying competition for headlines by various parties in a very divided parliament in France.

Now going back to the substance, I think what matters, and maybe this is the most important message is that whatever happens, you should expect us to be rational, right, so that we would make the calculations that need to be made and then starting off a mathematical reality, compose something which is a convincing hole, if you will, right? So meaning organic growth, organic growth is a good opportunity.

Today, on a marginal rate of return, we are able to generate high, high levels of marginal rate of return in various businesses, in particular, in GBIS, in Financing & Advisory, where the commitment of this additional capital comes also with a very high, high level of diversification from a sector perspective, from a client perspective, from a geography perspective. So in a sound way. The real limit there is to do it at a cost to income, which is not deteriorating. And second, it's in terms of risk management, of course, right, because we're not going to pour all the excess capital in organic growth regardless of the environment in which we're working.

So it's a balance, right? But it's a rational balance, but organic growth is a substantial opportunity, and you should expect us over time to allocate part of the excess capital to organic growth. Inorganic growth is -- can be an opportunity. But there, you need to really expect us to have a conservative approach in terms of risk return considerations, right?

Inorganic growth is an opportunity. We have delivered historically on some. We have failed at others. And clearly, we learned our lessons and execution risk would be always very carefully looked at. And from this perspective, share buybacks, and again, depending on what that hypothetical word might look like, might still be interesting because you need to adjust these returns for the risks taken, right? And obviously, a share buyback and/or a dividend distribution would both carry basically 0 risk to the investors versus the other opportunities.

So you should expect us to be very rational, whatever the framework might be. And I am reasonably optimistic about where this whole thing lands. And the framework will be giving us inputs into a rational, mathematically sound reasoning about returns and risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders.

And second question is on the banking fees.

On the banking fees. Yes. So I mean, it's a little bit of the same thing. So I'm not going to say what I said again. Today, one thing I can tell you, for instance, is that the banking fees, if you compare them -- retail banking fees, if you compare the revenue, sorry, to the loan outstanding, it's roughly 2.3% in France versus something which is more 3.6% in EU.

So one thing I can tell you is that it's quite easy to make the case that in terms of like the average return on risk, if you will, for a retail bank in France, we are already -- and it's to be expected given the level of competition in the market, we are already lower than the European Union.

So, I think, again, my current stance on this is that I do believe that the reason in the country of Descartes will eventually prevail in these discussions. Because I think that eventually, no one, no matter the political color in France today, wants to make the business conditions impractical in France.

The next question comes from Pierre Chedeville of CIC.

I promise not to ask the question on tax issues. Maybe a follow-up on two strategic points. Regarding consumer credit, it seems that you are a little bit in the middle of the game in terms of size. Your R is below your cost of equity, your outstanding is a little bit decreasing. But yet, we see that margins are improving in this business. So I wanted to know where do you stand from a strategic point of view with that franchise? Do you want to invest in it and develop you stay still or maybe one day, it could be something to sell?

And regarding asset management, we all know that you are concluding negotiation with Amundi. Probably you will not tell exactly where you stand there. But my question is more general. Do you think it would be interesting for you to try to develop a small part of your asset management internally for some specific areas and not depend the vast majority on Amundi. And do you think an evolution could be seen in asset management for you as this is a very profitable activity, which is lacking your global business model?

Thank you. Thank you very much. On consumer credit, I mean, you almost said it all. The overall condition of this business within our mix is improving after years of challenge, obviously, because of either regulatory aspects, the usually rates and the compression of margins linked to the negative jaws, if you will, between the funding and the allowed authorized maximum rate. Plus, obviously, some of the post-COVID normalization in terms of cost of risk, et cetera, et cetera. So all these dynamics were broadly slowing down this business and lowering its performance to your point.

So what are we doing? We're doing what we're doing everywhere, which is we'd like -- and you've seen it at Ayvens, you've seen it in International Banking. You've seen it very much at CIB. To some extent, it's a simple recipe is focus on the quality of the business and more, again, on structural profitability and margins rather than on volumes and focusing on the high-quality, high return on capital, sound risk management, in my view, is always preferable to uncontrolled growth. And that's what you're seeing happening in this business, and it is indeed improving. And for instance, like in terms of NBI, we're up 6.6% with a much, I would say, sounder generation of revenues than maybe in the past.

From a strategic perspective, it's a very important business, obviously, in the continuum of value creation within the French retail, and we have a few assets in Europe, which are performing from very well to acceptable. And similar to everything I said about our international network or any business that we have, we will continue to assess them very rigorously and in a very demanding way. And if an asset is not delivering what we should expect in terms of return versus cost of equity or again, quality of its positioning. And if we're not the best shareholder, we will not keep this asset in the long run. It's a commitment on which we have delivered, and we will be continuing to deliver.

In terms of the Amundi partnership, well, indeed, I'm not going to break any news here. But it's a strong partnership, a long-standing one, one that works reasonably well for both partners in terms of performance, in terms of revenues, et cetera. So we learn, right, as we mature. And so we are discussing all kinds of things with our partner. But we will clearly make sure that any partnership with anyone is always as balanced as possible between the product quality, the product support, the product performance and of course, the fundamental asset of the client relationship that we bring to the table.

Are we going to develop something in terms of proprietary asset management? We are. We are already in terms of some of the high end of our client base is actually serviced by an in-house asset manager. And we do intend to very selectively, exactly the way you implicitly -- you implied in your question, very selectively where it makes most sense with, again, high focus on the returns and the costs, we will be developing this further over time.

And the other way of looking at it is in alternative asset management, we are through the Brookfield partnership and through our investments in the transition fund that we have created and funded with our own equity. We do intend, for instance, through these two vehicles to increase our reach in terms of alternative asset management, where we can bring something, again, proprietary to the table and build this on an organic basis.

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

Just two questions from my side. The first one is more strategic on the direction of return on tangible equity. I know you have a target for 2026. And -- but some competitors started to look beyond the target that they had given in the past. So I was wondering if you intend to perhaps provide in the future guidance for intermediate targets going forward?

And secondly, a more technical thing on FRTB. I think you mentioned in the past that you expect a negative impact of 40 basis points. I was wondering if that is still all true today? And what do you expect with the legislation? I know there are discussion of postponing it, potentially changing it? What is your take on that?

Thank you. So the direction of travel on ROTE is up. There's no other direction of travel. It's true for what we have been doing and long term, it's true. And it's intrinsically, by the way, linked to all the discussion we've had today about cost and efficiency and cost to income. Of course, we intend to drive the cost down while continuing to grow, right? And you've seen our growth rates, excluding disposals, which are very substantial and very balanced across the businesses. That's exactly what we want to keep on doing, which is delivering as regularly as possible as big positive jaws as we can. And it's not always going to be perfect, but we will focus all our efforts on this. And so indeed, this is how you should look at the direction of travel.

Now in terms of actual guidelines and guidances, we will -- we believe that being very transparent with our investor community, with you guys is obviously critical and expected. And so we will be at some point next year, sharing with you our detailed views about the next few years and be able to not only throw a number, right, because throwing a number is one thing, but also explain to you how we think about how we're going to get there and improve our performance and deliver value to all the stakeholders, but to investors in particular.

In terms of the FRTB, it's still unchanged estimate that we have, 40 basis points, 2027, if it happens. And for the rest, the impact from the output floors or other, let's say, tail end impact, they are all either 0 for the output floors. That's our assumption today or very, very small and long term. So this is where we are in terms of what's going to happen to FRTB.

Again, I'm not in a position to give you a firm answer. But again, I think that in the end, a little bit like the tax discussion in France, I think that in the end, people understand what is a right balance between safety and soundness concerns, which are obviously not only legitimate but important for everybody, for society and competitiveness. And I think there is a balance to be struck. And in that balance, in my view, FRTB, given the nature of regulations here and given what's happening worldwide is likely to be adjusted in my view. But of course, I can't speak for the commission and the other participants in that discussion at this point.

The next question comes from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

I have two, please. First, on BoursoBank, very encouraging to see the evolution there. But I wanted to ask you about the risk you see from Revolut and the aggressive pace of client acquisition. Would this entail a continuing pace of higher client acquisition even in 2026?

Second one is on equities. Can you quantify the year-on-year growth, excluding the day one accounting adjustments that you had in the prior year period? The lower growth versus peers, is it a mix effect or you not being on the front foot still on organic capital deployment?

I'm not 100% sure I got the end of your second question. You asked for day one from -- for growth in equities adjusted for day one. Is that what you -- is that your question?

Yes, yes. The year-on-year revenue growth if we don't have the accounting adjustments. and how it compares with peers.

Okay. What was the point about organic growth or organic capital?

So, basically, the lower growth in equities franchise, is it to do with the mix effect? Or you not still being on the front foot for organic deployment?

I understand. All right. So in terms of the BoursoBank and Revolut question, I would say the following, right? First of all, as I said also at the conference recently, when you have a strong, highly competitive new entrants in the market, you have to pay attention. You have to make sure you understand what they're doing, you have to recognize their strength, study them and adjust if needed, right? And so this is how we are treating this market evolution, meaning very seriously.

Second comment, we are not exactly in the same business, right? If I oversimplify, they are wide geographically and reasonably shallow in terms of products. We are very focused geographically, it's restreint, but very, very deep in terms of product and in terms of client relationship. Again, as I mentioned in the past, we're talking about EUR 60 billion of assets, EUR 50 billion of deposits. You're talking about a churn with a high level of cross-selling, a churn which is well below 4%. You're talking about basically the best of both worlds, which is like a real universal bank for individuals with a very wide product range across virtually any banking product from the simplest to the most sophisticated one. But you're talking also, again, about the #1 bank in terms of client satisfaction.

So, from this perspective, we're talking about different players. But again, we are trying to make sure that we give enough attention to this new entrant. Is that going to affect directly our acquisition policies or whatever? It certainly affects our thinking about this, and we clearly want to make sure that the way we acquire clients, the cost at which we acquire client is optimized and it's my earlier answer. And with the proof point of having actually delivered a higher growth than expected with a much lower cost than expected, it shows you that we are very focused and have been for a while now on making sure that this equation works from a bottom line perspective.

But is that going to make us change radically our approach in 2026, in particular? The answer is no. In terms of the day one adjusted performance for equities, I mean, we're not disclosing it like that, but it is -- you have to think about this as high single digit for equities instead of the minus 7%. And for the markets, it's double digit -- I mean, well into the double digit if you took both businesses.

In terms of the mix, there is a bit of a mix, yes, you're absolutely right. I mean -- and even the whole day one thing, which is linked to the strength in terms of origination on our structured products platform. So you see that there, we're doing extremely well. And likely gaining significant market share currently.

On the flip side, historically, smaller activities on the flow side. We do have a slight mix effect. Remember, there's also a slight FX effect. U.S. banks obviously publish in dollars. We publish in euro. Do the math. We're talking about a 7% or 8% differential quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year versus Q3 '24 and '25. So all these things play a little bit. But the most important one is the day one, which happened to be a very high release last year and this year, the opposite trend. Thank you.

The final question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

Just two, please. One is on the 13% core Tier 1 ratio. So assuming the tax wouldn't change, how quickly do you think you would want to be at that level?

And then just sorry for following up on litigation risk, but hopefully, that's an opportunity for you to comment. I mean, with respect to the recent Sudan litigation for BNP, if you can maybe just talk about your own legal situation, if any claims have been filed or potentially, is it already too late for any claims to be filed?

Thank you. So, on the first point, the only thing I can say is, again, right, above 13% is excess capital. And then we're not running the ship, if you will, down to 13%. Obviously, there will be always some small technical buffer. You also have temporality, right? If you think about, for instance, hypothetically, asking for SBB authorizations to the supervisor, you have a four months lead time, you build up capital during the quarter, et cetera.

So, basically, you will always be a few tens -- tens of basis points above 13%, even if you were to do systematic buybacks on the back of your capital generation. So this is how you should think about this. And then back to everything I said earlier, rational allocation between the various opportunities that we have in terms of using the excess capital.

In terms of the litigation, I mean, first of all, of course, I can't comment on something that is not mine. But we -- what I can say is since you're asking, right, we don't have any exposure to Sudan or to the of this type of things.

All right. Thank you very much. So thank you very much for your time. I know it's a busy day for you. Good luck with all the work. And I look forward to speaking with you next quarter. Thank you very much. Take care. Bye, bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Slawomir. Nice to have you again.

Good morning, Tarik. Thanks for having me.

So what a journey. 2 years ago, I remember, at the same stage, I was trying to figure out why such a downbeat strategic plan. A reminder, it was day after you leased it, 2023. Then last year, we established that it was necessary reset to expectations. But the last 2 years were a rollercoaster and required some believing, but your strategy has paid off if we go by the share price. So French Retail revenues have turned the corner in a very unstable political environment in France. You executed the cost synergies, implementation in French Retail and Ayvens, and showed sovereign business model can be resilient and [indiscernible] including CIB.

You delivered as well on the capital buildup and started to return capital as we speak. So I guess now probably the difficult partners, I'm then saying what you've done so far is a difficult, but is to start to address the profitability in the long run and how you can actually cover the cost of equity. So yes, this is -- I mean, we'll try to go through as many topics as possible in the next 40 minutes.

And maybe let's start straight through that on capital and the strategy. First on the capital, you built capital fast. I mean, you are now at 13.5% as of first half. And you generate more capital going forward. So how do we square the fast capital build with your target of being at 13% plus some margin by year-end.

I mean thank you for your kind words. I mean in the end, what's important is that in the way we communicate, when we talk about our targets, we set them and design them. We try to be as close to reality as possible and not try to deliver a marketing statement, but rather a strategic one. And so we're very happy with what we've done so far. But to your point, the main statement I can have about history here is that a lot more work is ahead of us, and we're focused on this.

Turning to your capital question, I mean we had this target of 13% by end of the plan, 2026. And for a number of reasons, we delivered faster. And so we're -- and we benefited from the postponement of FRTB as well, of course. And so we have a good problem, which is how to use this excess capital. And here, one statement, again, in the long run, we are not in the business of accumulating more capital than the target that we have. That's very important. And the thinking of everybody who's interested should be framed by the statement first. Second, we are going to address the excess capital always with the same approach, which is how to best use it in the interest of shareholders.

And there are 3 main options: One, organic growth; two, inorganic growth and then return to shareholder, arguably best way to do it in the form of buybacks. And there, we are very committed to be rational and to be good stewards of our investors' capital. We're not in the business of building up our ego or building up things for the sake of building them up. We're in the business of investing very rationally this excess capital. And today, it is fair to say that organic growth is a very good option from a marginal rate of return given the risk management framework at SocGen. There are a number of businesses where we can do this safely in a diversified manner and generate interesting returns. But obviously, with the kind of excess capital that we have, we cannot. It would be stupid to channel all of that capital into organic growth, and therefore, we're not going to do that for obvious macro risk management reasons.

That leaves us with inorganic and return of capital to shareholders. And there, from a risk return perspective, right now, the buybacks seem the best option. But we're committed not to buybacks. We're committed to making these decisions as we go in a very rational way in the best interest of shareholders based on facts and not opinions or sentiment. And ultimately, you see a Board decision.

So based on facts and rationale, if we do some quick math, I know this math is always difficult to be precise. But if you look at return on investment of buying back minorities on Ayvens, for example, versus a yield on a buyback at the current valuation, the math is becoming a bit tight. I mean is that still a favor of buyback versus acquiring more of Ayvens or [ part ]? Or is the buyback still the priority at this stage?

I mean, the logic is, again, to be strategic because excess capital is a strategic resource, which needs to be handled strategically, right? So the numbers point to something which is close in the example that you're giving. But from a strategic standpoint, you need to make the determination of why would you do one versus the other? And also, obviously, since it is about stewardship of our shareholders' capital, what is the risk-adjusted return between the two options, right? And this is how we intend to do this, very rational strategic decisions.

And in terms -- and last question on capital. In terms of the capital return policy, expectation rises now rightly on distribution, including myself. I mean, I have or full disclosure of EUR 1 billion share buyback additional with Q3. But it's just to keep the capital under control in terms of forecast. So how the communication you think will be in terms of having a clear message in terms of when to expect announcements and utilization of capital in terms of distribution?

So two ideas here. I think. Again, these are strategic decisions, right? So one thing I can say is that it's not going to be like a quarterly process of trying to square a ratio, this would make no sense. I mean this is a deeper decision that needs to be taken in that context. That's one idea. The second one is, you said it, right, the buildup was successful and much faster than initially planned. And so we are, it's fair to say, in a situation right now where we want to kind of establish some foundations, right, and some grounds for the long term. And in this perspective, we're trying to figure that out, knowing that you also have some pieces outside which are not entirely clear, and I had the discussion in an investor meeting earlier today. What about FRTB? How do you account for this, right?

Today, you cannot account for this as gone, right? Because today, this is not the statement of the supervisor. And so whatever my feelings about what is going to happen are from a management perspective, I have to account for this particular charge coming early 2027. So today, we're basically building the sustainable foundation of long-term policy. And so we'll figure that out and no announcement as far as Q3 is concerned.

So the -- I want to ask this question later, but let's do it now since you brought up FRTB. So what's your sentiment in terms of capital requirements and demand from the supervisor mostly coming. I mean, we were all worried about this on-site inspections about a year ago. Now we hear about having internal models revisions up with high risk density that pushed the market to do more of securitization and synthetic securitization. So how do you see this buildup of capital evolving when you think of your capital evolution?

Sure. I think the first element, and this was also factored in our thinking about the 13% target because back then, maybe not you, Tarik, but some people were questioning why 13%, it's too much or whatever. I had these conversations. And one of the answers, not the only one, was when you run a bank, you cannot run it close to whatever the limit is. I'm not even talking about the regulatory requirement, but the expectation of the market, et cetera. And so you have to cater for all kinds of uncertainties that are inherent to banking operations. And regulations and the part that you -- supervision more precisely, the part that you just referred to is part of the uncertainty.

The most important thing there is to have the toolbox to manage it, and capital buffer is one, obviously, the obvious one to manage anything and we're more than there in this respect. And then is what you just referred to, right, having a very strategic approach to capital management and being able from a more business than SRT perspective, the ability to react to the stimuli that you receive from the outside world, right? So that being said, I also think that we're reaching some form of a plateau in terms of the supervisory actions there. I mean, we have on-site inspections, all of us, like many times a year. But I think overall, we're closer to wherever they want us to be than to the beginning of that process.

Very clear. Thank you. Moving now into your strategy and your aspiration for to improve the profitability of the group. I'm sure you are probably thinking already of the next plan and what's the measures in terms of now converting this restructuring into higher profitability. So what would be the key pillars of your new strategy? I have a strong idea but I'll let you comment on this, and then we can dig on.

I mean it's not going to be a surprise to you. I think a key pillar, not the only one, but the key one will remain efficiency and cost management. Just to keep it simple, it's kind of obvious on the one hand, but also if you look at benchmarks in terms of cost per RWA because if you only look at cost-to-income, obviously, you're embedding top line considerations and market feature differences, et cetera, et cetera, jurisdiction differences.

But if you look at cost on RWA , I mean you're pretty close to something that is really comparable. And there, we have more work to do. And there's absolutely no reason. You've heard me say that in the past, that we would have some form of either as French banks or as SocGen, some sort of a curse and some sort of a structural inability to deliver better efficiency. And I think this remains a #1 target. When we started our work with the new management 2 years ago, we were faced with a certain situation but also major projects, restructuring projects, which were burdened, an opportunity, of course, but a burden of their own at the same time. I'm talking about the merger of the French Retail banks and Ayvens, of course. And so we had to deal with this first.

And we are, to your point, maybe we'll come back to this later, we are delivering there. But clearly, this was not the end of the battle in terms of efficiency. And across the board, across the group, not only in French Retail, we have room to do better, and we are already working on this and we will work some more. In terms of the top line, it's across the group. First, reallocating more organic capital than in the first plan, because, as you know, part of the capital buildup for it not to be dilutive was done internally and part of it was basically very strict control of organic growth. So we can release that because of the capital situation that we're in. And to the point I was making earlier, it's very, very profitable on a marginal risk-adjusted returns in many of our businesses, and that's what we intend to do. And that alone, if you do the math, and I know that you're doing them well, is also very supportive of the performance. And in the end, continuing to execute well on risk management, obviously, is key as well. So I mean, usual cocktail, but clearly, cost and efficiency are still a pillar of what we need to do.

Okay. Maybe starting with the cost part then of the cost income. I mean, often, I hear -- I mean, I've been hearing that for more than a decade, France is impossible to take out costs. It's difficult. Some have tried. What's your portion here to actually implement that? Because that's basically the name of the game for you in terms of bringing the whole group cost. This is, I would say, the [indiscernible] cost heaviest in the mix.

So I mean, first comment, and it's not about defending French reputation whatsoever. But one of the benefits of having people from outside, like Leo and bringing a wealth of experience and expertise from other markets is to challenge us to do better in a number of ways, but also sometimes to remind us that it's not easy to take out costs in Spain. Definitely not easy to take out costs in Germany and many other jurisdictions. So I think French has to serve France's image, but it's not an excuse not to do our job.

And I think in France, like in any other jurisdiction, if you're focused on taking advantage of natural attrition rates, for instance, they are actually significant in some of the pockets. And actually, in some of the most challenging pockets like French Retail, some of the attrition rates are high. And the question is, how are you using this to fuel your ability to deliver actual outcomes on costs? While at the same, obviously, optimizing and we've discussed this in the past, optimizing some of our spending. What's idiosyncratic from a cost perspective to SocGen is that when we took over 2 years ago, we had very high IT spending with outcomes, which were comparable to that of the market, right? Meaning we were not ahead of the market from a technology perspective, we were in line with the market.

So basically, we were inefficient, sorry, to a pretty large number and dealing with this, which has nothing to do with employment or whatever, which has to do with how you source your IT expenses, et cetera, et cetera, is a huge cost lever. And last year, we -- for the first time in probably ever, we reduced, in absolute terms, the spend there. We're continuing this year, and we, for instance, in this case, intend to continue optimizing this expense.

So all I'm trying to say here is that the combination of all the levers that you have, if you instead of looking for excuses, right, focus on delivering on your agenda in terms of cost efficiency, I think you can do a lot. Maybe it's slightly slower than, say, in America, for sure. But it is doable, and there's absolutely no reason to use that excuse not to do it.

So your target is 60% cost-to-income in France and group next year. Can you share with us what could be a range or a realistic level you could reach?

You mean '26 or later?

Later.

So maybe that's a little early. I don't want to give you that scope. Listen, we're focused on delivering 2026. It's very important. We don't want to kind of project ourselves, especially out there. Of course, we're working on this before delivering, executing and delivering on our promises is absolutely key from a cultural standpoint in the management team today. So we're focused on this.

And for 2026, as you know, the unpacking of how we get there has to do with no more CTAs, still over EUR 300 million this year. So no more CTA next year, which, by the way, will be like the first year, I don't know, in something close to a decade, that we will have no CTA and that whatever investments we need to make, which we are making continuously comes off the baseline of our business profitability. So that's a big piece.

The second one is obviously the contribution of BoursoBank to the cost-to-income because the acquisition cost, which was substantial, as you know, hundreds of millions come off the top line, and so this will contribute both to reaching the target in terms of cost-to-income at French Retail level and group level and obviously, supporting the ROE target.

And then as I said earlier, the continuation of all the work on the IT spend and other initiatives that we have. But there's a lot of work to do, and at the same time, obviously, delivering the last leg of the restructuring of Ayvens and moving it from whatever, a little south of 60% cost-to-income last year to the 52% target next year. So that's how we're going to do it. And then the statement for the future is we need, as I said earlier, to substantially -- continue to substantially decrease the cost base, and we will. So the next leg will be a substantial improvement over this target.

Very clear. I think you mentioned BoursoBank, and I think the [ converters ] perhaps as you put it in your CMD 2 years ago of the brick-and-mortar model and the digital model would probably contribute to that better cost efficiency overall. Could you maybe remind us because this was a while and I think it's still valid within your thinking on how you see this business evolving? How do you see that actually these 2 networks coexisting and how that will evolve?

So I mean the slide you're referring to, which indeed was important because it was -- real thinking about the business was that you have 2 assets, and we're blessed for that, that we have both today in the French market, and we're the only ones to have both to this kind of level of NBI and footprint with the clients. On the one hand, you have the traditional banking model with a very high cost-to-income, but a very high NBI per client, very high, right? And so that's one piece of the equation.

The second piece of the equation, you have BoursoBank, which handles today 8 million clients with a full fledged, that's extremely important, right? This is -- in that regard, we're very different from virtually any other competitor today from the biggest ones to the smallest ones. We have an entire full-fledged bank that has EUR 60 billion of assets and high numbers of deposit per client close to EUR 10,000 per account, right? So if you look at these things, I mean, no one else is in that kind of a situation. So these guys are running 8 million clients, #1 in client satisfaction consistently over the last decade or so, and with 1,100 people.

So here, we have something which is extraordinarily efficient in terms of costs, in terms of client satisfaction, which in retail is the name of the game and in terms of growth. And the only thing is that the NBI per client, obviously, is a fraction of what you have in traditional banking. So the cross conversion is this idea that as BoursoBank grows both in size, client base and maturity, it will, it has and it will work more and more on increasing the revenues per client. It's both the intensity of the relationship and the structure of the product offer, the ability to offer, say, a different package for high-end clients because of the breadth of the product offer, we can, right?

You can actually and I encourage you to do so. You can be banked almost like in private banking by BoursoBank as long as you accept the self-care aspect of it. And -- but growing the NBI per client, as we grow further the assets in more mature ways, so to speak, is what needs to happen there. At the same time, on the traditional banking, it's extraordinarily important to protect the top line, and this is by increasing the client satisfaction at the end of the day, while decreasing substantially the cost of operating this client base. And these 2 trends are what we need to foster work on consistently and will deliver both as we go better and better performance in French Retail, but also ultimately provide a comprehensive hedge to changing behaviors, right? And in the end, yes, maybe we have that online asset, which has taken over, maybe this is 10, 15, 20 years from now, has entirely taken over the business. But by then, it's probably the #1 bank in France.

That's very clear. And then it's a good transition. I mean, the competition on digital banking in France so far was not very difficult. I mean there was some players that never really find the right business model. But now we have Revolut with strong ambition, not only in France, but France they made as a Western Europe headquarters, but a bit everywhere in Europe and actually Ireland and U.K. So how do you see that as a threat? Or how that actually, more importantly, change your strategy on client acquisition for BoursoBank?

I think the first comment is when you have by all means a powerful competitor making your market focus of his or you have statements where they want to compete specifically in Europe for market, the first thing you need to do is to pay attention, right? And not to treat this lightly because you could go and say, well, Revolut, to the point I was making earlier, is not in the same business, right? We, again, right, offer broad products on the brokerage side, life insurance in Luxembourg wrappers, you can buy alternative investments, you can do virtually, again, anything in [indiscernible] hence, the current substance that you have there.

So we could go. We don't really care because these guys are making payments. That's absolutely not our attitude. Our attitude is there's a powerful player that has a slightly different strategy, go wide and shallow before going deep, while we basically did the opposite, go very deep instead of wide and shallow. But in the end, it is to be seen who will be the winner. So we pay attention, right? And when we pay attention, what do we see? We see that there's, for instance, from a customer acquisition perspective strategy, there's a difference, right? Much more marketing and certain features of the product offer that are more on the marketing side of things, while we are focused on basically paying a fee to the customer, but making sure, right, even in the structure of the fee, that substance in terms of deposits and product ownership comes fast, and we monitor this maturity of the client, this NBI per client very carefully, et cetera, et cetera.

We're probably both right. And so adjustments to the commercial policy will come as we compete, right? This is what's extremely healthy about a situation like this, right? But in the end, today, we are in the business of offering full-fledged banking services on an online basis, #1 in client satisfaction and #1 in terms of breadth of the product offer. And that remains and will remain a key feature of what we're doing already and where we want to go, right? We're in the business of online banking.

And could you get inspired by the revolution model to take the best of it in terms of expansion outside France? Or as you explained, it started being France and then...

So listen, I mean, the international expansion of BoursoBank or I think more accurately of the digital banking of SocGen outside of France is an obvious strategic topic on which we're constantly working. But in the spirit of it, everything that we're doing, we don't want to make decisions based on slogans or kind of marketing statements, right? The idea of doing this is very appealing and seems simple. The practicality of it because of the deep, deep differences between jurisdictions in Europe in terms of client behavior, in terms of product offer, in terms of even like the value proposition, how you're making money as an online -- not online, but as a retail bank, is so different from one market to the other. That if we were, say, to try and duplicate very deep jurisdiction per jurisdiction operations, well, that will require very substantial investments and the capacity to be relevant in all these jurisdictions that today, we don't have, right? And the idea that we'll just kind of take a bunch of extremely successful French bankers put them in Italy and all of a sudden be successful, that's not something I'm supportive of. But on the other hand, we do have very strong features in what we're doing, which we could expand. And we're thinking about this, but no announcement there.

Very clear. Moving now to the revenue side. I'm sure you're glad that we don't ask you about NII every quarter. But still it's a big part of your growth and especially in France. So how do you describe now the dynamics in terms of deposit migration? I mean we've seen now with always going in France, and I'm not asking you to comment on this, but there could be some uncertainty where we see a bit more of savings, less investments and then cost of deposits or on the asset side growth. So how can you describe the dynamics on NII in French Retail? So revenues in general, not NII.

But -- so revenues and starting with NII. So NII in our case, first of all, very strong growth year-on-year, quarter-on-quarter because of the end of the drag of the hedging, and if you compare H1 to H1, low single-digit growth on NII there. And the trend there is going to be marked by, one, clearly the stabilization of the shift from a non-remunerated to remunerated deposits. It's still going on a little bit, but nothing compared to the massive shifts that we had in '22 and '23 and a little bit in '24 still. So stabilization of this.

Support on the NII deposits because of the [ Liberia ] price coming down, and that's a tailwind, significant, it's not revolutionary, but significant. And then basically a stability with that support and repricing of the back book on the loan side because, as you know, we have very long-dated fixed rate instruments. And so as the back book reprices and now that we have reignited growth in terms of mortgages, this is going to be also supported. But again, because of the features of the French market, this is not something, and I was very clear about this, that is going to be explosive in terms of growth. But it is a number of longer-term trends that are supportive from this perspective.

Now from a volume perspective in the future, clearly, it's mostly in retail driven by the GDP growth and the macro dynamics of a particular country. The good news is that against a backdrop of a lot of, let's say, political uncertainty, a lot of political activity, you have a resilient growth. I'm not saying that 0.6% expected for this year is something stellar. But it is resilient, especially if you compare to, let's say, what the sentiment seemed to be last -- let's say, a year ago, right? And so from this perspective, good news and what we're forecasting is a low single-digit growth of the loan book.

Now the good news in our case is that we have a very strong fee origination in retail, which is based on our very strong market-leading dynamic in terms of asset gathering in life insurance on the one hand and also with our private banking in France in particular and across the entire network. So we're constructive, and we see this growing. And as you know, our fee component in the NBI of the retail is very substantial.

Very clear. I mean moving to Ayvens, which is a large part of your revenue generation. It was difficult start to the merger, to say the least. Now I mean, with the used car sales organization well advanced and the integration as well, how do you see the growth of the business? Maybe taking the 3 parts of revenues, used car sales, services and fleet growth and put that with the operational leverage, how do you see the profitability recovering in this business?

So the short answer is we see it recovering and converging to the objective that we set, which is, I remind you, 13% to 15% ROE by 2026 based on a 52% cost-to-income, which are both high performance levels in the market, especially the cost-to-income, which is obviously pre -- only excluding UCS impact, as you know, because sometimes we will communicate differently from this perspective. So that's important. And that kind of level you have something which is clearly accretive to the overall equation, provides some form of diversification because the cycles there are slightly different from the rest of the bank, and the growth prospects are strong for a number of reasons, both in terms of behaviors of the customers, fleet characteristics, et cetera.

Now what's very important is, as we took over with my team and in this case, in particular, with Pierre Palmieri overseeing this business, we made a few determinations like; one, that from a margin perspective, this business had been run without enough regard to the fixed rate component in the contracts, right? And in the growing inflationary environment, this has across the industry, right, compressed margins very significantly. And so we took a very important decision a little bit against the market trends at the time of saying, well, no, right? If you want to run this business in a healthy way, you have to work on restoring the margins and you have to understand what you're doing, right? Is that you're extending fixed-rate instruments with variable cost based on the service margin side, which I remind you is half of the -- basically of the NBI there, right?

So we were focused and still are on making sure that the business we underwrite is a good business from a margin perspective. The second feature is as things were moving a lot, as you know, on the EV side of things, which was seen, say, 5 years ago, has a massive growth underpinning the business because of the cost of one unit, obviously, there. So people were very keen on doing this. And here, once again, 2 years ago, right, and well ahead of many of our competitors, we said, well, I mean, this doesn't look as easy as simple as it used to, and we need to be very careful in risk managing this aspect of the business. So this is why you see significant improvements in margins and significant improvements in like core profitability, but muted growth.

So this is entirely by design and because of the decisions I just described. And so the future for this on top of the restructuring benefit is growth. But you see off a very healthy base, both in terms of cost-to-income and in terms of margin structures and in terms of fee structures, we do actually expect a substantial uplift there in profitability down the road.

We have 5 minutes left. I don't know if there's any questions in the audience? Then I will carry on. Maybe 5 minute to speak about your actually quite sizable division, GSIB -- GBIS, sorry.

So that's the division of the regulator.

And maybe more on the capital markets side. We've been enjoying quite nice environment in the last few quarters. And you always mentioned this word conducive and not to extrapolate that environment and being cautious. Do you believe the -- I mean, environment we are now in is probably the new normal or we should be careful not to extrapolate too much with what's been seen in last few?

Listen, so just to give you some perspective, when I took over CIB, so this was in 2020 and starting January 1, 2021. We had posted, I think, EUR 3.6 billion in NBI. And basically, there was a EUR 1 billion hole because of the COVID markets, as you may remember, right? So say the normalized steady state at the time was around EUR 4.5 billion. So today, the last guidance that we gave was above the top of the range, which is above EUR 5.5 billion. So keeping it simple, you have EUR 1 billion of revenue more than back then and extremely important, right, with a fraction of the risk that we were running at the time because the RWA on market side are down 30% and stress test usage is down 70%.

So not only we have EUR 1 billion more and which was there quite sustainably over the last few years. I'll come back to the conducive market conditions, but just to set the scene. So EUR 1 billion more at a fraction of the risk. And that's what we're working on, right, making sure that we operate this at maximum capacity, but at a very -- with a very low risk profile, which leads us to what, which leads us to what, which leads us to also leave some of the marginal opportunity to make money on the table for the sake of higher stability and better risk return over time. That's extremely important in the way we think.

Now more specifically on your question, the market conditions have been supportive, right? And it's quite remarkable, right? But we could go -- we don't have time, but we could go year-by-year since 2021. And every single year, there was something very specific that was driving volatility up, trends -- multiple trends during the year were present. Both are very conducive to the business, while never going into a dislocation, right? So these were like the perfect conditions, right? Obviously, then you have differences asset classes by asset classes, blah, blah, blah, but -- and we are, as you know, on the fixed side, for instance, geared more towards rates, not so much towards credit and blah, blah, blah.

So -- but without consideration to the business mix differences, these were somewhat perfect conditions, right? So do I think that it's the new normal? Well, I don't think that perfect conditions are the new normal, right? And we will see different things happening from a volatility perspective. And obviously, hopefully not. But you need to be mindful of potential dislocation. It's not like the world lacks reasons for profound instability. So going back to the heart of what we're trying to do is to operate this business with a very low risk profile and with that statement trying to capture the opportunities with the low risk profile, and we'll try to do our best this year, probably above the top of the range.

Very clear. Thank you very much, Slawomir.