Been CFO and head of business performance and management for the GWM business. It's been a pretty hectic past few days. The format as per the other sessions, we have 35 minutes. We've got a handful of questions to run through together. We're going to leave some time for audience Q&A. First of all, look, Todd, I know it's been a long going on, so sincere thanks for making the trip up here to speak to everybody. Let's just jump in straight on capital. I mean, how do you assess the current situation regarding the review of the capital requirements in Switzerland? You know, as you know, on Friday of last week, a lot was published, supporting various things supporting financial stability in Switzerland. By and large, we're in favor of the vast majority of the proposals. Now, naturally, as to, you know, capital, we're disappointed, certainly, because we think, you know, ultimately, that framework were to come to pass, you know, would be misaligned with international standards and clearly would be disproportionate. We also struggle a little bit to reconcile how the proposals are an appropriate and proportionate response to lessons learned from Credit Suisse. Let's unpack maybe the numbers a little bit. If, again, if these proposals come to pass, they would increase the CET1 capital of our parent bank, which is the first tier subsidiary of group, by $ 24 billion, mostly relating to the capitalization of foreign subsidiaries. Now, that becomes that capital is effectively trapped, and that creates, at the group level, a CET1 capital ratio of 19%, you know, as we illustrated in what we published on Friday in response. Now, interestingly, the proposals also would see the capital supporting select assets like deferred tax assets and software, to be eliminated. And so that has the effect of reducing the CET1 capital ratio from 19%- 17%. For me, the, you know, the key takeaway is that the $24 billion is the binding requirement. The fact that our CET1 capital ratio may look, it does not look as severe, as a result of these capital deductions is, I would say, interesting. You know, we should not lose sight of the fact that the key is the $24 billion capital build. I would just finish by saying on this point that, you know, we were already catering for around $18 billion of additional CET1 capital from the acquisition of Credit Suisse, the removal of the regulatory filter, $9 billion, because, you know, we're bigger as a result of the acquisition. Our market share has increased. It is over $40 billion of capital that, you know, we would have to cater for were these proposals to come to pass. It is just a result that we think is just not proportionate. I guess, how are you positioned to navigate that backdrop, and how do you respond from here? I would say our globally diversified business is one that has been adding value to our clients and for our shareholders. You know, our underlying operating performance has been strong. We have a balance sheet for all seasons. We're integrating Credit Suisse quite effectively. We have a lot of confidence in our strategy, and, you know, we're reluctant to back down from that. This said, this is the beginning of what can be a long process. I mean, certainly, there's a consultation process that will now ensue in light of the ordinance proposals, and, you know, we intend to contribute to that process. There's also a political process that ensues beyond that that'll address the bigger issue of foreign subsidiary capitalization. If invited to, we'll for sure participate in that as well. For us, really, the most important thing is to ensure that those who take decisions have all the facts and have undertaken an appropriate cost-benefit analysis. We believe that if they have the facts and undertake a cost-benefit analysis, that, you know, ultimately, we can get to an outcome that's more proportionate and a situation that's better for all stakeholders, including, importantly, the Swiss economy. I guess, in that context, then, how are you calibrating your targets and your capital return ambitions? You know, given nothing takes effect at the earliest until 2027, we reconfirmed our 2025 expectations of increasing our dividend accrual by 10% year- on- year. We intend to repurchase up to $2 billion of shares in the second half of the year for a total of $3 billion. In terms of 2026, it's important to reiterate what we've said over many quarters. You know, our ambition was to ultimately return more than we did in 2022. After the white paper was published by the Federal Council in April of 2024, you know, we did say that that ambition is subject to this Swiss capital debate question. We also said that we would not start and stop in terms of capital returns. All of that remains intact. In terms of what we'll do in 2026, we will articulate that early next year with our fourth quarter 2025 earnings. Staying on the context of ambition and targets, from a target perspective, we remain committed to getting to an underlying return on CET1 capital of around 15% by the end of 2026, an underlying cost-income ratio below 70% also by the end of 2026, both of those on an exit rate basis. You know, naturally, in terms of longer-term ambitions that we've talked about in the past, we have to see what the timeline ultimately is, and have more visibility around the rules. You know, on the timeline, I would say, and this does, also, I should add that in the context of 2026, I think it's reasonable to assume that despite the fact that there was nothing specified around a phase-in period for the capital deductions around DTAs and software, I think it's reasonable to assume that there will be a phase-in period. By the way, I mean, we don't control that. We don't know. That's something that the Federal Council ultimately has to clarify itself. That's just a reasonable assumption. You need clarification. Yeah. Okay. Understood. Okay. I'm going to pivot away from capital a little bit. So, you know, obviously, we've got the numbers as of Q1, but then post-Q1, there's a huge amount of turbulence, you know, across bond and equity markets, fresh concerns about inflation, et cetera. So how did that shift in market backdrop impact the performance of your businesses in the second quarter in the near term? Yeah. So we published first quarter earnings, you know, a few weeks after the trade and tariff announcements out of the U.S. And we had already seen, Chris, as you'll recall, I mean, we had already seen a fair bit of market dislocation at that point in time. We said that if that market uncertainty persists, we could see that weighing on client sentiment and ultimately activity levels. Now, in May, you know, ultimately, markets were calmer. Equity markets recovered their year-to-date losses. Bond markets, though, you know, are pricing in a lot of uneasiness still, however. By and large, we're really pleased with the progress we're making across our businesses. I would highlight, on the banking side, you know, we see across the street, dealmaking down. We see global fee pools down across the street, you know, mid to high teens is at least the expectation or at least where we are at present, in 2Q. We are in our banking unit, tracking the market performance. I would add, however, that we expect an additional $75 million adverse P&L relating to our LCM business in relation to a mark on an individual position and some risk management transactions that lost value as the markets recovered, in May. I'd also highlight a few other points, I think, that are relevant, for the quarter. You know, we've seen the dollar weaken against, in particular, the Swiss franc, in the quarter by 7%. That does have an impact on businesses, in particular, GWM, whose cost base is fairly, highly indexed to the Swiss franc, in a way that the revenues aren't as indexed. For GWM, we expect that the weakening of the dollar will have an adverse impact on underlying operating expenses of around $150 million. We'll see some offsetting relief on the revenue line, but, I, you know, I wanted to specifically call it the expense line. If dollar-Swiss stays around 0.82 for the rest of the year, just to give a sensitivity, we would expect in the second half of the year to see, in effect, per quarter, around half to two-thirds of that level. Another point I would make: last month, we announced the settlement of the legacy cross-border matter Credit Suisse had with the Department of Justice. That will give rise to a $400 million credit to litigation expense in Non-Core & Legacy. There will be a credit for the group of around $400 million. There will be an immaterial charge at the parent bank level for that same matter where we did not have the PPA reserve to support that particular matter. Lastly, I would just point out that I guided in Q1 that our tax rate for the quarter, particularly because of restructuring that we are doing related to the integration, could be around zero. Now that we have more visibility around some of the planning we've undertaken, we now expect for the second quarter to record a tax credit of around $250 million, that will support net profit in the quarter. Okay. So there's a lot of numbers there. Maybe we jump into each of the individual businesses as well. You know, you mentioned some of the changes in client activity you saw post-April. How are clients positioning and engaging with UBS in the wealth business? If we focus maybe in the U.S. wealth franchise, you've recently highlighted bringing a broader suite of products and capabilities to clients as you sort of progress towards that mid-teens pre-tax margin target. What are the key initiatives and signposts that we all should be watching to assess delivery on that ambition? In wealth management, Chris, our first priority is to stay close to clients and to help navigate markets like, you know, these. I think uncertain markets have been playing to our strength. We see that in the performance. I mean, Q1 was particularly strong for global wealth management. I'd like to call out the APAC performance, given that APAC has completed the integration, the client migration was completed at the end of last year. Q1 is an indication of what the true potential of global wealth management is as we get past the entire integration when we look out. I remain, you know, very optimistic about the business. Just turning to the U.S., we remain committed to increasing pre-tax margins to mid-teens by 2027. All the things I talked about in the fourth quarter, the various initiatives that we're undertaking, enhancing net interest income by building out our banking capabilities, more cost discipline, including better aligning financial advisor incentives with our group strategy, enhancing acquisition channels, particularly around assets and clients. All those things are, you know, a focus, you know, of ours. We're chipping away, and we're keeping our head down, but we're making progress. Yeah. If we look at the investment bank, you've got a multifaceted franchise, right, across global markets and global banking. Equities and, you know, sales and trading are the largest revenue contributor. How do you see the mix of performance within the IB evolving from here? I mean, you talked earlier about some of the nearer-term challenges on the banking side of things, but how do you see that mix evolving over the next few quarters and years? Yeah, Chris, I mean, I'm really pleased with the performance of the IB, in particular the parts of Credit Suisse that we retain in IB Corp have really strengthened the investment bank, as evidenced by its performance, and also has helped us to increase market share. It's also important to emphasize that, you know, the IB and wealth management just work in such a complementary fashion. You know, people can say that that's how the IBs work with their wealth management units. I mean, we really, you know, live that, and go to market. That's how we successfully serve our wealthiest, the most sophisticated clients. You see that in the performance we've been generating. In terms of the mix, you know, look, I think markets will, you know, continue to improve. and markets had a, of course, has had a very strong run. I do see banking actually growing faster, notwithstanding my comments about 2Q a few minutes ago. I actually see the mix improving such that, you know, banking will grow faster. We've talked about, Chris, and I know, you know, you've asked me in the past about, you know, how do you see the ambition of doubling banking revenues by 2026 relative to its 2022 performance? I said, you know, we're on track, need supportive markets like 2024 was, the first maybe quarter and a half, a little bit less so. Let's see how the rest plays out. I remain, you know, optimistic. The right balance for banking as a function of the IB is more like a third. You know, we've seen even during the course of 2024, it was probably a quarter. Even in Q1, where global fee pools were a little bit challenged and markets were strong, it was more like a fifth. I see a third as the right balance ultimately. In P&C, you know, given the increasing likelihood that interest rates in Switzerland could move below zero in the shorter term, how do you see NII evolving in that kind of scenario? And to what extent do the recent trade developments, I mean, how do they impact your outlook and ambitions within Switzerland from the P&C side? P&C is a key part of our strategy and is just a super reliable source of profitability. Naturally, it has been under pressure over the last year with interest rates in Switzerland coming down to where they sit at present at 25 basis points, having dropped 150 basis points over the last year. They are very likely to touch zero, if not go below, over the next couple of weeks. That really limits their room for maneuver from an NII perspective. That said, I have also mentioned that our Swiss franc sensitivity, interest rate sensitivity in the business reflects positive convexity, which means if rates either go negative or go positive, it will be accretive to NIIs. You know, we're hopeful to see now if rates touch zero or go below, that we will have bottomed out and then see an inflection from there. In terms of the credit book, I mentioned in the past that the CLE, which was elevated in recent quarters, in particular in 2024, was a function of the inherited Credit Suisse book that we're working our way through. I said by the end of 2026, we'll get back to normalized CLE levels as we get to the backside of that backbook that we've inherited. I would say on the trade and tariff point that, like our clients, we're watching that closely. You know, so far, it hasn't had a major impact on the credit book. Yeah. If we move to NCL, you've made considerable progress in winding down some of the legacy positions and exiting some of those with a gain. What are your key priorities and expectations then for the NCL unit from here? You know, the goal for NCL is for there not to be an NCL. They have done, you know, really, they have made great work. They have done great work to effectively run down their balance sheet and take out costs, you know, by over three quarters. They have done that, you know, really in less than two years. So great progress. They have, you know, we are looking to sunset integration more broadly by the end of 2026, as you know. We have given the progress NCL has made. We have recalibrated their ambition for RWA from a market and credit risk standpoint, i.e., non-operational risk RWA, to be no more than $4 billion by the end of 2026. They have, you know, I mean, they have done just a superb job in taking that down. We are very focused now on costs. As I mentioned, they've run down costs quite significantly, but there's some stubborn costs in there relating to technology, real estate, legal fees, dealing with legacy litigation matters and the like. You know, we do see there still being a fair bit remaining at the end of 2026. I guided in 4Q as much as $750 million. Our goal is to really, you know, minimize that level and then, of course, to have sights on chipping away at that, you know, even post-integration. Great. And then one last question from me before I open up for the audience. It's about the integration of Credit Suisse. Maybe just how's that progressing operationally? You've highlighted the decommissioning of platforms, the client's account migrations, the legal entity consolidation. There's a lot of stuff going on. Where do we currently stand in terms of the progress on the operational angle effectively of the merger? As we look ahead, you know, what's next? I guess from a cultural perspective, how do you feel the two institutions have really blended with regards to people and to culture? I think culturally, you know, we've brought together both Credit Suisse and UBS from the beginning. I do think that that's been, you know, part of the secret to having integrated Credit Suisse successfully because it's been one team, you know, working together. I think that's been critical. In terms of, you know, some of the milestones that we're still focused on, right now, we're in the throes of the Swiss client migration. The client migration on our Swiss platform, by the end of the second quarter, we expect to have moved a third of total relationships planned, which will run through the beginning of 2026. I've mentioned that decommissioning the Swiss platform, which will happen after we finish the client migration early next year, you know, there's $1 billion in costs associated with that. That's what, you know, that's part of the sightline I have to reaching our $13 billion gross cost save ambition. It's a major, the Swiss client migration is a major milestone, arguably among the last milestones that we have to complete. We know that will bring us to our $13 billion gross cost save ambition or contribute to getting there. It's also going to be a major contributor to both P&C and wealth management hitting their target cost-income ratios by the end of the integration. Okay. With that, let's see if we have any questions from the audience. Yeah, over here on the far side. Is there a microphone? No. You shall, and I'll repeat it. For the benefit of the webcast, I'll repeat it. You mentioned phase-in periods for the ordinance measures. What's your idea of what would be a reasonable portion of phase-in period for that? Related to that, you'll obviously end up with quite a high quality of core capital once those measures are in place. What could make you think about or rethink your management buffers when you have that higher quality? For the benefit of people listening, the questions were, what's the reasonable expectation around the potential phase-in period to start with? Then secondly, with a higher quality of capital, how would you think about running the buffers maybe differently to how you have in the past? Yeah, thanks. Thanks for those, you know, those questions. In terms of the phase-in, you know, as I mentioned, it's reasonable to assume that there will be a phase-in despite the fact that the draft ordinances themselves did not have specific language. You know, as I said, we do not know, and it's something that, you know, the Federal Council is going to have to, you know, come back and talk about. What tells me that that's, you know, it must be a reasonable outcome is the fact that every change, if you look back years, that every change to the capital ordinance in Switzerland has been introduced with a phase-in period. You know, I think that gives me at least that perspective as to why I think it would be phased in. In terms of the length, that's unclear. You know, I think it's also reasonable to assume that it's going to be something in the 4+ year range. You know, again, I don't know, and it's something that will have to be clarified. In terms of your second question, look, you know, we have to assess all of the options that we have at this point in time. You know, we owe that to stakeholders, especially shareholders. You know, we're going to look at, and we are looking at, every possible option, you know, to potentially mitigate the imposition of these extreme capital measures. As you say, you know, the fact that the quality of our common equity tier one, not only, you know, the quality gets, not only does it get larger in volume, but the quality improves, sure, that can invite that assessment, of course, and it will, but it's, you know, clearly too early to speculate on anything that we might do. Right in the middle if there is now a microphone that we can use. Given there are a number of large AT1 holders in the room, do you mind if I ask a question on AT1 specifically? There's some confusion out there regarding the language that came out in the paper on the coupon front. It does say specifically that your interest costs need to go down. In terms of economic calls, is it going to be similar to Europeans where you can argue by being creditor-friendly, calling a bond within, you know, some sort of reasonable range of being uneconomic will help your funding costs going forward? Or is it bond-specific where you have to prove that if you're calling a bond with a 7% coupon that you can refile it at better than 7% for that specific bond? Yeah, I think there are two points and not to confuse. I think, you know, what some of the language is about interest costs going down is the fact that if you have much more CET1, you need less AT1. Therefore, if you have less AT1 over time, you have less interest expense relating to that more expensive debt, right? I think that's thing one. Thing two is that, you know, there's already an intimation in the proposals that suggests that certain changes, like for example, triggers that would cause you to say stop paying a coupon, would help the loss absorption nature of AT1, right? That it would be a better recovery tool in the minds of the authorities than perhaps it is now. That's what they're, you know, that's the thinking. I think there are two discreet comments in there, but also picking up on maybe a third that you made. You'll have to demonstrate according to the proposal that, you know, it's economic to call, you know, and demonstrate that to our regulator. That's in effect what happens anyway because, you know, ahead of calling an AT1, because they're, you know, of course, meant to be instruments that don't have a maturity, but for the calls, the regulators, of course, were, you know, because it's intended to be a recovery tool, of course, the regulators want to ensure that you're only calling them if they're economically sensible to call. That has always been, you know, more over the counter anyway as a practice that we've undertaken. I think these proposals are just looking to legislate that. I think those are the three points I would just pick up in your question. What's considered economic? Like, is it 50 basis points or? I think if it's what we've had to do, you know, as I said, you know, more unofficially, it's being able to demonstrate that it's economic to call. You know, I think we haven't had to yet pass a threshold. There's no bright line. I think it's just been one where we've been able to demonstrate with respect to a particular issue that it's economic to call and we can demonstrate why. You know, then we're allowed to call it. That's how it's worked. Any others? Okay. Maybe just, I guess, one wrap-up question for me then. You know, I think pretty much every time we talk, we discuss, you know, where are you incrementally investing in the business. We see the gross cost saves that you talk about, but obviously under the hood, there's some incremental investment going in as well. I guess where are you spending a little bit more? Where are you investing that given all the turbulence, the dynamics you talked about in some of your earlier answers? Has that changed at all? Also maybe given, you know, what we saw on Friday, does that change a little bit where you want to dial up or dial down or how you think about the phasing of that incremental investment? In terms of where we, you know, invest, the gross cost saves, you know, other than on the personnel side in particular, you know, an easy one is if financial advisors are generating more revenue, and therefore more production that's compensable, you know, to the extent that we pay them more, you know, if you look at how we reconcile gross versus net, you know, that's one factor. It's probably less interesting to your question than the next part of my answer, which is virtually all in technology, you know, to shore up the UBS side of the equation, just given that, as much for expediency than anything else, you know, UBS has been the surviving platform in every case where we have dual infrastructure. You know, there are some exceptions, for example, in a location where only Credit Suisse operated, then it's different. But, you know, for the most part, it's investing in technology, but also artificial intelligence, and ensuring that, you know, we're doing transformational investments, especially to drive cost efficiency over time. Now, as to your question on whether Friday changes, you know, apologies for the stock answer, but you'll appreciate, Chris, it's obviously part of what we have to assess and evaluate now. And, you know, when I say everything is in the mix to consider, of course, that's the case. We know that the cost efficiency achieving the $13 billion, you know, is like an ante for the game. You know, we have to do that if not outperform. You know, that, you know, for sure, we have to stay very disciplined on the cost side. Super clear. I guess all that's left to be said is, I know you and the team have been immensely busy these last four or five days. So Cynthia, thanks from me and I guess from everybody for making a trip up here and spending time engaging with us all. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.