Future financial performance, and any statement not involving a historical fact. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statement. A discussion of factors that may cause actual results to differ from those in any forward-looking statement is contained in our public filings, including our most recent annual report on Form 20-F filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and our earnings press release as posted on our website today. Furthermore, nothing in today's comments constitutes an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Good afternoon, Geert. Over to you. Thank you, operator, and good day to you all on the call. Thank you for joining us to the second credit update call. I'm here together with Mark Milders, Head of Investor Relations, and we also have Ewald Walraven, who is responsible for issuance and investments, and Paul van Slobbe of the IR team present, potentially to answer any additional questions. After the positive feedback of our call last year on August 7th on the second quarter results, we decided to repeat this credit update call on a semiannual basis. 2020 was the year of the virus, and hopefully, this year will be the year of recovery and vaccines. Here at ING, the majority of our employees have been working from home partially or fully for almost a year now. We had to find new ways of working together, not only as colleagues, but certainly also with you, our valued investors. Unfortunately, the team and myself have been unable to come and see you on physical roadshows to meet. We certainly appreciate all the virtual interactions that we had with you to keep you informed about what is going on in these unprecedented times. In this call, we will take you through some of the highlights in terms of our strategy, our Q4 results, the asset quality, as well as the capital position, the capital return, and our plans for debt issuance. At the end of the call, we will have ample time for Q&A. Before we start, I'd like to point out that the credit update slides that accompany this call are available for download from our website for those of you that are not viewing us via the live webcast. Over to Mark for now. Thank you very much, Geert. Good day, everyone. Thanks for joining. Indeed, as Geert mentioned, we have it on the webcast for those people that are not on the webcast and looking at physical slides. I will not go page by page. We had a very extensive call already this morning with our board. I will give some highlights, but I will call out the slides so it will be easy for you to follow. Let me start on slide six, which highlights our current standing and our activities on a topic which is dear to our heart, ESG. We are very proud to be considered an industry leader in this space, which is not just something that we ourselves want to be, it's also commercially for us an important area and something which, especially in capital markets, we see as only growing faster in terms of its importance for us as a company. What we basically see, the industry leadership on several axes, also in disclosures. The commercial angle is not only to be seen as green, but it gives commercial credibility as a bank that helps our clients on their green issues and social bond issues. The Terra report tracks how our loan book evolves towards the below two degrees Paris Agreement. The business angle therein is that many of our customers that are in these more carbon-intensive industries also need to have investments for transformation, in which we both advise and finance them how to do that. Furthermore, it improves liquidity for our issuance and for the funds that are able to invest. Increasingly, that's becoming an important factor. Finally, you also see it back in our remuneration and compliance practices with the clear link of sustainability to performance. Moving on to slide seven. Especially this year, wherein people had to stay at home, where we had travel restrictions, but you still needed to do your finances, our digital capabilities are a clear advantage. This is where the real capabilities of bank apps got tested, whether it was more than just being able to track your bank balance or whether you were actually able to transact. As you can clearly see from our data, we see an acceleration, and our digital mobile-first customer proposition has really benefited us in 2020. Mobile-only customers that only contact us via a phone or mobile device has increased. The mobile interactions have grown very strongly, and also mobile sales, which in the end is, of course, the proof is in the eating, but we're also able to sell via our mobile device without anyone having to go into a branch. The other highlight I want to point out is in the bottom right corner, which was the investment accounts. This is an example from Germany, where the ease with which on a mobile app you can open an investment account has led to 326,000 new accounts opened, of which 20% were new to bank. An increase of 25% of assets under management, and increasingly the trades are not being done by phone or web, but actually directly in the app. That is also underpins that in a period of a crisis where normally in behavior you see that people stick with their main bank and remain with their bank that they were before something happens. We were actually quite pleased to see that we could welcome another 578,000 new primary customers. Moving to slide eight. Across 2020, which you can clearly see in the graph on the top left, is the complete change in behavior brought on by the 2020 consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictive measures that have been put in place. As you can see, in the past, our loan growth exceeded our deposit growth, and in the past, we were able to print 5% growth rates annually. What you see now in 2020 as clearly as investment and businesses with the growing uncertainty, delay investment decisions, but also have a lower requirement for working capital needs. You see that lending has shrunken, and you also see on the opposite side, on the liability or deposit side, you see that people in lockdown spend a lot less holidays, less bars and restaurants, things we all want to do again, but clearly have led to an inflow on our balance sheet. If you look at NII, the other things that have been a clear headwind, but have already been a clear headwind for four years is the negative rate environment. We've been able to manage those quite well in the past years. Clearly, COVID and the lockdown restrictions have made some of the levers that we utilize have made them less effective. Besides loan growth, you see that as one of our strongest lever, that has not worked. What you also see is that in non-euro countries, you have seen core rate reductions, which has also affected our NII. The swap curve, at which we replicate our liabilities went even lower in 2020 and where possible, even flatter, which clearly puts the pressure on our replicating income for liabilities, and that pressure remains. Sorry, I should mention, FX also had quite some effects, not only the quarter but in the year as well with the volatility also brought on by the pandemic. Looking forward, more positive, as Steven, our CEO, also said this morning, we do see that with vaccination and everything, we do expect that loan growth likely to return in the second half of 2021. We're already seeing a good pipeline in both Asia and the U.S. Furthermore, to counter these effects, we've introduced negative charging in several countries, Netherlands, Belgium and Germany for new customers and a custodian fee in Spain. The tiering helps mitigate some of the pressure. Finally, more in our own control, we are maintaining very strict margin and pricing discipline, which is also clearly observed in the quarter's results, where the margins on most of our product actually went slightly up. I move to slide nine on fees. Fees were arguably one of the highlights, where you see that our potential and the optionality that we have to increase or introduce fees coming from a very much low fee, no fee history in our direct bank model, is bearing fruit where pre-COVID, we already increased some payment packages namely in the Netherlands and in Belgium. We also introduced fees during this year on products, and we were quite successful in assisting our customers to move from savings into investment products. There, we saw a strong increase, particularly in Germany, as I highlighted earlier. Now, in these introduction of fees and this compensated actually for the negative effects of the pandemic on fees, where, as you can understand, international payment transactions because of travel restrictions were severely depressed, but also quite depressed and at a lower level than last year, but recovering towards the end of the year, where domestic payments, as people in lockdowns, spent less. That decline was more than compensated and we are quite pleased with the result we can show today. today. Moving on to slide 10. As Steven and Tanate, our CFO, have often said, the focus is on cost. We've seen pressure on our top line, which means that we need to work on our cost. Steven has called it, the nose of the plane has to come down. As you can see here, it has. If you compare full year 2019 to full year 2020, the costs were actually flat, corrected for incidentals, also quarter-on-quarter. If you correct for the incidentals, which are actually redundancy provisions and some impairments, we also show a flat cost base. If I dig one layer deeper, Wholesale Banking has already been showing four quarters in a row a cost reduction, so has Market Leaders. We continue, as Steven said, to take incremental steps, and we'll announce them as they come. We want execution certainty, but it's clearly the focus, and it has been paying off. Taking you please to slide 11 on risk costs. Clearly, 2020 saw the first full implementation of the IFRS 9 methodology with the staging and also with the pull-forward effect that you have from a lifetime expected loss. The total risk costs over 2020 were at EUR 2.7 billion, as you can see on the slide, which was 43 basis points over our average loan book, which I'd like to point out is significantly lower than other Eurozone peers. Of that EUR 2.7 billion, 30% is roughly in stage one and two. To highlight a couple of things, of course, we also granted payment holidays in the beginning of the crisis to support our customers in these times of uncertainty, which was roughly EUR 19.4 billion, which only is 2.6% of our loan book, so fairly limited, as we did not get that many requests. Just to point out that in most of our core markets, the government support actually went direct via fiscal measures rather than via guaranteed lending through the banks, as you can see in some other countries in Europe. Most of these payment holidays have expired. 93% has expired, and with very few requests for extensions and no material observable deterioration in the risk or credit profile of those clients exiting the payment holidays. 2021 risk costs, we expect them to move close to our through-the-cycle average, which is 25 basis points over our average loan book. This is something that Steven highlighted and also our new CRO, Ljiljana Čortan, referred to, is the quality of our loan book. It's something we often say, sometimes it's waved aside from, "Yeah, let's see until the next cycle." I think we've got enough data points over a long period of time to show that it's not that we never make mistakes, but our risk framework with all its floors and caps on geographies, on sectors, on individual exposures, as well as the diversification of our loan book even helps us maintain a healthy book even during a global pandemic. Our book is senior, almost exclusively. A large part of that is secured lending. Also, I might add that 50% of our book is mortgages in strong economies. I would like to stop here, Geert, hand back to you for the capital and funding part, I'll be available for questions later. Thank you, Geert. Thanks, Mark. I'd like to take you to slide number 23 and tell you something about the risk-weighted assets development during the last quarter. As you can see, the RWAs decreased by EUR 6 billion to just above EUR 306 billion in total. This decrease was mainly caused by a reduction of credit risk-weighted assets, which were down by EUR four and a half billion. In line with the knock-on effect of COVID, driven by lower volumes and a shorter duration of the Wholesale Banking loan book and a better LGD profile. I'm also happy to say that by now we have absorbed the biggest impact, or let's say we have largely absorbed the full impact of the TRIM exercise with the latest addition of EUR 2.5 billion that was related to the segment financial institutions and trade and commodity finance. The outlook for further regulatory inflation as we look at it today, we expect to be roughly 50 basis points. This should give some more stability from a regulatory inflation volatility on our CET1 ratio going forward. Please turn to slide 24, where we'll show you the evolution of our CET1 ratio. That now has improved to 15.5%, which is 300 basis points above our ambition level of around 12.5%. The decrease in RWA, that was partly offset by a change in the CET1 capital that decreased by EUR 500 million. The current ratio implies a surplus of roughly 500 basis points above MDA, and like I said before, 300 above our ambition level. It's important for you to note that this ratio currently excludes the almost EUR 3.3 billion of profits that were reserved outside of regulatory capital. Implicitly, that reflects an additional 1% of CET1 ratio. We're happy to have it reserved outside of the reg cap. We're also happy with our current AT1 and Tier 2 ratios, where we made full use of full benefit from the relief offered by Article 104a of the Capital Requirements Directive. As long as we have excess CET1, we'll manage those ratios close to these levels. The next slide will be slide 25, which shows our MDA levels. Most notable change this quarter was the reduction of the systemic risk buffer by the De Nederlandsche Bank from 2.5% to 0%, and the increase at the same time of the O-SII buffer from 2% to 2.5%. Given the implementation of CRD V in national laws, these changes have no effect on the combined buffer requirement. Please let me take you to slide 26 now, which is interesting slide on our capital distribution plans for this year and beyond. As we have announced last quarter, we moved from a progressive dividend methodology to a 50% payout ratio of net resilient profit, we have also adjusted our CET1 ambition to around 12.5%. In line with that new distribution plan, we have reserved EUR 1.5 billion over 2020, which is now added to the EUR 1.8 billion originally reserved for the final dividend of 2019. That brings you then to a total just south of EUR 3.3 billion. Obviously, we align with the current ECB recommendations, where we will pay EUR 0.12 per share, equaling EUR 461 million, on the basis of the 15% full-year 2020 adjusted net profit as it is defined by the ECB. We do intend to distribute the remaining amount that is reserved after September 30th of this year, obviously, again, subject to prevailing ECB recommendations and subject to the relevant approvals that might need to be obtained. Since the current ECB recommendations also prevent us from paying an interim dividend over 2021, today, we also announced that this will be delayed until after September 30th of this year. As mentioned before, 300 basis points CET1 excess over and above our ambition level, there must be room for further distribution of capital over the coming years, where we intend to manage towards our 12.5 ambition level. Next topic is on slide 30, which will give you some guidance on our debt issuance plan. We meet our TLAC requirements on a RWA basis with 28.2%, MREL will remain the most constraining factor for ING. Our current non-binding requirement is still leverage base 10.45%, and this was based on the balance sheet of year-end 2019. We have received a phased-in period until January 1st, 2024, with a linear intermediary target by January 1st, 2022. I've seen the new draft requirements under the new MREL policy based on BRRD II, those requirements are still in consultation, we do expect to receive a final letter probably in Q2 this year, certainly before second half starts. Now, being liability rates driven by the EUR 40+ billion inflow last year of clients' liabilities, our issuance will be fully driven by meeting MREL requirements, the issuance out of the HoldCo. Based on our planning, both capital planning, MREL planning, also our business planning, we expect to issue EUR 6 billion-8 billion of HoldCo Senior for the remainder of this year. This comes on top of our EUR 1.5 billion long non-call 8 that we issued early in January of this year. We've mentioned before, we're happy with the AT1 and Tier 2 ratios, and the driver for further actions there is clearly balance sheet developments, RWA growth, and any needs arising from potential calls or redemptions. Given our participation in TLTRO III and in combination with the increase of our clients' liabilities, we do not foresee any long-term OpCo senior issuance this year. We might jump into interesting covered bond issuance durations by some of our subs, potentially in green format, but it will be opportunistically driven. Surely, again, the development of the balance sheet for this year, we closely monitor. The focus for the team will always be to meet capital and liquidity ratios, but we also clearly take a careful look at our net interest paid on the back of all this issuance. That plays a very important role as well. Slide 32 touches upon our green bond framework and our sustainabilities. As you might recall, in 2015, ING was one of the first G-SIB issuers of green bonds. In recent history, we were the largest issuer of a multiple-tranched green bond in the U.S. Over the years, we have further developed and improved our green bond framework, aligning it with the regulatory developments. We are prepared, if and when it will be endorsed by the EU Parliament, to adhere to the EU Taxonomy. We intend to remain active in this senior unsecured green format as well as in green covered bonds. On top of that, we continue to evaluate the market for other ESG-driven issuance opportunities such as social bonds or maybe even a green Tier 2. Having said all this, and before I stop talking now, there should be some time for Q&As on the back of this presentation. I hand back to the operator and see if you have any questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will start the question and answer session now. For the question and answer queue, you may press star one at anytime. In the interest of time, we kindly ask each analyst to limit yourself to two questions only. The first question is from Lee Street, Citigroup. Go ahead, please. Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking my questions. I have two for you please. Firstly, when you talk about excess capital, it always seems to be in the view of returning it to shareholders and buybacks today and also on the call this morning. From that, should I assume that it's very unlikely that we would see ING undertake any form of significant M&A transaction within your preexisting markets, and that capital really is just earmarked for return to shareholders? Secondly, we obviously had the EBA opinion on legacy instruments last year and the discussion around infection risk. I know that's something you were asked about on your last call as well. Having seen that now with the BRRD being transcribed into law, can you just talk us through how you see the existence of your older legacy Tier 1 securities, how that impacts across the capital structure? That would be my two questions. Thank you very much. Yeah, hi Lee. Thanks, I'll take the first one. Steven got the same question this morning. Basically, we see a couple of sources for use of our capital. One is to build it for regulatory requirements. We believe we have about 50 basis points left to go of regulatory RWA that we need to absorb until implementation of Basel IV. That's one. The other one is to fund loan growth. Then you have indeed, as you pointed out, distribution and M&A. As Steven clearly said, we're a digital data-driven bank. We focus on the customer experience. If you think about M&A, we like to say that we're more looking for car parts than cars. A favorite comment also, of course, Timmermans in the past. That basically is if we are in a position to buy technology which helps us become more efficient or increase our customer experience, we will have a look at it. Similar, you could think that we might look at portfolios that augment our current strategy, but the focus is on organic growth. Lee, for your second question, I ask Ewald to provide you with an answer. Thank you, Geert, and good afternoon, Lee. Thank you for your question. We've been debating or in discussion on the remaining legacy grandfathered hybrids that we still have outstanding. We're talking here about the EUR 1 billion denominated. We've taken notice essentially of the EBA opinion, which was published in October of last year on the future treatment of grandfathered instruments. In essence, they rank pari passu with our CRD V compliant instruments and therefore could indeed create what in the industry is also flagged like a potential infection risk. The element which is at this stage unclear or needs to be clarified, if you will, is that we are still awaiting the implementation of BRRD II in the Dutch insolvency law to see what the, let's say, local approach of that will be. At this stage, we don't have the full granularity. The Dutch government opened a consultation phase, which has ended by the end of January. Hopefully in the coming weeks or month, we will have more insight in, let's say, the Dutch approach to implementing the insolvency law. That's also when at least we can make further analysis internally, engage with our legal counsels, and clearly also with our regulators. In addition, these are instruments that are issued to retail investors. That could be deemed as an impediment to resolution by the SRB. As I mentioned earlier, this is in essence too early to tell, and we await the outcome of the consultation. Okay. No, that's really helpful. Just one quick follow-up on that. In terms of the consultation that was sent out and has now closed, was anything proposed to resolve the infection risk in the statutory law or not as a part of that consultation? Lee, we participated in the consultation, but we don't comment on what we've said. Okay. All right. I will leave it there. Thank you very much for your time and for answering the questions. Thank you. The next question is from Mr. Daniel Davis, Autonomous Research. Go ahead, please. Hi all. Thanks for taking the time and taking my questions. I think you've covered most of my inflation risk questions in the, just previously. I'll just touch upon green bonds, if that's all right. Noting that the progress in your commitment to the space, is there a percentage green bonds versus vanilla issuance that you see? Could you get to 100% green issuance in the senior layer? Also, are you seeing a material financial benefit from issuing in green format? More broadly, would you consider issuing an ESG format linked to maybe carbon targets or ESG ratings? Thanks. Thanks, Daniel. Let me take the first part, and then I hand over the carbon-linked question to Ewald. Obviously, our green bond issuance is fully driven by our green asset origination. This goes in tandem. The more green assets we originate, the more availability we will have to issue green bonds. There is not, in that sense, a percentage target of where we want to be five or 10 years from now. There is a target of what we want to issue in green this year, but it can be green covered, it can be green senior, and it can even be a green Tier 2. In terms of pricing, we do recognize, because of the lack of supply of green product, there is such a thing like a greenium. The greenium that we have observed is between zero and five basis points more attractive than a similar instrument without the green label. That is what we see there in terms of pricing. Ewald, can you take the carbon-related question? Yeah. Thank you, Daniel, for your question. In essence, we've now focused on CO2 reduction in our green bond impact reporting, which is also calculated by external parties and which is clearly published on our website. I would not say that we have direct links or targets actually in that sense. Clearly, it's an element we take in consideration. Okay. Thanks a lot. The next question is from Mr. Robert Smalley, UBS Fixed Income. Go ahead, please. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions and doing a call in U.S.-friendly time. Appreciate it. Two things both related to loans. First, there's an idea that the longer that we see government stimulus around the world, that not only will this bridge us to a better economy, but it will actually help reduce the amount of outstanding problem debt the longer that that goes forward. Do you see that as being the case in the Netherlands and for the bank or do you see that differently, is my first question. My second question is on loan demand. Certainly, on the consumer side, a lot has been talked about with respect to pent-up demand for purchases and paying down credit cards. Could you talk about how you see it on the corporate side, how quickly you think that loan demand will get back to pre-COVID levels? Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Robert. Good morning to you. On the first one, on the government support, you can dissect a little bit how the support is being given, roughly Northern Europe, Southern Europe. Governments in Northern Europe are providing the support fiscally. That is either with support for wages or a deferral or delay or reduction of tax burdens. Whereas in Southern Europe, you see a preference for doing it through government-guaranteed lending, that's going via the banks. Now, what the outcome of the both directions is, they shouldn't be that dissimilar, you also see that the borrowing in Northern Europe is just less because of that, because it's just either delayed cost. You also have slightly better labor laws than in some other countries. You have a more flexible workforce in countries like the Netherlands, where you can upskill and downskill through temporary workers a little bit better than in some other countries where there are stricter labor laws. That's on the fringes. You could argue that your statement that it will help to reduce outstanding problem, that we would subscribe to that. You must realize that I think that the whole world is still coming to grips on what business models have actually become obsolete. I don't expect that there will be absence of problems. That's not at all, the government support has been a very strong help in helping the European countries face this humanitarian health crisis. On loan demand, so specifically on Wholesale Banking, I got from your question that the loan demand on consumer lending is clear. What happens in every crisis, people defer large payments. With the lockdowns, people will probably also think twice about buying a second car or even a first car. On Wholesale Banking, good to remember how the crisis works on a business. There's two effects. Every management team will probably scratch themselves behind the ears whether or not to build that second factory. You see a drop in investment, demand for investment loans, expansion. The second thing that happens, and especially now, because you have both a demand and a supply shock crisis, you see that working capital reduces dramatically. I think that has also been the cushion for many companies that the liquidity that was trapped normally in your production cycle, that was released as people had to produce less and also had difficulty restocking because of, especially in the first half of 2020, you had a logistical meltdown of the material goods not reaching the factories or the businesses. How does it pick up? That was the second part of your question. At what speed? First thing that comes back is working capital need. Working capital need will come back as quickly as you want to ramp up your production again, and as demand increases, as economies open up, and hopefully the vaccine takes what we all wish for, has the effect of bringing us back to more normal. You have on the demand side, and therefore with the control of the virus spreading, you would also see a recovery of the logistical networks. On investment, demand for investment loans, basically, that depends on the confidence and the clarity of the outlook for people, and that will depend where you are in the world. I would argue that ING is with its geographical and product diversification, as in the past, where we used to print 5% growth, we're ideally placed to capture the growth wherever it takes place geographically. We already see a pickup in our pipeline in both Asia and the Americas. That's great. Thank you very much. Very helpful. You're welcome. The next question is from Mr. Alexander Lassers, PGIM. Go ahead, please. Hi there. Sorry to come back to this. I know you talked about it a lot today, but just for my own clarification on the kind of Basel IV and the capital wall. Your 50 basis points of capital headwinds, that's sort of pre-Basel IV. What is the guidance now, if any, for what your kind of pro forma Basel IV number is and where you would be versus that 12.5% if we fully loaded it today? Thanks, Alexander. The 15.5% that we reported and that we mentioned, as well as our around 12.5% ambition are both Basel IV numbers. The only thing that we're saying is that from the remaining TRIM exercises as well as the implementation date effect, you would expect a 50 basis points RWA inflation still to happen. Initially, what we said, already three years ago, is that in total, we would expect, absent from management action, a total impact of around 200 basis points. That was then only Basel IV. TRIM came later, was partially front-loading Basel IV, some elements are not. We actually stopped calling it Basel IV headwind and just call it regulatory RWA effects. Of that, there's 50 basis points remaining, we estimate, of what we can see today. As you know, we generate annually anywhere between 140 and 170 basis points of capital. How much are you suggesting the kind of implementation day effect would be? That's probably almost all of the 50 basis points. There's a little bit of some TRIM still to follow on some smaller portfolios. You can imagine that the 50 basis points, whether or not you have at that moment in time, which is now 2023 or 2024, the rumors say 2024, but the last number we have fixed is January 1st, 2023, is only then can you determine whether or not you have any binding constraints from your output floors or not. On the day that some of the elements of Basel will only take effect if that comes into law and effect on the date of implementation. On that date, you will have an effect. On the other side, some of the management actions that we've been taking, such as rating non-rated corporate clients, which helps on the LGD, will also only have an effect once Basel comes into effect. We also have some management actions to prepare for, which are only effective as of the date of implementation. Okay, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, for any additional questions, please press star one. The next question is from Mr. Varman Jai, Schroders Investment Limited. Go ahead, please. Yes, hi there. Thanks for taking my question. Just one. I think you mentioned in terms of your guidance for cost of risk for 2021, you're expecting it to come back to normalized levels this year, which if I compare with all the other European banks' guidance is much more optimistic. I wonder what sort of assumptions you have made in terms of how quickly vaccine is rolled out or how quickly the restrictions are lifted, and what might be the downside risk to that guidance. Also, if you could give any sort of views on how the non-performing loans should develop from here, and do you expect them to peak at a certain time this year? Thank you. Thank you, Varman. I think you're going to have to repeat the last part of your question. I didn't quite catch that, but I'll start off. I wasn't aware that we're that much more positive on our guidance than other banks. I think most banks are guiding towards lower risk. That's simply also an effect of IFRS. IFRS, where in case of a macroeconomic outlook, the macro part of that model, basically, if you have a sharp deterioration, demands that you take certain actions and also pull forward some of the expected losses on base of the macro. What you generally see is that more clients, because the outlook deteriorates, you put onto watch lists so that takes a stage two. This was what you saw happen in Q1 and Q2 last year. Clearly because visibility was that low, and I sometimes jokingly say everybody was googling, including the macroeconomists. As you then progress, basically what happens under IFRS, you have a forward-rolling quarterly macroeconomic outlook model, and a bad quarter rolls off and a good quarter rolls back in, which leads to what you already saw in Q3 and Q4 to a macro model IFRS release in risk cost. In the third quarter, we countered that because we thought it was a bit counterintuitive to have releases and risk costs right at the moment that the second wave was hitting and all of Europe was going into second lockdown. That's number one. We still had many clients in payment holidays, and we're not sure how they would emerge from that. As a prudent bank, both on who we put on our books, but also on how we manage risk, we then took a management overlay. This quarter, you saw a double effect, and that's not only did a bad quarter roll off out of the macroeconomic model, you also see that the macroeconomic outlook, for which we use a consensus outlook, has improved, which was partially driven, of course, by the approval of several of the vaccines. You have a double effect. You have out of the data pool for your macro models, a bad quarter rolls in and a recovery model quarter rolls in, as well as the economic forecast of GDP growth have been revised upwards. Why are we so confident on them making a guidance that we believe that next year, our cost of risk should move towards the more average across the cycle level of 25 basis points. It's also IFRS, which basically has this pull-forward effect. Stage one is your expected loss at the inception of a loan over the entire loan book. You have stage two, that is for credits on watchlist or where you have a heightened sense of concern, be it risky sectors or whatever the reason is to put it on watchlist, but still performing. You have your stage three. We believe that we've taken a conservative and prudent approach, knowing our loan book and the behaviors of our sectors, especially in times of crisis, quite well. We believe we have provided sufficiently in 2020 to cover possible loan losses that can be expected in 2021. Sorry. Thank you for that. Just to clarify, I think I misheard this. You're guiding the cost of risk to normalize this year or next year? Sorry, this year, 2021. You're guiding to this year. Yeah. Okay. Because most of the other banks are guiding to normalization next year. Okay. That's why I said a bit optimistic. Okay. The other question I had was, I think, payment defaults or payment holidays, they have turned out to be much better than that sort of normalized level sort of assumptions. I guess in my view, the risk is probably now remaining on your more sensitive sectors and how, as you said, how the business model develops once the restrictions are lifted. Are those sectors, again, thinking about how the bad loans should develop, are they reliant to a significant extent on the government support schemes? Is that another reason why you think that the provision that you had taken, in 2020 should be sufficient enough and then that should basically cover off any sort of increase in bad loans here? I understand the exposure for ING is probably not that high, but it is still quite a decent amount. I guess in my mind, the question is, what level of government support is baked in with that assumption? Right. You're right. If you look at the most vulnerable right now in society, it's probably small, medium enterprises, of which frankly, if you look on a relative basis, we as ING have a very small proportion. If you look at the analyst presentation in the annex, we spelled out for you actually how much we have in the various segments of business lending, wholesale lending, consumer lending. Also made a breakout for you for what we consider to be the more sensitive sectors like hospitality, non-food retail, aviation, you can think of the rest. If you think about those sectors, t hey are so small in perspective to our bank. Non-food retail, for example, is 0.4% of our loan book is EUR 3 billion. Hospitality and leisure, if I include both wholesale and business lending is 6.1%, so 0.8% of our loan book. Either by wisdom or serendipity, I'll let you choose, but we've managed to stay away from the very risky sectors that are affected by COVID. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. Okay. Thank you, operator. Thank you all for participating in today's call. The IR team, of course, is available for any follow-up questions, but we all certainly hope to see many of you again in person during the course of this year. That will be very positive. I conclude by telling you to stay safe, and goodbye for now.