Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Analyst and Investor webinar on the first quarter results for HSBC Holdings. For your information, this webinar is being recorded. I will now hand over to Georges Elhedery, Group CEO. Welcome all to today's call. I'm joined here in London by Pam. Before Pam takes you through the numbers, I would like to begin with some opening remarks. Overall, it was a strong quarter marked by three key drivers: momentum in our earnings, discipline in our execution, and confidence in our ability to deliver our targets. First, we have strong momentum in our business. We had a strong first quarter with profit before tax up 11% and an annualized return on tangible equity of 18.4%, both excluding notable items. We had our fifth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth in wealth and attracted net new invested assets of $22 billion, as well as another 300,000 new-to-bank customers in Hong Kong, continuing the trend from last year. We also had a strong performance in transaction banking, in particular in FX, and in our equities and debt trading businesses, benefiting from higher client activity on the back of higher volatility. Second, we remain focused on executing our strategy with discipline and are on track to deliver the cost actions we set out in February. We are progressing at pace to deliver on the simplification-related cost saves, as well as the strategic cost reallocations. We also continue to take a disciplined approach to our investments and capital allocation to drive growth across our four businesses. We will provide you with a full update on this at the half-year results in July. Third, the external macroeconomic environment is less favorable and more uncertain than it was in February, as the uncertainty around trade policy dampens business confidence and constrains investment. However, we remain confident in our ability to deliver our targets. Our balance sheet is strong. This is reflected in the deposit surpluses we hold in every major currency in each of our four businesses, in every geography in which we operate. This is why our clients place their trust in us during times of predictability and even more so during times of unpredictability. These provide us with a steady, recurring income stream and underpin the lion's share of our banking NII. Growing our structural hedge has reduced the sensitivity of these revenues to interest rate cuts. Our balance sheet is also underpinned by a strong capital position and a high-quality credit portfolio. We also have resilient, recurring fee income from stable, flow-based activities in transaction banking and in wealth, with a much smaller contribution from investment banking event-driven business. I encourage you to keep the diversity and quality of our earnings in mind when considering how changes in trade policy will affect our business. Our wholesale transaction banking business covers much broader activities than those related to cross-border trade. Within our trade finance business, we have diverse products and cover all major global and intra-regional corridors. To assess the impact higher tariffs could have on our business, we modeled scenarios that contemplate significant but plausible increases in tariffs by the world's largest trading blocs, resulting in a notable slowdown in global trade, as well as a slowdown in global GDP growth. In a plausible downside tariff scenario, we estimate that there would be a low single-digit% impact on the group's revenues. Separately, our consensus downside scenario models a slowdown in global trade and GDP growth as a result of an increase in tariffs. The impact of this scenario would be incremental ECLs of $0.5 billion. On this basis, we remain confident in delivering a mitigating return on tangible equity for 2025, 2026, and 2027 and are reaffirming all of the guidance that we gave in February. We recognize, though, that the broader impacts of the current conditions are more difficult to quantify, and we will continue to monitor these as we formulate our ongoing outlook. Importantly, in the current environment, customers look for the strength, stability, and expertise of a trusted partner. We are extremely well-positioned to support all of our customers, wherever they are, however their needs evolve, and whatever the market conditions. Finally, we're also pleased to announce an up to $3 billion share buyback and a $0.10 per share interim dividend, reflecting our continued focus on capital return to our investors. With that, let me hand over to Pam. Thank you, George. Thank you, everyone, for joining. The momentum in our business has enabled us to deliver a strong first quarter performance, headlined by an annualized return on tangible equity of 18.4%, excluding notable items. We had very good underlying profit and revenue performances. Credit remained stable, and we maintained a disciplined approach to cost management. We are pleased to announce a first interim dividend of $0.10 per share and a share buyback of up to $3 billion. The buybacks we completed over the last 12 months have helped take us closer to our target range of 14%-14.5% CET1. We will continue to return surplus capital to shareholders, with buybacks remaining our preferred method. As always, a decision on any share buyback will be made on a quarterly basis. It will depend on organic capital generation and the capital needs of the business. Unpacking the revenue story, excluding notable items, revenue of $17.7 billion was up $1.1 billion on the first quarter of last year, driven by fee and other income. It also included a $0.3 billion increase in debt and equity markets, driven by higher volatility, and a favorable impact of $0.2 billion in the quarter from the disposal of Argentina, which we completed at the end of last year. On banking NII, excluding the impact of Argentina and other notable items, the banking NII run rate remained broadly stable on the fourth quarter. The impact of interest rate cuts and two fewer days in the quarter were offset by the repricing of liabilities and structural hedge assets and some favorable changes in asset mix. We continue to expect banking NII of around $42 billion in 2025. As previously stated, this is not an underpin. It remains our expectation at the present time, based on the current market rates outlook and our own projections. Moving to fee and other income, wholesale transaction banking was up 13% on last year's first quarter. This was driven by a strong FX performance, as elevated volatility drove substantial volumes of client hedging activity. Excluding the impact of disposals, global payment solutions was up 3% year on year, and global trade solutions was up 6%. In wealth, the strong momentum from the fourth quarter continued, as we delivered our fifth consecutive quarter of double-digit year-on-year growth. High client activity levels in Asia, primarily Hong Kong, were the key driver, and there was broad-based growth. We are pleased that the investment we are making in our wealth products, distribution channels, and customer journeys is translating into results: a record new business CSM, 301,000 new-to-bank customers in Hong Kong, and $22 billion of net new invested assets, $16 billion of which was in Asia. The CSM balance, which is a store of future value, was up again this quarter. As you know, the CSM balance is subject to market fluctuations, and sensitivities to key indices are in the earnings release. On credit, our first quarter ECL charge of $0.9 billion, equivalent to an annualized charge of 37 basis points as a percentage of loans and advances. This included a $150 million provision to reflect heightened economic uncertainty. Excluding this, the first quarter charge was broadly the same as in the first quarter of 2024. The credit risk metrics that we track remain stable, and we continue to monitor them closely. Thinking about the potential impact of tariffs on credit performance, ECLs will be sensitive to macroeconomic performance, the outlook for which remains uncertain. We consider a variety of scenarios as part of our ECL calculation. One of these is the consensus downside scenario, in which an increase in tariffs results in a global economic slowdown. In this scenario, there would be an incremental ECL charge of around $0.5 billion. On costs, we are taking a disciplined approach to cost management and are on target to achieve our target of around 3% cost growth in 2025 compared to 2024 on a target basis. We are also on track to deliver $0.3 billion of simplification savings into the P&L in 2025. On loans and deposits, loan balances were broadly stable quarter on quarter, as growth in corporate and institutional banking was offset by the reclassification of our retained French home loan portfolio. Deposits were also broadly stable quarter on quarter, with a partial reversal of some of the seasonal inflows we saw in Q4. Year on year, deposits were up 6%, with growth in all entities and businesses. Our CET1 ratio was 14.7%. The reclassification of our retained French home loan portfolio led to a $1.3 billion pre-tax loss in the quarter, recognized in fair value through other comprehensive income. This had a capital impact of around 0.2 percentage points of CET1. Looking ahead, we expect the buyback we announced today to have an impact of around 0.4 percentage points in the second quarter. You will have seen that BOCOM has announced that it has approved a share issuance of up to RMB 120 billion. Upon completion, we expect to recognize an accounting impact dilution loss of between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion on our stake. This will be treated as a material notable item and will have no material impact on CET1 and no impact on the dividend. Let me end by summarizing. First, we have momentum in our earnings. We had a strong first quarter performance, with an annualized return on tangible equity of 18.4%, excluding notable items. We have also continued to perform well in the quarter to date. Second, we have discipline in our execution. We are on track to deliver the cost actions we set out in February. Third, although the external environment is more uncertain, we are confident in our ability to deliver, and we are reaffirming our existing targets and guidance. This includes a mid-teens return on tangible equity in 2025, 2026, and 2027. Louise, can we go to Q&A, please? Thank you, Pam. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question today, please use the raise hand function in Zoom. Please also ensure your camera is turned on. If you're invited to ask a question, please accept the prompt to unmute your line. If you find your question has been answered, you may remove yourself from the queue by lowering your hand in Zoom. Our first question today comes from Benjamin Toms at RBC. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Good morning, both, and thank you for taking my questions. Firstly, you mentioned in the release that you've launched a strategic review of Malta for your results. We are relatively early in the strategic refresh process. Are there other geographies that you're also strategically reviewing? In full, your results, you talked about a $1.5 billion of gross cost saves. Now you're deeper into that process. Have you seen any potential to be able to achieve cost saves in excess of that target? Secondly, one of the features of your Q1 results was a strength in fees and other income. Can you provide some color on how sustainable that print is and how much is driven by the augmented volatility? Thank you. Thank you very much, Ben. We have announced in February $1.5 billion of cost saves from the organizational simplification, which we expect to take to the bottom line. As Pam shared earlier, we are on track to deliver those, and we are moving at pace. We separately announced $1.5 billion from strategic reallocation of costs from activities that are low, non-strategic, or low returning into our core strategy, where areas of our competitive strength. We continue to progress at pace on those. We have made a number of announcements, which we have shared, including the investment banking in Europe and the US, including the French insurance, the private bank in Germany, et cetera. We are progressing with those at pace. Again, on both items, we continue the execution with discipline and pace. We are not phased; we remain unfazed with the external environment for the execution of those. This is our primary focus now. It's just focusing on delivering those. Matter of cost efficiencies is a matter of BAU. If we identify cost efficiencies, we will, of course, be taking them as a matter of BAU. Our primary focus is to deliver on those commitments. With regards to fees and other income, look, we've talked to the plausible downside scenario, which may put some. That it's an adverse scenario, but it is a plausible scenario, and it will slow down parts of our business, trade flows, but also the implication it has on other aspects of our business, including the volumes in general. Outside, I would say this adverse scenario, we continue to see strength in the wealth business, five quarters double-digit growth, which we expect to continue in the medium term, at least for the medium term. We continue to invest in this space. We continue investing in a number of areas, as we called out in February, because we believe in the growth potential that we can exhibit in these areas. Thank you, Ben. Ben, just to add, I mean, for the quarter, there's been good performance, and there's been a high level of client activity, which has benefited FX, debt, equities, markets, and wealth. Also, I want to just remind that one benefit was also the Argentina headwind that we had of $0.2 billion in Q1 of 2024, which obviously didn't repeat in this quarter because of the sale. The key franchise factors are wealth; it's a structural growth, and those dynamics will persist. They are driven by our brand. They're driven by the range of products we have to offer, the improvements we've made in terms of technology, and that investment is going to pay. As George said, we stay confident in terms of double-digit growth in the medium term. On wholesale transaction banking, it remains an area of competitive advantage. We will continue to grow there, but it's going to be hard to predict quarter to quarter, especially in the current environment. Volatility has definitely benefited us in this quarter, so it may not repeat at the very high levels that we've seen in this quarter, but we are still continuing to see underlying growth as we have progressed through in Q2. Thank you very much, Pam. Our next question today comes from Joseph Dickerson at Jefferies. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Hi, thank you for taking my question. Congrats on a strong set of numbers and some clarity on your thinking on the path forward. Can I just ask on the plausible downside scenarios for the low single-digit impact on revenue? I guess what was the point of undertaking that exercise? Was it to basically show that the perception of the bank as a global trade bank, in some ways, may be exaggerated about how you're not basically you're not overly reliant on any particular corridors? I guess what kind of elements went into that scenario in terms of magnitude of drawdown on trade? Secondly, just on that, could you opine on any opportunities that you're seeing or that you foresee as a result of what's happening? Not that what's happening is necessarily certain at the moment, but just any opportunities that you can see based on any initial discussions. I would presume that you had very strong new-to-bank customers in Hong Kong, I presume. Can you make any comment on April trends there? I would have presumed that that would have continued from last quarter if what we're picking up on the ground in Hong Kong is accurate. Thanks. Thank you very much, Joseph. I'll take your question about the positioning of our trade business and our bank, as well as the opportunities. I'll ask Pam to take you through the elements of this analysis. We are the world's trade bank. We have been ranked the number one trade bank for eight consecutive years. Our trade covers a variety of products, as well as we cover all the large corridors of trade, including intra-regional corridors, which have been growing quite fast over the last few years. The exercise that we've conducted is meant to basically evaluate the impact of plausible downside scenarios on our overall activities, obviously including trade. Just to add on trade, number one, we have more than 5,000 trade specialists in more than 50 markets. We're in a unique position to be able to support our customers with our expertise in trade. As the business environment shifts, the business outlook shifts, their trading pattern shifts, and our customers need to reconfigure some of their supply chains. We expect to be able to deepen our relationships with existing clients, but also thanks to our strength, stability, and expertise to attract more clients and to continue building market share in the trade business, among other of the kind of robust business proposition and service proposition we have for our customers. Pam? Yeah, thanks, Joseph, for the question. Firstly, broadly in terms of context setting, every quarter we do a range of scenario analysis. This quarter, we looked at the significant but plausible downside scenario resulting from increase in tariffs. We homed in on one scenario after looking at a range of possible outcomes, which we, as we know, are uncertain and remain very wide. The specific scenario which we homed into was based on significant increase in tariffs, as well as retaliatory tariffs. We also took a holistic approach. We considered different businesses, different geographies, as well as customer segments. This scenario resulted in significant decline in trade and significant slowdown in global GDP growth. The impact of this we looked at both in terms of revenue through lower balances, but also on flow-based income. In addition, just like we took a reserve of $150 million in this quarter from a downside scenario, we further looked at the downside scenario on a 100% probability basis and came up with a number, which is the $500 million provision, best estimate in terms of the tariffs. Ben, with regards to your new-to-bank customers in Hong Kong, we were pleased to announce that we acquired 300,000 new-to-bank customers in Q1. This is after we acquired 800,000 new-to-bank customers in the full year 2024. We continue to see that trend ongoing. Thank you very much, Joseph. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Kung Peng Ma at China Securities. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Yeah, George, hi, Pam. This is Kung Peng of China Securities. Thank you for taking my question. I have two questions. The first is also some follow-ups on the plausible downside trade scenario. If we compare the you have two scenario tests, one for trade, one for ECL. We got your set of assumptions for those ECL tests from your annual report. If we compare those two tests, are the assumptions for the trade test better or worse than the I mean, the downside scenario, better or worse than those set of assumptions used in the ECL test? Also, is the low single-digit revenue impact just for some one-year revenue or for every year's revenue thereafter? Yeah, that's the first question. The second question is, could you please give us some color on the latest trend on Hong Kong CRE? Thank you. Thank you very much, Kung Peng. I'm going to ask Pam to address both your questions, Kung Peng. Thanks, Kung Peng. We're not going to get into the detail, but the underpinning of the scenarios, whether it's ECLs or indeed on revenue, has the same starting point. We are comfortable, based on the work we have done, to reaffirm our guidance on ROTE. I just want to be clear that the scenario does not include the secondary impact of any change in policy rates in terms of the revenue-related scenario. Secondly, none of these two scenarios have what you call an extreme downside scenario with like a double-digit contraction of GDP like we saw in the COVID period. Just to give you some guardrails. In terms of Hong Kong CRE, this was a relatively quiet quarter. We did have one specific name, which in the performing book, there was a credit downgrade. Otherwise, there's really nothing more significant. We continue to look at our book in detail, and there may be a few names up or down on the credit curve with very modest impact on RWAs, but no significant impact on ECLs. Thank you, Kung Peng. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Aman Rakkar at Barclays. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Hey, George. Hey, Pam. Thanks very much for the various updates and sensitivities that you've given us. I had two questions just around customer behavior. I just wondered if you'd observed any material shift in the way that your customers are transacting with you. Have you seen any forward indicators around sentiment, any signs of de-risking or de-leveraging, any shift in particularly your kind of corporate customers that might be on the receiving end of trade tariffs? Any insights there would be really helpful. The second is definitely get the message around continuing to execute on the existing strategy. I guess just two kind of related points to that, one around capital returns. I mean, it's obviously great that you've announced a $3 billion buyback. You're talking about a more subdued outlook for lending and by extension, RWAs. Presumably, you might be quite capital generative this year. It seems like you're committed to distributions despite the uncertainty, right? It's an uncertain backdrop, but the pace of distributions that you're kind of executing on, it feels like you're committed to that. Is that the right read? Should we be confident around things like the buyback sustainability from here? The related part of that question then is just around you talk about divestiture on track, the $1.5 billion. In terms of the redeploy, because I think you've talked about, yeah, some potential revenue opportunities from the redeploy or cost savings if it doesn't come through, are you minded to delay any of this redeploy, basically, given the volatile backdrop? Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much, Aman. I'm going to take your first question about customer behavior, and I'll ask Pam to address both our capital return strategy as well as the cost redeployment from the reallocations. In terms of customer behavior, I think nothing that would really surprise you. Corporate customers essentially are in a wait-and-see mode. Some of the CapEx or large investments are on hold. Certainly, some of the shipments from China specifically to the US have slowed down, but we've seen no panic. There has been no significant drawdowns. Deposit behavior has remained normal. Nothing really to call out beyond the wait-and-see. In terms of personal banking and wealth customers' activity, actually, this has been quite strong. I remember we have a diversified product offering, so we've seen customers rebalance their investments between various offerings, be it various geographic equity exposure or other assets such as mutual funds or structured products. When customers want to take a risk-off approach, we see the money flow into our deposit base. We kind of capture the customer assets, either in invested assets or in deposits. When we look at our NNIA for the first three months of the year, it remained positive, strong. We remain positive on the outlook of the growth in this business. Remember, also, we're investing in this business, so we're capturing the underlying growth in the market, but we're also capturing market share in the way we're investing in this business. Pam? Thanks, Aman. Just one point to add on the wealth customer behaviors. Our strength really lies in our very broad product proposition. As we see the mix shift between US equities or Asian equities or indeed into short-term fixed income products, we are there to support our customers, as well as in terms of insurance on more protection and savings-related products. Given that, it gives us confidence that this double-digit growth continues. We have seen the same trend even through April and the same trend also, no panic, no drawdowns, and deposit behavior normal through April. That is just to set that. Coming down to our distribution, just as a starting point, we have our policy on ordinary dividends. I am assuming your question is much more on share buybacks, but let me see overall on the process we follow. Every quarter, we look at where we are in terms of our CET1. You know our CET1 operating range is between 14%-14.5%. We also look at our capital generation, less the capital needs or capital deployment that we want to do. What is very important is routinely, we look at a range of scenarios in terms of the macroeconomic environment. Based on that, we look at the quantum on share buybacks. Clearly, if we have excess capital, share buybacks continue to be our preferred method to return capital. We have not changed our view on capital redeployment, but as I have said, we look at opportunities. We look at the generative capability quarter on quarter, and that is how we make the decision on the quantum of share buybacks. On the redeployment of costs? Yeah, on the redeployment of costs, absolutely. So far, we have not made any change to the timeline of what we said we would do. That redeployment is going to be through the midterm period, so between 2025, 2026, and 2027. Clearly, in terms of the macroeconomic uncertainty, we are very mindful in this current environment that there may be some delays, but overall, it does not shift the trajectory or indeed the transactions that we have both announced and are working on. They are progressing as we expected. Perfect. Thank you very much, Aman. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Jason Napier at UBS. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Good morning. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you, Jason. Perfect. Thank you. Two questions, please. The first, George, HSBC is a signatory to a letter suggesting to the U.K. regulators that ring-fencing is something that should go. I think that's the right view, but we've got a lot of investor demand for a sense from you as to the motivation for that. What is it that you'd say in terms of OpEx, funding costs, and what restructuring charges may go with that? When you made that motivation, what was the math behind it? Secondly, very strong performance in costs in Q1, but guidance held constant for the year ahead. I guess that implies potentially some slippage in efficiency ratios in the quarters to come, notwithstanding the cost-saving actions that are underway. Could you talk a little bit about sort of the moving parts, just quarter-to-quarter volatility? Is there anything we should be thinking about in the upcoming quarters as far as cost inflation is concerned? Yep. Thanks very much. Thank you, Jason. Let me address your first question on ring-fencing, and Pam will take your second question on the cost. Our view on ring-fencing is that we've taken major, I mean, there's been major enhancement to the prudential regulations for banks in the U.K., in particular the broader regimes of capital, of loss absorbency through Emeril, of liquidity, recovery and resolution, etc. All these measures have basically put the bank in a much better, safer prudential space that have made ring-fencing effectively redundant. The second thing to say is that the U.K. is the only major economy that has applied ring-fencing, so it's quite unique to the U.K. As an outcome, it's increased the cost to operate as a bank. It created capital inefficiencies. It trapped liquidity. It effectively exposed our customers, including businesses and SMEs, to higher costs. It did somewhat also stifle competition. The bar to be able to compete in the U.K. for banks has become stiffer and more difficult. Therefore, we believe that removing ring-fencing or at least scaling back on some of the ring-fencing considerations will improve the outcome for customers and ultimately, therefore, will support growth in the U.K. Now, just to reiterate, we are very supportive of the government's growth agenda, and we will play our role in the U.K. for that. As regards the financial impact of the removal or the scaling down of ring-fencing, look, we have not done the full analysis, but we believe this will be positive for both capital, cost, and ability to compete and support the growth of the U.K. economy and our customers. Pam? Yeah, thanks, Jason. Firstly, we manage costs to a full-year number. Quarter on quarter, you can see some volatility. Just to clarify, our full-year 2025 guidance of +3% is on a base of $31.9 billion, which is the full-year 2024, restated to the average FX for Q1 2025. Just unbundling that, the 3%, the dependencies on the 4% inflation investment spend and the benefit of $0.3 billion, so the 1% from the P&L saves from the simplification as we guided on the Q4, and the actions that are going to realize that $300 million in the year have been already broadly taken, though the P&L will come through in subsequent months. Thank you, Jason. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Kian Abouhossein from JP Morgan. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Yes, hi, George. And Pam, thanks for taking my questions. Great results, but clearly the focus is on the new tariff world. I want to try to understand, first of all, your target and guidance around interest rates in particular, but also GDP assumptions. You mentioned mid-April, but clearly a lot happened in April. I am just trying to understand what date or what week we should use as a guidance in terms of interest rate assumption if you could give maybe GDP assumptions. Secondly, coming to your sensitivities or your analysis around tariff impact, if you could discuss again interest rate assumptions in particular in GDP, but also your assumptions about China as a trading counterparty in terms of your revenues versus the corridors you talk about, because clearly, really in the new world, the corridors seem to be impacted as well. Are you assuming corridors can grow, or do you assume corridors would also be negatively impacted in a new tariff world? Lastly, in that context, can you just talk about cost flexibility as you did not discuss it? Thank you, Kian. Kian, I'm going to make some broad comments on the view of corridors and overall our business. I will ask Pam to give you additional information on the tariff scenarios as well as in the cost implications, okay? A couple of things to note. The first one is, as we did say, the lion's share of our banking and IRS is driven by our deposit franchise. This deposit franchise is a hallmark of our balance sheet. We run 50s loan-to-deposit ratio in three of our four businesses. In the U.K., we run 80s, which is the lowest. Therefore, we have deposit surpluses in every currency, every geography, every business line. This franchise is very robust and is a driver of a very important lion's share for banking and IRS, a very important revenue stream. The second, when you look at our fee income, wealth so far has continued to grow at double-digit returns, and we do expect it to continue to grow at double-digit returns in the medium term given the underlying market opportunities and market growth, as well as our own investment to continue gaining market share. Transaction banking is the one we really are diving into. Remember, first, transaction banking is a wide set of products that cover various areas outside trade. Remember, a lot of our businesses, let's say with multinational customers operating in Asia or in China, a lot of their business is in China for China or in Asia for Asia, where they produce and manufacture locally and distribute locally with limited impact on tariffs, albeit some may be impacted by tariffs. Even within trade, we have seen growth of trade corridors intra-Asia or within Asia-Middle East at a very fast pace. A number of these corridors have become structurally resilient and on a growth trajectory. Now, some of the China plus one trade patterns that are still meant to ultimately distribute or export to the US will be affected insofar that there is intra-Asia trade flows for that ultimate purpose. There is a much bigger intra-Asia, intra-Asian Middle East trade flows that are two-way and that are related to domestic manufacturing for the purposes of domestic consumption, which we continue to see as structurally growing. Our scenarios have really looked at differentiation between the areas of structural growth and the areas that will be widely impacted by tariffs, which Pam can talk to. Thank you, Kian. Firstly, just to reiterate, the $40 billion banking and IRS continues to be our best estimate for full-year 2025. We have looked at a range of reasonable upside/downside assumptions, including rates, but we are not immune to all scenarios despite the stress work that we have done. Our Q1 run rate of $10.6 billion puts us on a good trajectory given that range of scenarios we have looked at, all plausible upsides and downsides. As always, there are four key drivers. The rates that we have included are based on the mid-April curves. The structural hedge will be a tailwind to this headwind of rates. We have $75 billion maturities in the remainder of the year, and they are on 2.8% yield at the moment, so there will be an upside to that. The other two elements are harder to forecast, particularly in terms of balance sheet growth, as we've said before, and the loans stay muted. Having said that, loans and advances were slightly up in the first quarter of this year, primarily because Hong Kong loans and advances were stable compared to Q4 last year where they had contracted. Now, the deposit migration trend from Hong Kong has stayed stable over last year into this year at 39%, and that is continuing even through April. If I look at in the round in terms of deposit behaviors of our customers, both from a corporate side and as well as from a retail side, we stay quite comfortable. On tariffs, just in terms of the broad piece, what we have looked at from a tariff perspective is, and it's all in terms of seeing the various scenarios in terms of delivering the mid-teens ROTE. I mean, firstly, we looked at our income stream beyond banking and IRS, which is wholesale transaction banking, and it has many more products beyond trade finance. It also is in diverse products within trade finance and their diverse global and intra-regional corridors. Now, when we have looked at the downside scenario, we've looked at higher tariffs. We have looked at impact on GDP, and we have looked more broadly on policy rates, inflation, the big picture. Again, to say we have not looked at GDP to the stress level of a downside-to scenario that we have called out in our release, which is like a double-digit contraction of GDP as we saw in the COVID period. If we look at all that, we come to a low single-digit% impact on revenues. Within that and within the incremental $500 million ECLs, we stay very confident for our mid-teens ROTE for the next three years. The broader impacts are going to be hard to quantify. These are your second, third-order impacts, but we'll continue to monitor them through our various scenarios and review them quarter on quarter. On costs, our cost trajectory is on track. Given this, there's no shift on that. We will still continue through our envelope to be able to invest in the areas which we have been, as Georges has said, because we can see the direct benefit coming very quickly in those areas, even in the current environment and continuing through April. That is primarily on the wealth side. Perfect. Kian, thank you very much. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Amit Goel at Meteobanker. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Hi, thank you. Potentially follow up actually to Kian's question, but thank you. I understand essentially the plausible tariff downside scenario is pretty similar or closer to the ECL downside-one rather than the downside-two type case. Again, just coming back in terms of the broader profitability mid-teens kind of target. Essentially you're saying that if we were to see that plausible downside scenario, you still believe you can achieve that mid-teens profitability level, and that's before factoring in any further kind of cost actions, or would that be with any kind of rejigging or additional cost action taken by the group to mitigate some of that impact? Secondly, I just wanted to check when I look at the downside-one ECL scenario now versus a full year, it seems like the China and Hong Kong drawdown is not quite as severe. I see the US is maybe a little bit 30 basis points more severe. I was also just kind of curious why that downside scenario is not quite as negative perhaps as what you assessed at the full-year stage. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Amit. Amit, on your first, I am going to ask Pam to comment on your second question. On your first question, look, we are not going to give more details than what we shared, but I think your analogy to say that it is a downside-one-like scenario in the sense that it is adverse but plausible is correct. Within that scenario, without additional cost actions than the one that we have set out to do and are on track for doing and obviously committed to do, we are confident we can achieve our targets, in particular our targets of mid-teens returns for 2025, 2026, and 2027. Pam? Thanks. Just in terms of the scenarios, just to confirm, they are not identical scenarios, but in terms of severity and plausibility, you're right in the ballpark because the ECL scenario stresses a lot of things on interest rates, inflation, et cetera, from a range of factors. This one on tariffs is quite specific on the revenue line. To clarify on ECLs, we had to build our reserve for this quarter, change the weightings of the downside-one from 15% to 30%. When we look at the $500 million potential impact, that is if you change that downside-one scenario weighting to 100%. Just to say that's $500 million additional to the $150 million. In terms of Hong Kong and China Cree, absolutely. In terms of both from an individual customer level as well on the forward economic guidance, given the starting point, there is a lesser impact. Overall, there has been very little noise from a Hong Kong Cree and a China Cree other than isolated names in this quarter. There can be credit downgrades over a period of time. We saw a few now, but the impact from an RWA perspective is very modest. If you look from a US perspective, also there was a specific name. When we look at the credit downgrades, so that's also in the quarter. I wouldn't really build any trend from this quarter into a full year. All these factors, bottom line, are part of the scenario analysis, which we do on upside and downside before we reaffirm our routing guidance and target. Perfect. Okay, thank you, Amit. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Gurpreet Singhsar from Goldman Sachs. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Thank you for taking my question, George and Pam. Good morning. Really on banking and IRS, a couple, if I may, please. First is Q&Q. Banking and IRS held up pretty much flat, whereas interest rates would have added a headwind of, as per my calculation, $170 million. Can you please double-click and tell us on how much was the benefit from the deposit pass-through being not that high and then improved asset mix and then the hedge, structural hedge? That is one. Second, in the $42 billion, again on banking and IRS, $42 billion, around $42 billion guidance, how much are we assuming for average interest-earning assets growth? Because that has, if I see deposit growth has been consistent, but that somehow on a YY basis is now showing up as 4% growth, but then Q&Q, there is no growth. Previously on YY also, we could not show any growth. What is the around? Is $41.5 outcome around $42? Does that tick the box and help us meet the target? Thank you. I am going to ask Pam to address both your questions on banking and IRS. Thank you, Gurpreet. Firstly, banking and IRS was flat on a quarter-on-quarter on a constant currency basis, excluding notable items in Argentina. Now, we do not split out the dollar impact of every moving part, but let me just unbundle. The headwinds were two fewer days in the quarter as well as lower interest rates. The tailwinds were reinvestment of maturing hedge assets at higher yields, a bit of change in the mix of our market treasury assets, as well as the benefit of deposit pass-throughs, particularly in the U.K., which come through with a delay of 90 days. The interest rate cuts, which we saw in August, came in through for a full quarter in this quarter. We saw a bit of a tail of the November cuts as well. That is how the impact is there. In terms of your other question, of course, we look at various upside and downsides in that $42 billion. I just want to reiterate that $42 billion is not an underpin. It is just around $42 billion, our current best estimate based upon what we see in terms of deposit betas, based upon what we see in terms of actual deposit flows coming through, updated not just for the quarter, but also considering the trend we have seen through April. Great. Thank you very much, Gurpreet. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Andrew Coombs at Citigroup. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Good morning. If I could have a couple on the organizational simplification and then also just one clarification on, well, on the organizational simplification, you previously guided to $1.8 billion of restructuring costs, and you said the majority of that is expected to be booked in 2025. I think you only took $141 million in Q1. Presumably, we should expect a big step up in the restructuring charges from Q2 onwards for the rest of this year. The second question kind of attached to this is you've said that the actions you've taken to date will already translate into $300 million of annualized savings. I appreciate in Q1, you've had very little of that, but nonetheless, you're still guiding to $300 million for the full year 2025 when you've already achieved $300 million annualized, and there's presumably more to come over the remaining year with the additional restructuring. Can you just clarify a bit there on why more of the savings are not flowing into full year 2025 compared to 2026? On wealth, the clarification, given the new segmental split, is it possible to get the split of the Asian invested assets and the $16 billion Asian net new invested assets this quarter that's attributable to Hong Kong? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Andrew, I'm going to ask Pam to address the first two questions with regard to the organizational simplification, just saying that we will give, as I said earlier, we will give a more thorough update at the interim results. On your final question, let us take it forward and see what we can communicate: $16 billion of net new invested assets in Asia with the majority in Hong Kong, but we will take it forward to see what additional granularity we're likely to share. Pam? Okay. Thanks, Andy. Firstly, in terms of the actions taken and the P&L coming through for the year, the actions taken typically is when you have colleagues put through at risk and decisions made, communicated. There is always a time lag typically between that and colleagues leaving the platform. Typically, it tends to be about a quarter, 90 days. When you say an action has been taken, you know a saving is going to come through, but there is going to be a time lag between that decision and the savings feeding into the P&L. When we said the majority of the actions have already been taken, the annualized savings that we calculated, it's for the full year. It is not as though these actions are already banked in and there's going to be further. That is sort of the main piece. Now, on restructuring costs, you're absolutely right that there is going to be the majority of the restructuring costs taken in 2025 rather than 2026. I would expect most of that to come through Q2, Q3, and then some Q4, and then tapering down as we go into 2026. Very good. Thank you, Andy. Thank you very much. Our next question today comes from Ed Firth at KBW. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Good morning, everybody. Thanks very much for taking the questions. Yeah, I just had a couple. The first one, I noticed that your cost guidance is based on an average exchange rate in Q1, but the US dollar, I think, is way off about 6% since then. I assume that if we were actually to do that at today's exchange rate, your cost number will be somewhat higher than that. I'm just trying to check, is your revenue guidance also based on those exchange rates? Is it effectively like we should both gear up both revenue and cost for the weaker dollar in terms of our expectations? That's the first point. I guess sort of partly related to that, are we actually in the plausible downside scenario now? I mean, if I'm looking at trade flows China to the US, they're down, what, 45% booking, something like that. I mean, that feels to me like a pretty downside scenario. Should we assume that as we go through Q2 and Q3, we are actually in that scenario now? Is that effectively where we are, assuming nothing changes? I guess nobody has any idea what will happen in terms of the changes, but assuming we stay where we are today. I guess my second question was just about BOCOM. I just can't really understand the accounting because you're still running with a valuation that's, what, $10 billion above the market value, but you didn't subscribe for new shares with the capital raise, which I sort of assume you would have done if you had thought it really was worth that much more. Should we be expecting you to actually correct that now down to what would be like a market price rather than just the 1.6? Should we be revisiting how you do the sort of, I think you call it value in use, do not you? Something like that. Okay. Thank you very much, Ed. Let me take your plausible downside scenario, and I'll ask Pam to address the cost question as well as the BoCom accounting question. The adverse plausible downside scenario is a scenario that is further adverse from where we are today with significantly higher global tariffs on major trading blocks on an aggregate basis. We have looked at their impact across, obviously, our trade business, but more importantly, across overall our volumes and the economic outlook of our businesses on the whole. We do recognize that there is uncertainty, and it's very difficult to understand how much downside or upside there is in the future outlook for this. We believe this plausible downside scenario is not the expected scenario, as in it is a lower probability downside than the expected scenario. Pam? Yeah. Thank you, Ed. Agree, the downside scenario is not something where we are now because the downside scenario clearly has broader impact in terms of GDP and other areas, which then gives the significant impacts that we talked about. Just to make that clear. You're absolutely right. The target cost base of $31.9 billion, equivalent to full year 2024 costs, was rebased on first quarter's average exchange rates. All things being equal, US depreciation would put an upward pressure on our absolute costs, but in the same way, it'll put an upward pressure, i.e., have some benefit on the revenues, and we will do that on the same principle quarter on quarter as we progress. Now, FX rates have been volatile. We'll continue to update you quarter on quarter. In terms of BoCom, just in sort of simple terms, at this point of time, we continue to say BoCom is an associate. We have done the assessment as we do every year in terms of further impairment, and there has been no impact for this quarter. The dilution impact into P&L, we will have an accounting impact on the completion of the share issuance, and that's where that will be taken. I just want to reiterate all said and done. There is an insignificant impact from this dilution on our CET1, and because it's a material notable item, there is no impact on dividend or distribution. Thank you. Sorry, Ed, you're on mute. Sorry. You're on mute, Ed. Sorry. Please go ahead. Sorry, you were going to say something, yes. Keen to, yeah, sorry about that. No, I don't understand the logic why you didn't subscribe for more capital in the sense that if it is worth that much more, it would seem to me that it was an opportunity to put more capital in and to value the opportunity to get the upside in due course. Ed, there was a share issuance that was subscribed by government or government-related entities in China. We were happy with our holding as it is, and therefore, we're happy with the outcome. With regards to the actual accounting value, I'd probably kind of point you to the investor relations team, which can take you through some of the specificities of this equity accounting principles, which are quite unique in the way we treat the associate accounting of BoCom. I just want to reemphasize, we're happy with our holding in BoCom. We're happy with our strategic relationship with BoCom and the fact that they give us exposure to the domestic economy in China, be it retail, SME, Outlook, which is not something our organic business is involved in. Very importantly, what Pam said, the valuation in our NAV is deducted from CET1, which means these impairments do not have a very minimal second-order impact on our CET1 ratio and therefore also do not impact our distribution capability. Ed, very happy to offline go through with you on the equity accounting treatment and the rest in detail if you so wish. Thank you very much, Ed. Thanks so much. Thank you both. Our next question today comes from Katherine Lei at JP Morgan. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Hey, thank you. I have two questions. The first one, I still want to ask about the tariff scenario because I think for analysts, at least investors in this part of the world, I think it's widely expected that the Chinese government will have more stimulus policy because of the tariffs. In your downside scenario analysis, have you incorporated some of the positive impact from the stimulus policies which could potentially be benefiting the Hong Kong China markets? I think this is number one. Number two, I still want to ask about the loan growth because now the guidance is that there will be muted loan demand in 2025. What sorts of tariff scenarios are we like when we're giving this type of guidance, what sort of tariff environments are we incorporating? Is there any guidance on, say, for example, deposit growth and also banking asset or interest-generating asset growth? Like how should we look at this whole thing? Thank you. Thank you, Katherine. Katherine, I'm going to make some comments on your first question, and I'll ask Pam then to take it forward as well as the loan growth question, which gives you an overlook. Firstly, we recognize indeed there's a lot of potential for China to take policy measures and other measures to stimulate the economy, and we would be very encouraged by that. We're confident about the outlook for China. We're optimistic that these measures, as they are taken and they will be taken, will have a positive impact on the economy. We believe in the foundational strength of the Chinese economy, and we're very encouraged to see the pickup in retail sales and therefore the pickup in domestic consumption also. On the whole, our main scenario is that we are confident in the medium to long-term outlook in China. This being said, in a plausible adverse downside scenario, we have not taken into account some of these potential positive impacts which may be or not likely to come. Pam. Yeah, thanks, Katherine. Absolutely, being a stressed downside scenario, plausible but severe, we typically take the downside. We do not take the upside of the mitigating actions or any other policy measures. It is purely tariffs and retaliatory tariffs in a plausible range. All said and done, just want to reaffirm it was all calculated as part of the target routing guidance that we are giving. On loan growths, the situation is in some ways similar to where we were at the end of Q4 because macroeconomic uncertainty delays decision-making. We are not seeing any of those CapEx decisions being brought forward or delayed. They were delayed. They will continue to be delayed. Hopefully, at some stage, when some certainty remains, there will be loan growth. We are also monitoring very closely to see if there is any increase in drawdowns, just like we had observed in Q2 of 2020. At this point of time, there's no increase in drawdowns. Overall, from a loan growth perspective, I would say still muted in terms of what we are seeing. The only thing I would say is that if there is sort of continued tariff uncertainty, you will see maybe a little bit pickup from an OpEx perspective on working capital because then you have to pay import duties upfront, and there's some delays in some of the money's coming and so on. That is going to have an impact. From a materiality perspective, the real driver for our banking NII guidance of $42 billion is retail deposits, for which we have a very strong franchise. We are in a privileged position to be a trusted partner for our customers, and we expect that to grow. Of course, there'll be a bit of seasonal fluctuation quarter on quarter, but overall, that trend has continued. Thank you very much, Katherine. Thank you both. Our final question today comes from Lan Jiaxu from CICC. Please accept the prompt to unmute your line. Thanks for taking my questions. My question is also about tariffs. Could you please give an example of how our major clients react to tariff policy in April? Are they facing a sharp decline in business demand, or are they actively seeking the solutions to reduce the DDE effect of tariffs or just cut their business? How has HSBC helped them navigate through the challenge from tariffs and beyond the risks? Have we seen any new business opportunities for HSBC in this context? Thank you. Thank you very much, Yen, for your questions. Yes, indeed, customers, I mean, look, first, the customers aren't taking any decisions in panic. Customers essentially are in wait-and-see mode. Number of CapEx or large investments have been slowed down. Certainly, trade between China and the US, we've seen a major slowdown. On the whole, customers are looking at their business models. They are looking at their supply chains. They're looking at ways to create more resilience in their business. We're definitely here to help them. As I said earlier, we are our customers' trusted banking partner. They trust the strength of our financial strength, the strength of our balance sheet and our proposition. They trust the stability of our commitments to support them through their needs and through all predictable and unpredictable times. Very importantly, they trust our expertise. We have more than 5,000 trade experts in more than 50 jurisdictions working with clients to help them think through what this means for their business model and now how they can help them adapt and adjust and create resilience. Therefore, in an environment like this one, we expect to deepen relationships with clients. We expect to acquire new clients and to consolidate our position as a leading trade bank. We expect to make hopefully a difference for our customers in navigating these uncertainties. Thank you very much, Yen. I think we addressed all the questions. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your questions. In closing, we had a strong quarter marked by momentum in our earnings, discipline in our execution, and confidence in our ability to deliver our targets. Neil and the team are available for any follow-up questions with our investor relations experts. Meanwhile, Pam and I look forward to speaking with you again soon. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for joining today's webinar. You may now disconnect your line.