Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Q1 2023 results conference call of Raiffeisen Bank International. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Mr. Johann Strobl, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our Q1 2023 update call. Thank you for joining us today. We can report another good quarter with decent operating trends and a very solid balance sheet. Consolidated profit for the first quarter is EUR 657 million, for a return on equity close to 16%. More importantly, the core of the group, excluding Russia and Belarus, earned EUR 330 million and a 10.4% ROE, respectively. In the first quarter, we recognized a very large portion of the bank levies and other governmental measures, and we have taken a further EUR 69 million of provision for litigation in Poland. Risk costs outside of Russia were very low, with still very few insolvencies in our markets. Our CET1 ratio stands at 16%. You are by now familiar with our dual steering approach to the group's capital ratio, excluding Russia. Assuming a full loss of the Russian equity, our CET1 ratio is 13.7% and comfortably above current requirements. On the occasion of our annual general meeting a few weeks back, we updated our shareholders and the market about our Russian business. We have spent the past year exploring a variety of options. Our focus today is on two of these, namely a sale or a spin-off. In either case, the result would be a full deconsolidation of our Russian subsidiary from the group. As we speak, we are working at full steam on both solutions. I cannot tell you today which one will be favored, as both require a complex series of approvals. In the meantime, we continue to reduce our business in Russia. After shrinking the loan book and tightly managing our RWAs in Russia last year, we have also taken additional steps to reduce our payments business. As a result, we expect the revenues and earnings contribution from Russia to decrease in 2023. Another point I wish to update you today is the OFAC request for information. In February, we announced that the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control requested information relating to our payments business in light of U.S. sanctions on Russia. You're familiar with the statement we made at the time, there are nevertheless a few points that bear repeating. We are operating fully with OFAC and have agreed a scope and timeline for the delivery of the requested information. We have agreed to deliver the requested information in three stages. We are now finalizing the second delivery package, the third one will be completed in June. Second, the request for information on our sanction compliance program and exposures to Russia, this is what the OFAC seeks for. Finally, we are confident that our compliance systems are strong, and we have frequently demonstrated this to our regulators and banking counterparts. We are confident that we will fully satisfy OFAC's request for information. If we turn to the next slide, I can state that we are pleased with the operating results in the first quarter, considering some of the headwinds we have shared with you during our last call. For the core of the group, excluding Russia and Belarus, NII is virtually flat. Fees in the core of the group were down 5%, largely due to seasonal factors, including the typical drop in volumes in Q1 versus Q4. Loan growth in the first quarter was muted in most of our markets. Of course, in Russia and Belarus, we continue to reduce our business. Finally, despite the strong inflation in our markets, the cost/income ratio for the core of the group remains near 47%. In most markets, we aim to keep our OpEx growth at or below inflation. If we move to the next slide, this offers a closer look to the first quarter. If we start with the full group view, the decrease is largely attributable to Russia. As you know, 2022 was an unordinary year for our bank there, and we have taken several measures to reduce business. This is already visible, and we expect this trend to continue. More interesting for you, I assume, are the core revenues excluding Russia and Belarus. Net interest income is pretty much flat, largely due to repricing of liabilities, which is happening slower than we anticipated. Nevertheless, we are seeing some competition in local currencies in the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary, while euro deposits continue to benefit from rate tax. We've slightly improved our NII guidance for 2023 to around EUR 3.6 billion. Fees were down in the quarter with the biggest drop in Russia due to lower volumes and margins, some of which is seasonal, but to a large extent, some normalization after what was an unordinary last year. As I mentioned, we are introducing some restrictions, and the Russian fee line will be lower as a consequence. In the core of the group, the drop is largely the seasonal factors which I have mentioned. Nevertheless, we have slightly increased our fee guidance for the core of the group, as you will see in the outlook slide. Now we expect this to be roughly flat versus last year. Turning to the next page, slide 7. I have already mentioned the muted loan growth in the quarter. The main driver in our reported numbers comes from short-term business in head office such as repo and money markets business. Romania saw decent corporate lending growth, or so this was largely in the pipeline from Q4 and is not an indicator for the rest of the year. Going forward, we are cautious on new volumes for the rest of the year. On one hand, we continue to see low demand both in retail and in corporate, where investments are slowing down. We are also selective on the underwriting. Our loan growth guidance for the year is now at around 2%. Deposits from customers were roughly flat on the quarter. We saw a reduction in head office, where our very good liquidity position allows us to let low liquidity value deposits leave, and we can optimize our deposit base both for cost but also for the liquidity value that they provide. In essence, we do not need to compete for concentrated, short-dated, and very price-sensitive deposits. We will take a closer look at head office liquidity position on the next slide. Slide 8. The liquidity position of the group. As you can see, the LCR was above 200 at the end of the first quarter and even a touch higher as end of April. Equally important, individual network units also maintain a very high LCR ratios, typically between 200% and 300%. Our network banks are generally funded by a high share of granular retail deposits. NSFR for the group remains very high as well, reflecting a very stable stock of term funding. On the right-hand side, let's briefly discuss the liquidity profile in head office. Despite no sizable retail deposit base here, it is the most conservative liquidity position of any of our units. First, we have taken a number of measures to shore up liquidity since the start of the war last year. As of today, head office LCR stands at around 160%, versus 131% nine months ago. More importantly, we monitor on a daily basis the excess liquidity under the most extreme scenario. If we assume that all liability leaves the bank at the contractual maturity, we would still have over EUR 1 billion of excess liquidity after one year. I cannot think of a more cautious approach to managing liquidity. Our team have done an excellent job building up this position. If you look beyond one year, the bank is equally robust. Long-term funding includes deposits above one year and bonds exceeds our loans to customer with a residual maturity above one year. If we look at the next slide, you see the development of the CET1 ratio on total group, stable. We have earmarked a dividend of EUR 0.80 per share, which would be 27 basis points in CET1. This is deducted from the regulatory capital. What you also see is the benefit from transitional application of IFRS 9 of around 34 basis points in Q1. We turn to the next slide, you have an outlook to 2023, where you see, given the good earnings capacity, the RWA increase, which I have already described before, and some other impacts, I think one can say that we expect also the year-end a strong CET1 ratio. Moving now to one of the most often asked question, which is what is a potentially zero price book, zero deconsolidation scenario in Russia. The landing point at the end of Q1 was 13.7%, so this is above our internal ratio, what we have set at 13.5% for this scenario. Numbers are pretty stable here. It's a reduction on the one hand of the CET1 equity by EUR 4.1 billion in case of deconsolidation, on the other hand, we have a EUR 13.4 billion, sorry, RWA deconsolidation. Yeah, I have to add two remarks. The one is that if we would also lose the intragroup subordinated instruments, we would have additional negative impact of 40 basis points. What you should also be made aware here is that the way operational risks or the RWA from my pro-operational risks are usually treated is a phase out approach. If you would have an immediate phasing out of the strong revenue base, this would end another 45, 50 basis points. Moving to the next slide, which is maybe more for documentation and information is capital ratios and the SREP. What will happen till end of the year with some additional information on the MDA buffer and the available distributable items. I think this is more for reading, I move to the next slide, which is the MREL and the funding plan. I think here again, with all the funding, what we successfully did already last year, but also at the beginning of this year, you see now a very good situation in the MREL numbers of the head office or the Austrian Resolution Group, I should say in a more precise way. This is the one element. The other is that also in the network banks, we have done, we made good progress, you also see what we need or we might need in next year, 2024. To our own funding plans here, we might come with two to three additional benchmarks. One could be a covered bond issuance to strengthen our liquidity profile. Another could be non-preferred senior, maybe in the second half to maintain our loss absorbing capacity and to support our credit rating. Slide 14, an update on Russia. You see in all ratios, the Russian bank and the local requirements is very, very strong. Be it the liquidity position, be it the CET1 ratio. Also the loan/deposit ratio is fantastically good. Very good numbers. You are also aware of the development. We had another drop in loans, around 3% quarter-on-quarter. We have reduced further our net cross-border exposures, which is mainly RBI head office, EUR 295 million. You might remember this was EUR 600 million when the war started. You see the adjustments on the RWAs. This of course are moving elements, and depending on mainly where the liquidity is placed, this might increase or reduce the RWAs from the Russian entity. Coming to slide 15, the macro outlook. Yeah, small adjustments, what you see some countries slightly improved, like our forecast for the Czech Republic, others may be at zero, like Hungary. Of course, the numbers are better in the Southeastern European area. Yeah, Russia with -2 still in the shrinking environment, but reasonable number. Given the big drop in Ukraine last year, we see a slight improvement in 2023. Of course, in 2024 we assume in all the markets improved numbers. Of course, inflation and high interest rates have an impact on household demands. Yeah. Well, we'll see if the impact is, might be even bigger. Moving to slide 16. This is also an update on our perception of inflation developments for this year and in addition to that, also for next year. For some bigger markets where we are in some expectations of interest rate developments, in some markets we already have this year a reduction in the key rates of the central banks. May of course here it depends on the development of the inflation, if it would come at that pace or if we would find maybe a little bit delay in the reduction of the key rates. Moving to slide 17, the guidance. As I mentioned in introduction, it's already here in the numbers as well. Core revenues, EUR 3.6 billion, the net interest income, fee income at EUR 1.7 billion, probably loan to customers +2%, on the group level, the numbers would be relatively similar, but of course bigger with EUR 5.3 billion-EUR 5.4 billion of NII and EUR 3.2 billion-EUR 3.4 billion in fee and commission income. As we expect further reduction in the loan book in Russia. Overall it might be, loan book might be flat. OpEx EUR 3 billion, which leads to a CR, the cost/income ratio slightly above 50%. We have a similar number in the total group at EUR 3.8 billion and cost/income ratio somewhere between 41% and 43%. You're aware of the risk costs overlay what we have built up in the past. Before we use this, the current update is, as I mentioned before, good development, around 60 basis points in the core group and on the total group at around 90 basis points. Profitability and consolidated Return on Equity around 10% and on total group level at 17%. The ratios I have touched already above 13.5% and 16% respectively. With this, I hand over to Hannes. Thank you very much, Johann. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for taking the time to join us this afternoon. In what has been a busy quarter for the banking sector, I'm happy to report that the first quarter has been uneventful for RBI. First of all, credit risk is very muted year-to-date. Risk costs in the quarter are largely the result of further overlays being booked in Russia and benign risk costs elsewhere in the group. Insolvencies are low, and we have seen very few early indicators of stress in our portfolio. We entered the year with excellent portfolio quality, and I'm satisfied that this remains very much the case today. Despite the sticky high inflation, both corporate and retail portfolios remain solid. Let me talk about the retail side. On the retail side, our underwriting always included higher rates, consequently, we have witnessed very little deterioration due to the current rates and inflation environment. We nevertheless simulate further rate hikes and double-digit inflation rates going forward, we still see limited pressure on debt-servicing ability. Labor markets, and that's very important, are only expected to loosen modestly, which of course is very much supportive. Let me also talk about the corporate side. Commercial real estate appears to be on everyone's mind nowadays. Our exposure is around EUR 14 billion, less than 6% of the group's total exposure. We'll find a simple breakdown in the appendix on slide 29. Please keep in mind that we have securitized over EUR 1.5 billion of our real estate book, our actual exposure is in fact lower. A few comments on our real estate exposure. We reviewed our portfolio towards the end of last year, already stressing for prolonged higher interest rates. This is fully reflected in our internal ratings. We also assumed a pronounced drop on average of around 25% in prices and booked around EUR 70 million of overlays. Our valuations are conservative and either include haircuts to the market values or alternative measures. In recent years, we did not revise the collateral values up every quarter as real estate prices appreciated. We will be conducting another stress test in the second quarter, where we will include further drop in property values and decrease in cash flows. Where necessary, we may book additional overlays. Finally, the exposure is very well diversified across the sector and geographically focused in our region. Before you ask, and I may assume that you will ask, no, we do not have any exposure to commercial real estate in the U.S. For the total group, we keep and leave our risk cost guidance unchanged at 90 basis points. Let me also move away from credit risk. I'm sure you confirm that our liquidity position is exceptionally strong. As Johann mentioned, we have excellent liquidity in each of our markets and very stable criminal retail deposits. In head office, we have built the most resilient liquidity profile possible. However you stress liquidity outflows for the next 12 months, we would still have a surplus liquidity. Another big topic nowadays everybody's talking about is interest rate risk. Interest rate risk is also very limited with asset and liability duration largely matched. We only recently started to build up fixed rate positions in currencies such as the Czech koruna and the Romanian leu. The interest rate gap remains small. Our largest exposure is in euros. To give you a flavor, where an immediate 200 basis point shock would have an impact of only 25 basis points in CET1 measures. Let me now run you swiftly through the slides. I'm on page 29, where you can see the overview, where we have the 93 basis points, translating in EUR 300 million of risk costs. As said, the most important part and the biggest part is being allocated to overlays. Stage 3 bookings are summing up to EUR 62 million only. You can see that we have now over EUR 900 million of stock of risk overlays. The asset quality classifies and demonstrates by itself, having an NPE ratio of 1.5% and a very solid coverage ratio of 58.2%. I was talking about the lower insolvencies. Maybe what is also still important, you know, when looking at the, at the right-hand side of the, of the box. In Ukraine, we have seen the one out of Stage 3 bookings, but at the same time we have very robust overlays already being built up. In Russia, we have further increased these overlays by EUR 223 million. Page 20 is showing the split in the different subcomponents. As said, total risk costs are summing up to EUR 301 million and EUR 278 million are being allocated to Russia and Belarus. If you decompose the EUR 301 million, you can see that the biggest part is coming with EUR 176 million in the bill of overlays. Let me move on to the next page on 21. While I would not like to steal your time in going very deep to explain the difference of EUR 0.9 billion of risk of RWAs within a quarter. There is one important information which may have caught your attention. This is this EUR 1.3 billion of inorganic effect. Well, this must be attributed to the Article 500 in the CRR, where you have to risk-weight public debt issued debt in a currency which is different to the local currency. Let me move on to page 22, talking about the Poland Swiss Franc update. Well, we still have 27,000 loans outstanding. We have now 10,500 litigation cases, and we have added in the first quarter another EUR 69 million for provisions in litigation. We also had to digest EUR 17 million when it comes to net losses regarding annulment decisions. Leading us now to a stock of provisions for litigation of over EUR 853 million. What has changed on this slide? Well, we are also now talking about in public regarding settlements. We are now exploring a pilot program for settlement under having this under consideration, and we would be very much willing to follow the terms proposed in the KNF solution in converting the contract currency to zloty. We know from the banking environment in Poland that this approach was tested and is successful. Well, page 23 is for your documentation that we are still having a prudent approach when it comes to NP ratio and NP coverage. We all thank you for your patience in listening to us. We would now be ready to take your questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, we may now start the Q&A session. If you wish to ask a question today, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Please ensure that the mute function on your telephone is turned off or we will not receive your signal. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, you will need to press star 1. If for any reason you need to remove yourself from the queue, you can do so by pressing star 2. We will pause for a moment in order to allow and to allow a queue to assemble. Our first question comes from Mehmet Sevim with J.P. Morgan. Good afternoon. Thanks very much for the presentation. I'll have a couple questions, please. Firstly, on Russia. I appreciate you can't provide additional details on the exit option for now, as you mentioned earlier. Is there anything you can say at this point on the potential timing of it, whichever option it may be? Secondly, on your NII guidance, which is EUR 3.6 billion-3.7 billion, excluding Russia and Belarus. Given the first quarter run rate is still very strong, do you attribute the repricing of these deposits and other liabilities, which you mentioned is going slower than you expected, to non-sustainable reasons or, what's your thinking here? Do you expect an acceleration therefore going forward, and the things coming back to their previous momentum therefore? Finally, are you accruing any potential dividends out of 2023 earnings in your capital so far? If so, at what level that would be? Thanks very much. Thank you for your questions. So let me start with the timeline, and I appreciate that you do not ask for a preference on the two solutions. As I mentioned before, we need many approvals for both. If it works according to our plan. Where I believe the options where we have a little bit more in our hands is the spin-off and the current plan. What we're trying to achieve is that a spin-off could be finished maybe by or the at earliest at end of Q3. So this would mean quite a number of decisions and some approvals, but main important an extraordinary shareholder meeting in still in August so that we can finalize it. On the other hand, by end of September, and on the other hand, I mean, by a sale. A sale would mean that we would prefer to have a signing and closing within one quarter. Here one has to say this is a very strong assumption, and again depending on what you need as approvals. To your second question, the NII guidance and the current run rate, which is, as we stated, around EUR 1 billion. Yeah, we see signs of repricing. We see it in two ways. Now, the one is that within the product category we see an ongoing repricing, but we also see a shift from the lower priced liabilities to higher ones. Consistent reduction on current account and then shifts to saving accounts and term deposits, which of course are higher priced. The dividend, what we have accrued, you know, there is this. You have this, as a percentage, 19% of the profit as this is the three-year average what we have, and this is EUR 128 million. As I said, this ratio is a regulatory requirement which is based on the payout of the last three years. The intended EUR 0.80 are part of these considerations. Thank you for your questions. That's very helpful. Thank you. If I may, just one very quick follow-up on the Russia situation. It sounds like the strategic decision has been reached from your side, but it largely depends on external approvals from here, which option it will ultimately be at, and also at what time point. Is that fair to assume? Not exactly. Not exactly. The reason for that is that it's also about economic considerations, what we have. You know, in both, in both areas. We might end up in a situation where the costs could be very high and then we would have to use a fallback solution. Even in the spin-off, there might be extra costs, which I do not assume, but which can pop up at the last moment. In that case we could not even or we would reconsider also the spin-off. Of course, in the sale option at a little more. A couple of more approvals are needed. As we stated before, we could not sell at any price. There is a range which is probably acceptable, but not at any price. Thank you. Very helpful. Thanks very much. Next question is by Gabor Kemeny with Autonomous Research. Yes. Hi. I would like to pick up on the last point you made on the valuation. Can you just walk us through the potential sale, potential range for the sale valuation given the government regulations in place for foreign asset sales? That would be the first question. Then to follow up on the NII, could you be a little more specific on what deposit betas are you observing now and what your guidance assumes what your NII guidance assumes for the core businesses? My last question would be, I think you told about some outflows of these short-term deposits, short-term volatile price sensitive deposits from the head of this. What the outlook for deposit volume from here? Are you expecting more outflow in the second quarter? Gabor, as you are usually one of the best informed persons, maybe I cannot add anything new to the valuation mechanics, but so let me rather share my way of thinking. Well, there are always rumors in the market that the mechanics will be changed. I still work on the base of what there was at earlier calls reported. The 50% discount from the value plus the 10% and on the sales price for the exit tax. Yeah, rumors are there that this could be changed. The tricky part is that the valuation will come from the buyer. There the buyer is like always the one who selects the valuator out of this list and whatever. We usually work from a very simple approach, which is full capital maybe with a few adjustments. This is the way we are more or less thinking. When talking about the beta, it's not a number which I like. We rather talk internally about the pass-through on deposits. Here one has to say that especially when we talk about euro. Then in Austria, this is S, and this is linked also to your third question. It's yeah. Deposits come from institutional clients and from large corporates. These are, they are money market deposits. What remains is. Which means that they follow the central bank, I should rather say, the money market, and only what is on the account. The lower amount, lower volumes which per customer which are on the accounts on a daily basis, they give us some room. Here one might assume that 70% might be passed through in Slovakia and in other units where we have euros, here, I guess it's significantly lower, maybe around 30%. These are our assumptions with which we work. Of course, there is always the uncertainty about the competition. This exactly leads to your third question. Short-term corporate outflows, you know, bigger volumes with overnight or very short maturity. It's good to have them, it's good to know where the money is, but there is no need to have them all the time. This is money which is quickly moving, and our people have a good understanding where the sensitivity is. This is what one can manage. Yeah, it in head office, it also depends on the timing of funding activities in capital markets and some others. But it's not here, it's not about expectation, it's rather than the market situation. In terms of, you know. I should repeat the quality in terms of modeling. For be it, in our internal systems, the NSFR or the of course not and also in the LCR, it's not really of high value. It's rather short-term activities. Thank you for your questions, Gabor. Okay. Thank you, Johann. Just a quick follow-up on the Russia sale. Do we have clarity that the basis for the sale valuation would be the current or latest reported equity? I'm asking this in the context of your Russian equity more than doubling since the start of the war. My assumption is that we take the Here again, I'm relying on the potential buyer, but my starting point is it's in RUB terms, it's the latest available equity, what we have there. When talking about in euro terms, there is some adjustments. Then Gabor, as you know, it depends on the signing, if you use the Q1 or Q2 or so. Here we have some questions which still needs to be discussed. In some others, what Hannes has mentioned, you might point to overlays and whatsoever. This creates an area which of course would need to be discussed also with the buyer. It's. I want to say there are some additional elements which comes on top of the book equity, which will be addressed when talking to the buyer. Thank you. Yeah, that's better. Thank you, Johann. Thank you for all your questions. If you have any more, please remember to press star one on your telephone keypad to place your question. The mute function on your telephone needs to be turned off so we can get to your signal. Next question is by Johannes Thormann with HSBC. Caller, your line is open. Sorry. Was on mute. Johannes Thormann, HSBC. Two questions from my side, please. First of all, on your commercial real estate exposure, as you said, you have nothing in the U.S. If you look at your existing country of risk and the different asset classes, which feel you most comfortable and which are still the largest concern for you in this respect? If you look at fee income, just a simple question, which are the most surprising dynamics for you and what has been like the biggest disappointment this quarter? Thank you. Well, Johannes, if I may start with the commercial real estate, just to remind ourself, and I was addressing you in my introductory verse to page 29, actually it's 28, where you can see a split of the different subsectors when talking about some real estate. Let me start with the segments and then maybe talking also about the countries, so not to bypass your question. Well, if you look at the different sub-segments, I think it's fair to say, I don't know how you experience if you're on business travel, more or less the hotel market is back. There we see two things. The one is the level of occupancies, but also what we like to look at, we call it RevPAR. It means also the revenues per room. Yeah. They are way above for 2019. If we take 2019 as a reference point. The other one is, I know that there is nowadays a lot of talk regarding office. At the same time, I also strongly believe that the office market, if you're being compliant with ESG and building state-of-the-art office, you still would have a good demand. Well, I think part of the market was really the warehouse. We have seen, you know, I think also motivated by the supply chains, that there was these this very, very heavy reliance on these warehouses. We have seen yields which have been exceptionally low when talking about warehouses. We have seen warehouses priced with yields of 4% or 5%, which is, which is at least for me, head-scratching. This is the point when talking about different industries. Office ESG, I think will still be solid. There will be a good demand. Hotels have nicely recovered. Industry, well, depends on the slowdown in industry. Residential, well, also here, guys, listen, we have seen very pronounced valuation over the last two, three years. Why not having now also a little bit of a slowdown and taking steam out of the entire heat when talking about this portfolio. What I would flag at this point in time is maybe the warehouses, where I believe that they have seen a very strong valuation. This is the thing where I would think, well, let's see how things do develop. Also, of course, warehousing is very much dependent on the economic momentum. When talking about the countries, you know, the biggest part of our real estate portfolios, I think it's easy to talk about, the biggest part is here in Austria. The next biggest one is Czech Republic and Slovakia, and a little bit Romania and other countries, much lesser exposed. What I have underlined in my introductory notes is that when we have conducted the underwriting, we have not conducted the underwriting based on a pure LTV perception. I know that there have been some market participants just say, "Well, it has an LTV of 60, 70, 80, so you can go ahead." We have been very much looked on the cash flows and on the repayment capability. Some of the interest hike have been so well flagged that, of course, we have considered them in the repayment schedule. What you also must not forget is that some of these companies also have interest hedges in place. If they either have done a fixed rate loan or if they would have been on a floating basis. Some of them also do have interest hedges in place. In Czech Republic, we have seen the strong increase. We have seen this very strong increase in rates. I can share with you that we usually do an underwriting on five to seven-year fixed rate loan. Whatever happens to them, they will be further capable to repay their loan. Yes, if I have structured in a project finance structure, I may be required to adjust my rating. This is what I also outlined that we have done so. Well, talking about Austria, which is the second or the biggest part of the portfolio with some EUR 3.4 billion. Here we go usually with high quality exposure. In Austria, also the same underwriting, so not a pure LTV base, but also cash flow base. This would be the way of looking at it, Johannes. Thanks for your questions. Thank you. I take over. Shall I? Maybe I take your second question. If you look at the group level, then the drop is compared to the last quarter, EUR 230 million. The biggest part comes from Russia. Here it's neither a surprise nor a disappointment. We announced that we are going to reduce our business in Russia, not only in the loan business, but also in the services. Yeah, if you then look at some of the details, then only EUR 23 million out of this EUR 230 is then a reduction in the rest of the group. There it comes mainly from the payment services business. Where we, as I tried to indicate, where we usually have in Q4, quite a seasonality in the way the fees are paid and calculated, but also in the Christmas business and, whatever you have. It's fairly spread, Czech Republic down by EUR 6 million. In Romania, for example, also down EUR 5 million because of lower activities. Again, seasonality. I mean, Ukraine down EUR 4 million. Here, I think it's not a surprise that there as well some activities are less. Overall, I think it's a very, very expected development outside of Russia and with Russia as well. I mean, what you see is that the loan and guarantees business usually generates also fees, here coordinates with the reduced loan volume. To what extent this will slightly decrease. Everything else, I think, pretty fine. The big changes came Russia from the payment services, from the securities brokerage business, as there is little and of course from the foreign exchange business. Thank you for your question. Thank you. If I may add a follow-up just on the Russian payments. Did we see the full effect of the termination of the correspondent banks in the fee income and in other income sources, or should we expect more to come? Yeah. We had these adjustments not overnight at the beginning of the quarter. There had been, every week, a reducing business. If you take the full quarter, then you should expect, also a further drop in the coming quarters. Okay. Thank you very much. Next question is by Hai Thanh Le Phuong with Concorde. Hi. Thanks for your presentation. I just had two topics for discussion. The first one would be on your provisioning guidance. Just that I have the read across correctly. If I'm adding up the numbers, and you expect, like, up to 90 basis points for risk costs, and from this 50 basis points is for the core, then I would say that you don't expect material provisioning in Russia moving forward to the year. Is that correct? Also, it would be nice to have your assumptions, like if there is any particular segment or segments at the core that you assume a substantial asset quality deterioration because you expect a clear rise on risk costs at the core for the rest of the year. My second topic would be, it's quite specific. It's on Hungary, because the National Bank just changed the interest paid on the reserve requirements, and I was wondering if you could share with us the net interest income impact from that step. Thank you. I take the first question regarding the risk cost guidance. You're completely right. You know, I don't see any further need in Russia for the rest of the year. We have built up a big bunch of PMAs already last year. We added one in the first quarter. I indicated when giving the outlook how much I do believe, that's the reason why we immediately covered it on the first quarter, you know, not to stay with any risk costs ups and downs when it comes to Russia. This goes to your first question. Any segments, portfolios where you expect more in the next three quarters, I assume that you have this question for all the portfolio. As I also indicated in my introductory statement, while I believe that nevertheless, we have a solid portfolio, that commercial real estate might be good for the one other surprise. That's also the reason why we might be tempted to book the one other overlay still in the second quarter when it comes to commercial real estate. This would be my guidance when it comes to risk costs. Johann, on NII. This was a very specific question, which I can answer with one number. We currently expect EUR 17 million impact from this minimum reserve issue, and this is included in the guidance, what we gave. Thank you. Thank you. Next question is by Riccardo Rovere with Mediobanca. Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for taking my question. Couple, if I may. The first one is again on risk guidance, risk cost guidance for the core operations. The number, the 60 basis points that you are alluding to for the whole, for the whole 2023, it seems to me that is exactly the same number before, the kind of 75 basis points, just with the difference that one quarter is gone, and you charged zero or very close to zero. It would mean more or less 20 basis per quarter as it was before. The question is, why all of a sudden in just three months, something should go from zero to, say, couple of hundred million in the core operations? Considering that, you know, in your macro forecast, you have one of the slides, you know, GDP is assumed to remain positive one way or the other. The second question I have is, it's not clear to me, and sorry if you have already explained that I missed the very start of the beginning of the call. It's not clear to me why on NII the guidance has been raised for cooperations in such a way, considering the rate scenario, okay, it's a bit different, maybe in Hungary, in Euro area, but it's not shockingly different than it was three months ago. Just wondered to have a better understanding of sort of these questions that we've been asking. Ricardo, if I may start, of course you're right. At the same time, we are still early in the year. In the 60 basis points, please allow me to make two remarks what must be considered. The one is within the 60 basis points, we also of course have Ukraine being considered, and on the other one is the indicated overlays for real estate. That's the reason why we have the 60 basis points at this point in time where we say, "Well, you are right, of course. Why do we have another 20 basis points per quarter? These have been the considerations, so that within the 660 basis points, we have to cover Raiffeisen Bank Ukraine's portfolio performance, which currently looks extremely solid, and at the same time also these potential overlays for the real estate. This is the point and, you know, what is the background. Of course, unfortunately, we believe that the geopolitical situation stays tense, that the economic outlook is slowing down. Johann was sharing the GDP outlook. This has been the consideration why we kept the 60 basis points up at this period in time. Thanks for the question. Yeah. I mean, to your cautious question, EUR 1 billion we had, and I take now Russia not so much into consideration as here the development of the volumes and a couple of other questions are relevant. I think you anyhow ask for the core group. This almost EUR 1 billion, what we had in Q4. Indeed, this is a drop in, if we say 3.6, 3.7. On the other hand, yeah, funding costs, which you need for the meet the MREL requirement and whatever are not to be underestimated. I think this is one element which over the year has to be considered. The second, of course, is that as I tried to explain that the structural repricing, so the change in the structure is an element so that we see a continued development that from the accounts, customers move to term deposits and saving accounts. It's. Yeah. We will see if with which speed this trend is ongoing and also what we see from the, from the competition. This is the way of our reasoning why we from your point of view, we are cautious or if I would say it in my terms, we lower the run rate. Thank you. Thanks. Just a quick follow-up on the risk cost, if I may. Hannes, when you refer to the possible provisions related to real estate, Raiffeisen already has Post Model Adjustments. Can those be used? How should we think? How should we be thinking about those? The ones that are already existing. Can they be used for that purpose? Are you assuming in the 60 basis points, the use of the Post Model Adjustments that have already been charged over the past couple of years or so for COVID and energy crises, whatever? Well, Ricardo, when referring to page 19, you can see the detailed split, you know, and EUR 547 are really allocated to Russia and Belarus. There it's very much about event-driven. I don't know which company will be next on the sanction list. That was the reason why we have created this high level of PMAs. What we also usually do, Ricardo, is that we try to build these overlays in a way that they are self-consuming. What do I mean by this? You know, for instance, on the cross-border exposure, we also have allocated at a certain stage of time PMAs, and as soon as they are being repaid, I can release these PMAs. I think the two blocks when talking about Russia and Belarus, but also when talking about Ukraine, they are very much allocated to single events, and then we would have the capacity to make use of these PMAs. The other one, the EUR 319, taking care about inflation. I think energy, we currently all feel yes, the energy storage across Europe is on a very prudent and high level. I have no clue, I have no clue how things would develop in the fourth quarter when we're again talking about fall and in winter time. That's the reason why we kept also the EUR 319. This is the way of thinking, but usually we try to structure them and allocate them in a way that they are self-consuming. Means as soon as the potential portfolio where this PMA might be needed is reduced, then we can also release these PMAs. As said, out of the EUR 917, EUR 547 plus EUR 52 are allocated to this event-driven topics, allocated to Ukraine, but also to Russia and sanction risk. Hopefully this helps in the interpretation. Yes. Sorry. To continue on that. The EUR 319, is this assumed to be used when you provide the guidance of roughly 60 basis points? Meaning that the 60 basis points on a gross level would actually be more than that because you are going to be using. Well, that is. The other EUR 90. The EUR 319 would be as we said, the 60 basis points are always communicated in a level of not using overlays. Of course, you're right, you know. Okay. If it goes beyond the 60 basis points, I could also make use of the 319 stated here. That's the way how we have built up our PMAs. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now it's clear. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks very much for your question. I appreciate it. Next question is by Iuliana Golub with Goldman Sachs. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the presentation and for taking my questions. I appreciate that you provided details with respect to the RWA dynamics. I'm just interested in what happened to Hungary as there is a quite sizable increase quarter on quarter, whereas the loan book saw quite modest quarter on quarter growth. I was just wondering, is this related to the inorganic effects you mentioned on weighings of public debt in the foreign currency? Is there anything related to the actual credit risk in that country that's changed? The second question would be around the investment portfolios. You mentioned that you started recently building in the Czech Republic and Romania. Would you be able to specify, please, if this is an available for sale portfolio, and are they just government bonds or anything else? The third question, I'm sorry to go back to CRE, would you be able to please provide, the average LTVs for your portfolios in Austria and Czech Republic? Thank you. Well, Iuliana, you're fast in formulating your question, John is not even capable to write down your question. He's a little bit puzzled. I talk, you know, that he can raise the question, slow down a little bit process. The way I understood your first question is about the very strong and pronounced RWA increase in Hungary. Yes, indeed. You spotted this perfectly right. This goes back to this Article 500. What I have mentioned. You know, as soon as you have public debt issued in a current other, which is different to the local currency. That's the regulation that if you have an issuance related to public debt which is not in the local currency, you have to risk weight it. That's the main reason. You could find the one or other euro bond issued in Hungary, and therefore you have to risk weight them. That's the first point. When talking about model books in Czechia, in Romania, we have built up this receivable position mainly in bonds. If this is not available, we would also be willing to use swaps, which is maybe dependent on the depth of the capital market here and there, a little bit more challenging. The other thing is team is working great. John even not have laid down the questions regarding the LTV distribution. Well, can you repeat Iuliana the questions regarding the LTV distribution? I'm happy to answer them, but give me a flavor on the exact question on the LTV not to steal your time. Yes, absolutely. Apologies for having been so fast. I'm just conscious of time. Yes, the last one was. Thank you for the answers. The last one was regarding the LTVs for your portfolios in Austria and Czech Republic, where you have the biggest CRE exposure, if I understood correctly. The LTVs for Austria and the other group is that round about 70%, 80% are on an LTV basis, which is below 70. Which is below 70. If we would go above 70, the rental or the loan structure must be a very special one. In Austria, if you sum up, it would be 70% in the range of below 60% LTV. That is that revaluation has already been done in Czechia for all the real estate. In Austria we always have also been very prudent when considering the value of the project. Hopefully this helps and answers your questions. As there are no further questions at this time, we will now conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. Thank you very much for your participation. I wish you a very good weekend. Many thanks for your interest. You may now disconnect.