Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. Dear shareholders, some of you I know have traveled from far, so everyone's welcome, and especially those that have traveled from very far to be here this afternoon. As Chairman of the Supervisory Board, I'd like to extend, of course, a warm welcome to everyone that's in this room and all our shareholders, both in person and those remotely. I'd also like to welcome the members of the Central Workers' Council, newly elected. Welcome. As in previous years, this meeting will be in English. However, if you prefer, feel free to ask your questions in Dutch. Generally, we will answer your questions in English. Simultaneous translations into Dutch are available for those who would like to use it. For this, you should have received headphones when you entered the room. If you haven't, please let one of our colleagues know, and you'll be provided with a headphone. Was that a sign you need a headphone? No? Okay, good. Hasn't had a headphone. Want a headphone? Sorry? It's okay. Okay. Yeah, okay. During today's meeting, the members of the Supervisory Board and Executive Board are present, visible on the podium. From the Supervisory Board, Margarete Haase, Chairwoman of the Audit Committee, Mevrouw Hermann Verhagen, Chairwoman of the Remuneration Committee, and our one and only Welshman, Mr. Mike Rees, Chairman of the Risk Committee, and of course, myself here as Chairman of the Supervisory Board. The Executive Board is represented, first and foremost, my young and dashing colleague, Stephen van Rijswijk, our Chief Executive Officer, the Buddhist amongst us, always at calm, is our Chief Financial Officer, Tanate Phutrakul, and the Iron Lady, the Risk Officer, Ljiljana Čortan, to my right. Last but not the least is, of course, my Chief Legal Counsel, or our Chief Legal Counsel, Frauke van Oostens-Slingerland. Today, here in the Muziekgebouw, are also, on behalf of the external auditors for the year 2024, KPMG, Messrs. Peter de Wit, in the first row, and Niels Paping, also next to him. Our Independent Civil Law Notary, Miss Joyce, in the front row here. The other members of the Supervisory Board and the members of the Management Board of ING are also following the AGM, albeit remotely, if they are not in this room. Before we continue, I'd like to make a few general remarks for our shareholders present in person. Please ensure that your mobile phones are turned off. I have done that myself, and other devices are set to silent mode. To ensure the privacy of all shareholders and others present in the room, it's not allowed to take photographs, make videos, or audio recordings during the meeting, or publish or post any footage of the meeting, for instance, on social media. There will be, of course, dedicated moments for questions. You may speak and ask questions if given the floor. We also kindly ask you not to ask repetitive questions and keep your questions brief and to the point. Please make sure that they relate to the agenda item that are being discussed. Questions or comments about, for example, your customer relationship with ING or concerning ING products or services will not be discussed during this meeting, but rather should be directed to our customer service people. As in previous years, questions will be bundled per item and answered together. Repetitive questions will not be answered. Shareholders also have the opportunity to submit questions by email. These questions will be answered during the meeting. Interruptions and disturbances, as you may understand, we cannot tolerate and therefore will not be tolerated. We urge you to respect the meeting order. Only this way can we provide you the opportunity to have a meaningful and constructive dialogue with the boards of ING. If the meeting, we hope not, is disturbed in a manner that we cannot continue, I will suspend the meeting, and the board members may leave the stage until the meeting can be continued in an orderly manner. Next, I'd like to point out a couple of points. This meeting was convened in accordance with the required formalities. The agenda with explanatory notes was published on ING's corporate website on the 7th of March 2025 and available for review at ING's head office in Amsterdam. There were no proposals submitted by shareholders for discussion at this meeting. The notarial record of last year's annual general meeting has been available on ING's website since 4th of November of 2024. A notarial record will be prepared for the purpose of adopting the minutes of the meeting. Please note that this meeting is being broadcast live via video webcast and recorded as such. I'm now pleased to give the floor to Vroukje van Oosten-Slingeland to explain how the voting works, which I suspect you know, but she will nevertheless walk you through it, and how to ask questions online, which I suspect you know as well, but she will nevertheless. She does that with us all the time, so no exceptions here. Vroukje. Thank you, Chairman. In relation to voting, many shareholders have taken the opportunity to cast their votes prior to this meeting, either by granting a proxy or by using the e-voting system. A statement of the represented capital and the percentage of votes represented by the notary will be displayed on screen prior to the vote on agenda item 2C. If you're present here and you're entitled to vote, you have received a voting pad and a chip card. When you leave the room at the end of this meeting, kindly return these items at the exit. You do not need to return those items if you leave the room temporarily. Shareholders following this AGM remotely cannot vote live during this meeting. The voting results will be announced and displayed on the screen for each voting item after voting for that item is closed. Later on, I will explain to you how the voting pads work. Please let one of the hosts know if you have any issues using the equipment provided to you. If you want to ask questions online, to do that, you need to be logged into the e-vote platform. If you are, you'll see the chat function at the top of your screen. You can post the questions directly in the chat. Questions will not be answered via the chat, though. As indicated by the Chairman, questions received will be grouped per topic. When the relevant item is raised, questions received via the chat will then be answered together with the others. As indicated by the Chairman, the meeting is translated simultaneously. For those of you making use of the translation services, please note that there are two channels. Channel 1 provides a Dutch translation, and Channel 2 provides an English translation. Back to you, Chairman. Thank you, Vroukje. This is the formal start of what I'd like to say to you. Good afternoon, everyone, again. My name is Karl Guhr. I'm the Chairman of the Supervisory Board. It's my pleasure to open ING's annual meeting of 2025. As you know, 2024 was, in a business sense and in financial performance sense, a strong year for all our businesses. We were able to deliver on our promises on the basis of a very strong financial performance. That's what underpinned it. It's also important to say that this performance would not have been possible without the dedication of more than 60,000 colleagues in 36 countries serving our customers worldwide. We thank them for their hard work and collaboration. This is a meeting of the annual general shareholders, so let me allow me to thank you, dear shareholders, for your support in 2024. Your support underpins our success in navigating the challenges we face and delivering our commitments. We are also grateful for the trust that our clients have placed with us because they actually allow us to perform the way we do. Thank you to all. A brief comment on what we are witnessing around us. I think it is fair to say, looking at the world around us, it feels like the world has gone mad. We are witnessing economic turmoil as the global trade war has intensified, and we are also witnessing the embedding of longer-term economic and political trends. In a short time, we have gone from an era of free trade to one of increasing protectionism, and from a world at relative peace to one with several geopolitical flashpoints. We have also seen and witnessed the weaponization of climate politics, despite the fact that climate change is real and the urgency of climate change becoming ever more evident. Needless to say, Europe, our home base, feels threatened from all sides. However, we feel that ING, as a house, is well positioned to navigate these existing and emerging challenges, and indeed to continue to prosper and play our role in Europe as a European house and for our clients globally. If I may, I would like to provide an overview of some of the key topics that are top of mind for the board. We have focused on, if you will, the rapidly changing political and economic climate as a primary element that's on top of our mind. The second I would like to draw attention to is the so-called growing the difference phase. The focus here is on accelerating growth, increasing impact, and delivering value for our customers, with the ambition of becoming the best house as a best banking house in Europe. Our CEO, Steven van Rijswijk, will go into this in further detail when he actually does the presentation on the next phase of the strategy and our achievements. I think while we're talking about this, it's also important to emphasize our role in society, given the significant political shifts that we have witnessed, in particular across the Atlantic onto the other side. ING, as you know, is a leading globally systemic important bank with a presence in 36 countries and serving customers in more than 100 countries. These events do affect us profoundly. We know that we have a role to play. We play a vital role in safeguarding the financial system and fostering economic growth by directing the flow of capital, balancing supply and demand while effectively managing risk. That's the sort of thing that we have to do. It is part of our core responsibilities. There has also been a lot of discussion on political shifts in society and the approach of business to sustainability and diversity. I'd like to make very clear, unequivocally clear, that we are and will remain committed to our sustainability and diversity goals. We're committed to it because it makes sense and because it is rational. At ING, we firmly believe that climate change is real, and that we need to play our role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. The same applies to diversity. We always believe that the diversity perspective, when you embed it in any business, in any decision-making process, it enriches the decision-making process. That's not fiction. That's just a fact that we know. Zooming in on sustainability, sustainability will continue to be a key part of our strategy, regardless of the political developments that we see in some other parts of the world. We all agree on the importance and the meaningful action to transition to a low-carbon economy. In 2024, we have further increased our ambition on sustainable financing and renewable financing. We have introduced new financing policies which are anchored in climate science. We are very proud to be the first globally systemic important bank to have our climate targets validated by the SBTI. We will, as you can imagine, continue to engage with key stakeholders, including many present in this room, to drive public and private partnership to help reach our common goal. The key question that we ask ourselves, and I suspect many others, including many in the room, are asking, how do we as a bank support the transition while also bearing in mind the economic and the societal realities of today? That's the world we are trying to navigate, and that's the world I suspect we all have to navigate. On the topic of Europe, we are a European house. Of course, we serve our clients globally. We have a global franchise, but at its heart and core, we're a Dutch-based European house. Therefore, Europe matters to us. A lot has been said about Europe in the past months. Europe, as you can see, witness, feel every day, is being challenged politically, economically, technologically, both from within Europe and by some of our most important trading partners. It is important to say that for us to have an impact as individual nation-states is limited. Therefore, the importance of Europe to work together to make sure that we have the impact that we need to have and all the things that we believe in in the world is one of our core fundamental beliefs. We believe that we need to work together to drive European growth and secure our own future. In reality, this also means making significant progress. You might ask, what does it mean? This is what it means: significant progress in the following areas. Establishing a capital markets union, allowing—and why is this important? Because there's plenty of money in Europe, and most of that money actually goes to America or to the rest of fund somebody else's growth. We need a capital markets union to use our own savings, our own money for our own growth. The simplifications of regulations. We are not against regulation. Regulations are needed, and they're good. They have become overtly complex and very difficult to implement. For growth in Europe, we need simplification. There are very significant projects undergoing at the moment in Brussels to ensure that indeed the regulations are simplified. The second element of it is the level playing field, level playing field for all across Europe. When nation-states, whether it is in one area or another, start imposing different rules, you don't have a level playing field. That goes against growth. We need growth for all our people. The third aspect that I would like to highlight is energy security. I think most of you are aware how important that is, having lived through the crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent issues. We have much of that still playing out. We also believe that steering significant investments in technology, because we have, despite all the talent, our technology, we have fallen behind America and China. We have to catch up. That can only come through more investments and investments in our own defense. I think I do not need to sort of explain why defense is as important. Today, it has always been important. I think the changing role of America in our own defense, what's playing out in the East, in the Ukrainian borders, or in the South, in fact, in the Middle East, or elsewhere, we need to have strong defense. Because without strong defense, without strong growth, we do not play our role in the way we should in the world. Why do we need to do all of this? Because we believe that as a European bank, the European values are worth protecting and fighting for. Therefore, they may be universal, but they are certainly very specific to what we as a house and Europe stand for. In this context, it's important that we believe that we must forge our own path. Now, where does ING stand in all of this? We are confident that given our franchise, our universal banking model, our people, our business, our core belief in technology, and the way we pursue it, whether it's through sustainability or of the other elements, ING is well positioned to continue to perform well and navigate through these challenges. These things actually rest on five pillars. The first one is ING's universal banking model with a well-diversified portfolio of businesses, solidly anchored in Europe, combined with our ability to scale our services digitally. Second, our focus on retail and SME. SME is MKB, in case you're wondering what that means, which gives us a strong customer base and a wholesale business focused on facilitating trade and a transition to a low-carbon economy. The strong franchise also means we're uniquely positioned to accelerate growth in wealth management. Three, our focus on technology and our ability to deliver services digitally to our customers, albeit with a human touch, and our ability to scale these capabilities across markets. Four, we have the necessary—because you can't do any of this if you don't have the people. Therefore, we believe we have the necessary human capital to deliver on our promises and our goals. Needless to say, the development of our people has been an area of singular focus at ING for many years. We will need to ensure that we can continue to attract global talent in order to be competitive at a global level. This also means looking at remuneration and the importance of a level playing field with other countries in Europe. Five, we have the means to pursue our strategy in terms of capital, our capital generation capability, our asset quality, and the robustness of our balance sheet. Allow me to conclude by saying that there are significant challenges ahead, and we are operating in a very, very volatile geopolitical environment. Despite the threats to stability, global prosperity, and the rise of protectionism, we see that there's a renewed sense of collaboration in Europe with numerous efforts to safeguard Europe and spur economic growth. As a major European bank, ING has a clear role to play in supporting these efforts. In doing so, we will stay true to our values, and we are confident in our ability to navigate through these challenges and deliver on our promises. That concludes the first part of my introductory remarks. Let's now proceed to the second item on our agenda, with specific reference to 2A, 2B, and 2C. Agenda items 2A, the report of the Executive Board, 2B, the Supervisory Board report, and 2C, the remuneration report, will be discussed together. You will find these reports in ING's annual report. First, ING CEO Steven van Rijswijk will give you a presentation on the course of business in 2024, including the financial results. After this, the chairwoman of the Remuneration Committee, my colleague Ms. Johanna Verhaeghe, has prepared an introduction on agenda item 2C, which is the advisory vote on the remuneration report as included in the 2024 annual report. We will then take questions relating to agenda items 2A through 2C. Following this question round, we will move to the advisory vote on the remuneration report. After this, we will move to item 2D, the financial statements and the work carried out by KPMG in relation to the 2024 financial year. Mr. Peter DeWit of KPMG has prepared a presentation, and questions about this agenda item can be asked after his explanation. Finally, we will move on to the vote of the financial statements. That concludes my bit of what I had to say. I will now give the floor to my colleague Steven van Rijswijk, who will provide more detail on our strategy, our 2024 performance, and what lies ahead. As you know, Steven likes to walk around. He's far more energetic than I am. He will be. Good. Thank you very much, Karl. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here this afternoon. I'm pleased to take you through the performance of ING in 2024. That was a year where we continued to have many geopolitical changes, amongst others on the back of the super cycle that we had in elections all over the world. We also had continued conflicts and escalating conflicts, amongst others in Gaza and in Ukraine, with devastating humanitarian impact. When it comes to the economy, 2024 was actually quite benign. We had inflation coming down, although not as fast as expected. We had policy rates by the central banks coming down throughout the year. We had actually reasonable growth, although growth globally was different in the different regions. In Europe, we have muted growth, although we saw some markets that actually were actually at quite a strong performance in Europe. With the U.S., we economically performed better than initially anticipated. Most economies in Asia held up well. Of course, there were also things happening at the end of 2024 and early 2025 that Karl was talking about. I will say something about that later. At least you have a bit of context about what our performance was like in the context of 2024. This slide shows you then the highlights. In 2024, we had very good commercial momentum. In that good commercial momentum, both on the retail and the wholesale banking side, we made a record income of EUR 22.6 billion. It looks the same as in 2023. If you look further behind the decimal dots, 2024 was slightly higher than 2023 was. With that, we also made a net result of EUR 6.4 billion, which was the second highest ever. We did that on the back of strong customer growth, strong deposit growth, and strong lending growth. If you look at the primary mobile customers, we grew them with 1.1 million, predominantly in Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany. We had good lending growth of EUR 28 billion. Of that lending growth, EUR 19 billion came from mortgages, because a significant part of our lending book is mortgages. The lending growth in mortgages mainly came from Germany and the Netherlands. Those were two big markets. We had a EUR 47 billion deposit growth. Actually, all our retail markets contributed to it, but also the wholesale bank as well. Also, if you look at our fee income, our fee income last year grew with 11% to over EUR 4 billion. Why is that important? That is important because we're still quite dependent on interest income. By this, by moving more to fee income, we diversify ourselves better. That, in the end, led then to a capital ratio of 13.6%. It came down from 14.7% the year before. Please also note we made two announcements in May and October of last year for special capital distributions, gradually bringing our capital down to around 12.5% CET1 ratio by the end of 2025. In the end, we made a return on equity of 13%. Now, if you look at, and maybe you have seen this picture already last year, we also moved to the next phase of our strategy called Growing the Difference. We are well on our way to make our targets that we announced during the Capital Markets Day that we had in June 2024. It hinges on two main priorities. The first of all, one is to provide a superior value to our customer. That is an evolution from providing a superior customer experience. We move from experience only also to what do we offer these customers, where do we offer it, and at which point in time do you offer it to make the right offer when the customer needs it. The second priority is to put sustainability into the heart of what we do, to put it in the core of our business. I will talk about those priorities in the next couple of slides. When we talk about Growing the Difference and providing superior value for our customers, it is about doing more business with more customers in more different ways, going from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more bespoke approach for different segments. Because in the end, and banking to a large extent is commoditized, it is about what do we offer to our customers in a simple and easy way at the right point in time, offering also the right product and service that the customer then needs. Now, for retail banking, and retail banking consists of three parts: private individuals, business banking, and private banking wealth management. For retail banking, we do a couple of things. First of all, we're going to tailor our products more for private individuals, more towards different segments. What do we actually offer for Gen Z? What do we offer for mass affluence, so people who have a bit more to spend or a bit more to invest? What do we offer to expats? What do we offer to elderly people? It basically means that we offer these more segmented products, more segmented products in more of the market. A rollout of specific products for different segments. The second one in retail banking is business banking. There we're going to expand our offering in markets in which we do not yet offer business banking services. We're present in a number of markets. In some of them, we offer business banking, but not in all. We start then to offer digital business banking in more markets, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, where we're not yet present with business banking. The third one is to increase our private banking and wealth management offer, where we have more customers in business banking and in private individuals. We leverage those customer segments to do more in this particular segment. If you will, cross-sell to the private banking and wealth management space. In wholesale banking, we continue to build on our three pillars, on our three differentiators. That is our network, our sector strength, and our sustainability leadership. That is about investing. We invest in a number of product foundations, financial markets, in transaction services, in capital advisory, in front office capability. We invest there to put more salespeople on the ground to be able to sell the products that we are developing and to invest also in increased end-to-end digitalization. That mainly in the lending product. The lending product still is in wholesale banking the biggest product from a revenue point of view. We can make it also there, not only in retail, but also in wholesale banking, much more digital. Last but not least, because this was actually all about diversification and becoming a broader bank, if you will, we also want to improve the recycling of capital. Wholesale banking makes one-third of the revenue, but has approximately half of the capital. We want to recycle that capital better, i.e., invest, take the capital back, and go back to the client to actually do more services and products with our customers in wholesale banking, but perhaps also in retail banking. That is about driving the superior value for our customers. The second priority in the next phase of our strategy, and we already had that one, is putting sustainability at the heart of what we do. The world has agreed. I will talk about mainly the environmental part of sustainability because you also have, for example, financial health, which is also very important in our operations and in our strategy. This part will be about environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is there also because also you have seen the world who agreed to gradually move to net zero, to go to a lower carbon and extensive environment. Because the world wants to change, we want to help the world change as well. There are enormous amounts of money needed to invest in that regard. As a matter of fact, there are trillions needed. I'll wait one second for the noise to dissipate. Hier geen! Dit is een bullshit alarm! Dit is cijferscoconiet! Ik ga mensen dood! Soms hebben jullie bullshitverkoop en gaan jullie liegen, maak je mij niet uit! All right. Basically, it means that there is a lot of money that also needs to be invested and needs to be financed. We help customers with driving down their emissions, but also by finance and by our expert advice. As a matter of fact, we focus on three areas. How do we help customers to drive down emissions in line with what the world has agreed? The second one is how do we help financing customers with new technologies and new sustainable systems? The third one is how do we allow everybody to participate? Because in the end, it is societies at large that need to change. Now, what do we do in 2024? I hear a bird. That's good for biodiversity. In 2024, we talked and discussed with about 1,600 clients, and we discussed about our climate plans. We use data for that to also assess how do the climate plans of these customers look like and how can we help them to drive down emissions. We also have our TERA approach. The TERA approach is about the agreements that we made globally, the Paris Agreement, as people know it, and which is about how can we have client paths that have these targets for 2050 and have intermediate targets until 2030 in line with what was agreed. We do that sector by sector using data, and we're using the latest climate technology. Bullshit! Bullshit! Alles wat jullie zeggen, bullshit, dat gaat nu met stoot! Jullie doen helemaal niets! Jullie besteden alleen maar meer geld aan subsidies! How about bullshit that you're doing? If you... Extra geld voor uitlaten van de jullie supporten in Europa! Bullshit! We had a meeting with Italy......my... ...security to remove you from the room. Could I ask security to remove the person from the room, please? Extra geld voor uitlaten van de locolijst! Doe iets voor de toekomst! Best van de leeuw van Nederland! Best van... Doe iets! This is extralegal citizenship and all that you want! Extra geld voor uitlaten van de locolijst! Ik zag hier een kind in jullie omroep zitten te huilen. Wat vreselijk is wat allemaal gebeurt! Wij blijven de bullshit alarm luiden, net zolang tot de judges stoppen. Ik heb de tijd. Alle kinderen die nu al staan hier. Ladies and gentlemen, much to my regret, if this continues, we'll have to suspend the meeting. The meeting is suspended. Ik heb het gehoord, guys. Doe dat nu en dan niet doen, dan heb ik geen bullshit alarm als landspeler. Can you do the microphone, please? All right. I'll suspend it. All right, good. Then we'll wait. Ik zou het enige wat ik moet zeggen, als de wereld in de fik staat... Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume the meeting. You know the House rules. You would have your chance to ask the questions, which will come up. My request would be that please allow the meeting to proceed, and there would be a chance for you to ask the questions, so that would be the right moment to do it. Thank you. Stepen, if I may give you the word. All right. Thank you, Chairman. We were talking about the TERA pathways, and we do that sector by sector, with moving to net zero by 2050 and intermediate goals by 2030 based on data and climate science. The good thing is that SBTI, they approved this initiative by a number of NGOs. They basically concluded that our targets were set in line with the latest science and that they are in line with the global goals that have been set. We are confident about our approach. We keep at that approach, but also very important is that we help our customers to transition in terms of their financing. There is, as I said, trillions of financing needed for that. In that light, we have set ourselves a goal to mobilize financing for sustainable finance for EUR 150 billion by 2027. In 2023, it was EUR 115 billion. In 2024, we mobilized EUR 130 billion. We are on our way to that EUR 150 billion by 2027. We also need new technologies, and we need sustainable systems because we need that to be able to also use other elements than fossil fuels to energy production. That is why we have also set a target on renewable financing. We set a target at EUR 7.5 billion per annum by 2025. In 2024, we had EUR 7 billion committed financing. We are also well on our way there. The last element is to help everybody in society because we all need a transition. We, as ING, have about 40 million individual clients. We also have a large mortgage book. The fact that we have 40 million customers and we have a large mortgage book helps us to enable these customers and to get in conversation with these customers to make our houses more sustainable and more green and also energy cost efficient. For that, we are collaborating with others, and we have developed a sustainability tool. The sustainability tool, you can either look at from a digital point of view, or you can do that, so that's online, but you can also do that in person. Through that, we can help our customers to look at things like heat pumps or solar panels or insulation. You can then see what can I do to make my home more sustainable. Also, we then basically allow people to look at contractors, so we connect them to contractors, or we connect them to subsidies, or we link them to subsidies when applicable. Also, we can talk about financing. We have been rolling it out in the Netherlands. We have rolled it out in Australia. As a matter of fact, we are doing that in all of the retail markets in which we are active. Not only do we do that, but we also look at mortgage financing. We look at, and we help our customers to get to more sustainable financing on their mortgages by buying more sustainable homes. Therefore, we also have an opportunity to get a lower interest rate, and that's an incentivization for them. Those are the. In the house is an accident. In 21 hours, there will be 5 meters sea level rise, and my house is my solar panels, and my insulation will be low. This is a long time, right? How about that? Those are the three elements that we use to help our customers. In the end, and that's also very important for this room, it's also about collaboration. It's collaboration in the sector. It's collaboration between sectors. It's collaboration with the government. It's collaboration with climate scientists. Because only then we can move very well as a society. We move to the shareholder return. Basically, based on that good commercial momentum, the strategy execution, and also our strong asset quality, we have been able to deliver good shareholder value to all of the shareholders over the past number of years. When it comes to. It also means that we have been able to deliver good earnings per share. That has been developing over the years. Further development in 2024 was that we do that with a 7.4% decrease in the number of shares, which further helped our earnings per share. That translates also into dividends. We have a distribution policy that has a payout ratio of 50% of resilient net profit. In that resilient net profit, we paid an interim dividend by August of EUR 0.35 per share. Today, you can vote on the final cash dividend per share of EUR 0.71 per share because that's one of the voting items on the agenda today. That brings a total dividend per share of EUR 1.06 per share for 2024.. In addition, we want to converge our CET1 ratio to around 12.5% by 2025. To be able to do that. Ladies and gentlemen, can we please request that you allow Steven to finish what he's saying? Otherwise, we'll have to bring the house to order, and we'll have to ask you to remove you from the room. All right. To be able to move to our target capital ratio of 12.5% by the end of 2025, we also announced two capital distributions. One was early May for EUR 2.5 billion share buyback, and that was finalized already last year. We bought back approximately 156 million shares. In addition, we also announced an additional distribution by the end of October of EUR 2.5 billion, consisting of EUR 500 million in cash, which we paid out on the 16th of January, and a EUR 2 billion share buyback that we will conclude before the end of April. That has all led to a return on equity of 13.0%. We target, and we set it during our fourth quarter results, a return on equity of over 12% for 2025. Your billions will not protect you against the climate crisis. Your orange, beautiful vest that you're sitting behind will not protect you against the climate crisis. All right. Don't even think you are different from us. Looking at 2025 and beyond, we've, of course, seen by the end of 2024 and early 2025, when the Trump administration came to power, that there was an under the more import tariffs. That creates uncertainty, and it almost seems that instability is the new normal. Now, for Europe, and the chairman already talked about that, that means a couple of things. More uncertainty for Europe because of the import tariffs, and that weighs down on economic growth. The flip side is, if you look at the fiscal stimulus that the new Bundeskanzler Merz is talking about, but also that we now see with the European Union that is stimulating investment in defense, in infrastructure, and in technology, that that is weighing up on economic impact. At Europe, we are at an important point, and the results will not be easy, but it's a crucial point in time. Now, it also means there's a lot of opportunity to invest in the investments that are being stimulated, and at the same time, regulation, which could be simplified or standardized, that has perhaps held back economic investments. At ING, we're very keen to participate in that growth, participate in the investment in those sectors, and ready to continue to discuss with our stakeholders where we can help the economic growth in Europe. If you look at our performance so far, regardless of the economic circumstance, even in those difficult circumstances, we have been able to deliver good economic performance throughout, and we continue to intend to do so. With that, I would like to thank you, the shareholders, for listening to me and for supporting our strategy. I want to thank our clients for their loyalty and support and their trust in us. I want to thank especially our employees for their hard work, their dedication, their commitment, and their service to the customers. Of course, I am very happy to answer your questions later during this meeting. With that, chairman, I give it back to you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Steven. To the shareholders, please, could I ask you to sit down where you are located? Thank you very much. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, Steven. We now move to agenda item 2C. I'm pleased to hand it over to Ms. Herna Verhagen, Chairwoman of the Remuneration Committee. Herna, please go ahead. Thank you, Karl, and good afternoon, everybody. I would like to introduce to you the main points of the remuneration report. ING delivered strong results in 2024, as just explained by Karl and Stephen. We also introduced the next phase of our strategy and successfully started the execution. We delivered strong commercial growth, further diversified our income streams, provided superior value to our customers, and supported our clients also in their sustainable transition. We thus consider the performance of the executive board as satisfactory and will explain what this means for the remuneration of the executive board. This leads us to a variable remuneration awarded based on the 2024 performance. As a reminder, I would like to mention that the Dutch Remuneration Policy for Financial Enterprises Act specifies that at least 50% of the variable remuneration metrics must be based on non-financial targets. The financial targets include profit-based, return-based, and cost control targets. These are all the same for the executive board members. In accordance with the regulatory requirements, the targets for the CEO are aligned fully to group performance. For the CFO, the targets are a mix of both group and functional performance targets, and for the CRO, these are mainly based on risk and compliance. Based on a thorough and balanced assessment of the performance of each executive board member against their targets, ING's results, their behavior, their risk, and compliance matters. The SB decided to award the following variable remuneration: 17% of the maximum of 20% of base salary to the Chief Executive Officer, 17% of the maximum of 20% to the Chief Financial Officer, and 18% of the max of 20% to the Chief Risk Officer. After this look back on 2024, I would like to move on to the base salary as from January 1, 2025. Under the executive board remuneration policy, the Supervisory Board annually reviews the base salary of the EB members, including possible increases. Factors for consideration, as set out in our policy, include internal pay ratios, salary increases for other employees within ING, remuneration levels in our external peer group, and, of course, increase of general price indices. For 2025, the SB considers it appropriate to increase base salary for the CEO by 4% and 6% for the CFO and CRO. This results in the annual total direct compensation of each of the Executive Board members remaining below the market median when compared to the equivalent total compensation levels across our peer group, even after these pay increases. Going forward, the Supervisory Board maintains its commitment to rewarding the Executive Board and Supervisory Board members with market-competitive pay in order to support the long-term health and success of ING. Each year, we review remuneration of both the Executive Board and Supervisory Board roles. As you can see in the report, remuneration is below market median for comparable roles in the peer group. This concerns us, as it may hamper our ability to attract high-caliber talent, especially when we look outside of ING. Therefore, we will conduct a review this year and engage with our stakeholders. In closing, I would like to thank the Executive Board for a successful implementation of the strategy and the good progress against the targets as set out during Capital Markets Day in 2024. I would also like to thank you, all ING employees, for their continued support and dedication to ING, as well as our customers and all our stakeholders. Back to you, Karl. Thank you, Herna. We'll now address the questions regarding agenda items 2A, 2B, and 2C. I would like to structure the questions in three themed rounds. The first round is about strategy, including sustainability, corporate governance, and financial performance. The second round is about the other topics of the agenda, including items 2A to 2C, not scheduled to be dealt with later under the agenda. The third round is about agenda item 2D, the remuneration report for 2024. As a reminder, I would like to ask you to keep your questions brief and concise and to ensure that they relate directly to the agenda items in question. I now give the floor. I am going to give it first to microphone number two. Please state your name and the topic, the question that you are about to refer to. Yeah. Thank you. Goedemiddag, dames en. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert Frake of We Connect You. ING has a wonderful narrative. And ING is doing perfectly well in terms of sustainability. I would like to compliment you on that. I would like to comment on the following. You have just addressed all the problems you are facing at this point in time. My answer to that is make Europe great again. You have excellent relationships with the United States and with China. Allow me to explain this on the basis of a number of specific questions. As we speak, forests are being cut down to the size of three times the Netherlands. IKEA, as we speak, has a forest as big as Germany. Now, my specific question is, how many forests does ING have right now, and how many will it have in five years' time? Because biodiversity over the past five years has declined by 73%. ING sponsors the Dutch national team, which is fantastic. I also think, as a main sponsor, that it's important that ING becomes the main sponsor of the World Wildlife Fund. That is excellent for ING and for our country because you're doing so many things. The thing is, you're not just communicating it very well. I've noticed that regarding the responses here in the room. Water now. With the circular shower, you can cut back on water and energy with 80%. HydroLoop, this is a Dutch innovation, means you can cut back on water and energy with 50%. Mevrouw Verhagen, uit PostNL, you already have large batteries. Large batteries to store your solar energy. With the increasing cybercrime, it's also very important that ING, at every branch office, has very large battery packs so that we can address cybercrime issues with our energy supply. Something else. ING has a head office in Southeast Amsterdam. Over the weekend, these offices are empty. There are lots of problem children in Amsterdam. What if they can go to Amsterdam and they be given a training to become a plumber, for instance, or a sustainability technician? That way, we can really accelerate in this country. These are just a couple of specific ideas. In its publicity, I think ING should put much more focus on sustainability, which is possible because you have a wonderful program. That way, you can show what it is that you are achieving and realizing. Because, as we all know, we have lots of billionaires in this world, on this planet. 5% of the equity of these billionaires would be enough to make the entire planet sustainable. You can contribute to that effort because you are smack in the middle of that network. These are my specific questions. I am happy to repeat them. Thank you. I am going to move to microphone number one, take the questions so that we can cluster them and then answer at the same time. Dank u, meneer Gohan. Thank you, Mr. Gohan. Thank you for your introduction and your explicit argument that we need a stronger Europe. The explicit arguments of Mr. van Rijswijk, that sustainability is part and parcel of that. I am afraid I'll be thrown the trophy of these people here. I'd like to return the trophy because there are also truths that need to be conveyed here. Let me start with the most important transition that all of us are facing. We, as the Association of Stockholders. By yourself, please. Gerwin Evers, the director of the Vereniging. Gerwin Evers and the director of the VEB, the Association of Stockholders. We see geopolitical tensions in Russia and also in the U.S. and for Europe. That means that we need to unite very strong defensively. We have to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to zero. We do not have 20 or 25 years for that. We just have a couple of years to do that. We have got to do that. The financial sector has a very important role to play. The same applies to ING. As opposed to what people here might want to see, ING is really taking or setting the example. What you have done is the exposure for loans for fossil has been curtailed from EUR 4 billion to EUR 1 billion, 75% less than four or five years ago. That is what we read in the annual report. It has been validated by the auditor. All the anger, the upset that ING would support and subsidize the fossil energy industry is simply not true. The renewables, EUR 7.5 billion this past year. The target is increased to EUR 7.5 billion in terms of support for new initiatives that, at the end of the day, need to have an alternative for the energy suppliers. Because without the energy supply, we have to do away with the trams, the trains. People will leave their houses, which would be antisocial. The society can't deal with that. As a society, we have to accept the transition. ING is accepting that, is setting the example, and is well on its way prior to 2042 to turn to net zero. That is what we read in the annual report that has been validated. Now, we're happy to see that as investors. I can give people here at the back of the room a tip. If you're really worried about sustainability, do what I'm doing. Don't be angry with a bank that is in transition. Be angry with the Dutch government that still makes sure that all LNG is taken from Russia. It is converted through another state. The rest comes in through Qatar. That is Russian LNG. It comes from the U.S. If you're worried about the climate, sorry, geopolitics, peace here, but also fossil fuels, do something about that. Call on the Dutch government to really do something. The nitrogen deposition at this point in time is an enormous restriction for new renewable startups. We all see that. So does ING. You should turn to them and not to a bank that is setting the example. The Dutch politicians are letting us down. You're right. Climate alarms are needed badly. Please focus on The Hague. Microphones. I'd give the word to Steven to answer those questions. We'll come to microphone two. Ja, thank you. I think with regards to microphone two, Mr. Freeken. Yeah, you were talking about biodiversity and forests. First of all, maybe I think biodiversity we find also important. We're trying to develop methodologies in that regard as well. They are in our ESG policies. It's also biodiversity. We have started with a number of sectors. There's one challenge with biodiversity compared to CO2 emissions, although CO2 emissions is a very big challenge. The baseline of biodiversity is not there yet. Also, methodologies in terms of where are we going to move together are not there yet. That's currently being developed, just like with climate science in Paris. It is not there yet. That makes it more difficult at this point in time. We are starting already with a couple of sectors to see what we can do there. It's also part of our decision-making. That's maybe comment number one. Comment number two was about your forests. What we do not do with forests is that we do not compensate emissions by saying that we are going to invest in forests and then compensate elsewhere. We do not compensate for that. I still also find that difficult to be able to compensate for that. We've seen also externally that sometimes it is unclear how, let's say, emission reduction by forests is being measured. We do not do that neither through forestation nor through other means. We keep that separate. Whatever we do with forests is not being netted off against emissions that we have elsewhere. Regarding doing more commercials about sustainability, yeah, we have done a commercial, as you've seen in the television, about cyber sustainability. That's about our application. I think we work a lot with customers. Like I said, with the energy helper that we have in many of the countries in the Netherlands, but also elsewhere, to help them to see how can we make our house more sustainable through a means of a tool and therefore by insulation or by means of a heat pump or by means of solar panels. How can we get a subsidy for that if subsidies are applicable? How can we then finance that? I will take your word into advice in terms of if we can do more, let's say, above-the-line commercials in that regard. Regarding the comments of the gentleman of the VEB, I obviously cannot agree more. Thank you, Steven. I think we will follow one, two, three. First, the lady here, then Mr. van den Bossch, and then the gentlemen in three. Are you waiting this week? In that order, we will follow. First, the lady and micro. If you could identify yourself, please. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Jacqueline Derker. I am from the VBDO, the Dutch Association on Responsible Investment. I'd like to ask you three questions. First, I'd like to thank you also for the constructive preparation on the issues I'd like to bring across. It's three questions I have. One on biodiversity, one on living wage, and one on the CSRD, the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Biodiversity already mentioned also by previous questionnaire. The financial sector is a key enabler of the global real economy and therefore also strongly connected to biodiversity loss challenges. VBDO commends ING for identifying biodiversity as a material topic and for improving biodiversity reporting in its latest disclosures. ING has also indicated it wants to engage with clients in high-impact sectors to help them transition to more sustainable practices. My question is, how does ING plan to incorporate biodiversity considerations into client transition plans? What level of transparency is required from their clients on their biodiversity impacts? For example, how are biodiversity and deforestation concerns addressed when financing, for instance, high-impact sectors as the meat processing industry? Should I ask more other questions or? Yes, please. I think if you keep just the questions, but please do. Living wage is the second topic I'd like to address. The UN Global Compact and also other international initiatives have emphasized living wage as a fundamental human right, which is necessary for a decent standard of living. The ILO has now formalized a definition for living wage, and ING has acknowledged living wage within its environmental and social risk framework. My question is, how does ING currently assess and divide living wage compliance in its due diligence processes? Will ING implement the ILO definition to operationalize living wage in business practices and include this definition in its human rights policies? That is number two. My final question is on the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. ING implements the reporting standards thereof and has committed to the double materiality assessments. That also includes stakeholder engagement through dialogue. ING has highlighted that these stakeholder dialogues actually help uncover information that otherwise would not be accessible. Given that these dialogues offer deeper insights into the impacts of ING and its risks, my question is, is ING considering to use stakeholder dialogue more systemically to better understand the activities it finances and the further risks and impacts throughout the value chain? Thank you. Thank you, madam. Before I go to Mr. von den Bossch and microphone number three, five, and six, I'd like to give the word to Steven to answer your question. I move to Mr. von den Bossch. All right, yes. Thank you very much. On your biodiversity question, that is about are we putting that into our decisions? In terms of our dialogue with our customers, there are two things that we're doing. As we're doing also with the 1,600 plans that I was talking about on CO2 emissions, but also here, we're working to create client transition plans, CTPs as we call them. It's a questionnaire that connects to the topic of nature broader than CO2 emissions. Once we then have validated the approach, we can include it in the methodology for client transition plans. Because then we say, okay, this is then the baseline and this is where then clients are going. Again, the challenge compared to CO2 is that there is not a well-defined standard yet. We need to do it bottom up from our clients rather than having one particular standard. In that, by the way, biodiversity and deforestation, those were both mentioned by you. Those are both included as elements in ING's ESG risk framework. Therefore, they are included in our decision-making process to extend the credit or not, also to the high-emitting sectors. You asked about whether ING will implement the ILO definition as an International Labour Organization. That's about living wage in the business practices and human rights policies. That's what the ILO stands for. The ILO published its definition in March of 2024. ING has included that definition in the living wages in the internal ESG policy and also guidance documents. We take the issue of labor and working conditions with our clients very seriously in the supply chain. We take a risk-based approach on the diligence in line with the international standards of the OECD Guidelines, but also the United Nations Guiding Principles or businesses and human rights. We prioritize then issues that are relevant to the sectors and geographies that clients operate in. At least we have case-by-case analysis of the topic of living wages. On a risk-based basis, yes, we do it in line with what the ILO has said in March. You talked about the European sustainability reporting standards and about, let's say, stakeholder dialogue in that regard. Actually, we always do that. We consistently have a stakeholder dialogue every year, but we have more stakeholder dialogues pertaining to different types of reporting. Yes, we have that. We have discussions with stakeholders about the role of society, but also on our products and services, also on our business performance and other matters. There are a plural of stakeholder interactions that we have on different topics to come to reporting also on the ESRS. With the last question. All right. I know you do the stakeholder dialogue, as ING, ING Group. Now, what I meant is if you make financial decisions with your clients, if you finance clients, do you also then would you also consider then to include stakeholder dialogues to make more informed decisions? I think we do that on a broader policy matter. For example, how to deal with human rights or how to deal with sustainability, but not on individual decisions. That's what I meant. That's what I meant. Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Steven. Microphone number two. If you could, I know you're Mr. von den Bossch, but if you could just for the record, just add in. Dank u, meneer Gua. Thank you, Mr. Gua. Yes, let me start by saying what a change it's been with the times before with these heavyweight supervisory directors, Klava, Elverding, with Broking and the like. Everything was so different. As I pointed out before, the whole discussion in the back of the room, I know Ralph Hamers better, and he would have stepped down from the stage. He would have entered into a discussion, and I regret this. Still, I have a question. What's ING going to do? There's been a judgment of a U.S. court. A claim has been awarded concerning Greenpeace about the Dakota Pipeline Project, which is a pretty heavy topic for ING. I know that the then-managers, Hamers and Timmermans, visited the site. At the time, I was shown the tickets proving they actually had been to the States and that they spoke with the tribal elders on the question whether ING could join the financing, whether there were any objections against the pipeline project. There were no objections. ING then had to sell it off with quite a significant book loss. My question is, what ING is going to do now with this U.S. judgment on the Greenpeace claim? Is ING going to try and recover part of the cost? Another item. Something I just learned. No more of free parking tickets. That's surprising. We are here at the invitation of ING and when you're invited. That's the same with PostNL, with Madame Verhagen. You always get a free ticket for leaving the parking garage. This is really surprising. Let me see about growth. Mr. van Rijswijk is proud of his growth. I am not. I see no organic growth whatsoever. ING turned into a compliance factory. Not only I consider this to be the case, also former members of the Supervisory Board state that the whole thing has turned into one compliance factory only seeing potential problems. You have a net low result. Only by higher fees you manage to generate income at 15%. Organic growth is growth that you land in the Netherlands or abroad. This is not about fees. I mean, I can't qualify fees as organic growth. You're very happy to start working in Italy. You say, stay away from there, I'd say. You may smile now. I think that's pretty dumb. Stay out of Italy. Move to Portugal. Because there, the banking industry is still pristine. For the time being, those were my points. Thank you. Could I move to microphone three? If you could identify yourself and the questions, please. Thank you. Yeah, Reinen. Reinen, I'm a retail shareholder. I have a matter of order here. The previous speaker already wrote no free tickets for leaving to parking. I would like this to be arranged before the end of this AGM. I think it's really a matter of scandals. The people behind the table have their own cars with drivers. Now people come in with their own car, their own petrol. I think ING can provide a free ticket for leaving the parking garage. I want this to be settled by the end of this meeting. I'm sure that all the staff that are here have been given a free ticket for exiting the parking. This must be arranged. I have support from the audience. Though Romeo Delta arranged this. Otherwise, you are in real trouble. Microphone number five and then six, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, board of directors and all here. I'm John Beard from Port Arthur, Texas. First of all, I would like to give ING some credit and a round of applause, if you will, for their commitment to stopping in providing funding and financing to the LNG export terminals. In particular, my thanks to Mr. Stuart Arnold in facilitating dialogue towards such change. It's important to me. I'm also here to present ING with a bill. Nice, isn't it? This bill is an accumulation of the impacts that your funding of these types of projects are having in communities like mine in Texas and the U.S. Gulf Coast. Cities like Port Arthur are already affected by pollution from the industries that are there, one of which is the largest refinery in America. Just a few miles away is the second largest in America and other petrochemical facilities. Your funding and financing of additional LNG facilities is going to exacerbate the problems that people are having. My question here today is directed toward you with regard to that. I want you to bear with me for just a minute. The commitment that you've made only takes effect next year. Given the exacerbating impact on the lives and health of people in my community and others along the Gulf Coast, ING should stop. Let me repeat. Stop financing export terminals now. ING has no policies in place to keep it from financing pure LNG companies like Venture Global and Cheniere Energy, which I'm located just less than eight miles from my home. In fact, only yesterday, ING underwrote a bond issued by Venture Global, a company whose sole purpose is to expand and produce LNG. How does ING justify financing a company that is known to expand the LNG industry when ING has acknowledged in public that there is no more need for these LNG export terminals? Here's the question. Does ING care and respect that all people have an unalienable right, human rights, the right to clean air, a healthy and sustainable living environment, and the right to a safe climate? When is ING going to take responsibility, as I'm outlining here in this bill, for the harm done to communities in the Gulf? Thank you. Thank you. Microphone number six. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Can I give the word to microphone number six? And then I'll ask Steven to respond to the and I'll come back to two, four, and then five again, but in that sequence. Hello, I'm Bernhard Frick. I'm here as an individual. Your annual report states an aim for sustainability leadership and lots of big marketing words, but your numbers state otherwise. Your fossil fuel investments are 10 times larger than the sustainable investments, EUR 70 billion versus around EUR 7 billion. Your own words are that this reflects the market. This is not leadership. This is following the money and exploiting our planet for short-term gains. We want to see you use your own policies to shape the market. We want to see concrete numbers that show that you're ahead of the market. Don't just do what everybody is doing. Facilitate the change. Be the change. Effectuate the change you claim you want to see. Why is that not already in your report? As the previous speaker said, this is missing. It's not consistent with what you publicly say. These policies are missing. When are we going to see this change? Show us that you mean these otherwise empty words. Thank you. Thank you. I'll give the word to Steven to answer the questions before taking on new questions. Thank you. All right. There's quite a lot of questions. Starting with Greenpeace, at the time, we voluntarily got out of the Dakota project, and we have no intention of filing a claim with Greenpeace. I'll come back to the Eitelkaarten later. Apparently, I'm asking the team, how does it work? In terms of growth and compliance, let's face it, indeed, with a lot of regulation that we have been seeing over the past decade, it's for sure true that there's a lot more effort in compliance regulation and AML and cybersafety and data regulation than there was, let's say, 10 years ago. At the same time, we are growing. We have been able to grow our balance sheet over the past year with about 6%. If you look at the figures of lending and deposits, how that translates to balance sheet growth is about 6%. We have been able to grow our primary customers with 1.1 million. We are growing quite well. The way that we want to continue to grow in, let's say, the next phase of our strategy is to also broaden our activities in a number of the markets. In some markets like the Netherlands, we have all activities, so private individuals and business banking and wealth management and private banking and wholesale banking. In some markets, we only have part of the activities, only wholesale banking to very large clients and part of private individuals. We want to fill in the blanks, if you will. In countries where we are already active, and you see that retail requires, given all regulatory fragmentation, requires local scale, we want to become, let's say, more universal banks in these markets where we are not that yet. In a number of the countries, including Italy, we want to fill that out. We do that largely organically. We have also said if there is an ability to speed it up through, let's say, acquisitions, if it fits with the culture of ING, then we will look at that. Regarding LNG, on LNG, first of all, indeed, we made an announcement last year that the gentleman that sat at microphone five has corrected that we would base on the IEA, the International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2023. That was the outlook that they gave. Balancing the client interest and the energy needs, we basically said that we have decided to stop providing new financing to new LNG export terminals, so not to import terminals after 2025. That is because we already made prior commitments. It is still the case where LNG terminals play a crucial role in the global supply of gas in cases where pipeline transport is not physically possible or economically feasible. We have decided, based on the IEA Energy Agency outlook in 2023, to stop that. Please also note that LNG remains crucial for energy affordability and security in Europe. We will stop with financing the export terminals after 2025. We seek to stop the financing of that specific activity, not to stop financing companies altogether. That specific activity, we will not finance anymore. We were one of the first actually to say so. At microphone number six, yeah, I'm not sure what the question was, but clearly it was a plea to actually to spur us and to take a leadership role. We aspire to taking a leadership role. I think that the fact that SBTI, who I'm sure everybody will recognize and acknowledge, that they basically stated that our targets were in line with the latest climate science and in line with the goals stated by Paris as the first significant financial institution in the world, account for something at least. We're proud of it and we're confident with our approach. Regarding the Please allow the questions to be answered. If you do not want to do that, please respect the other shareholders to answer their questions. Madam, if you do not allow the questions to be answered, we'll ask you to be removed, please. All right. Regarding the Eitelkaarten, yeah, there was a question asked. All right. Regarding the Eitelkaarten, the municipality of Amsterdam did indeed change the system in the parking garage. It was no longer possible to generate general tickets as we did before. That is why we could not do that. The team is currently looking for solutions. If I have more information, I will come back to you later in that regard. Thank you, Steven. Mr. Van der Bosch. Pipeline project. Coming back to the pipeline project, this is really nitpicking saying that you left it voluntarily. You know it, I know it, that this was under pressure of the groups sitting in the back of this room. That is why you exited, and it cost hundreds of millions. Hence my question whether ING has the intention to follow the U.S. claim against Greenpeace. We are talking about shareholder money. I do not want to say it is empty talk or nonsensical talk. We left the project voluntarily, but under coercion. ING exited under coercion. It cost hundreds of millions. You know it, I know it. I have heard it from first source, from previous managers and from various members of the Supervisory Board. Please do not come and tell me that ING exited voluntarily. That is something I really want to say for the record. I want to answer that we at ING have made a decision to get out of there under what kind of information or feedback that remains for ING. Indeed, ING took that decision. I said we have taken a decision, not because we were forced by a judge or something, but we have taken a decision, right? Based on balance, we have taken a decision. I am only saying, based on your question, will we link ourselves to the Greenpeace claim? The answer is no. That was the question, and that is the answer. You may not like it, but that is the answer. I would like to U komt eentje tegemoet om te zeggen. No, first you're accommodating. First, you say that you exited voluntarily, and now you're saying that you're keeping the information within ING. No, you said voluntarily, and now you're saying we keep it within ING. I appreciate that, but it's the truth. I spoke the truth. On balance, based on information and based on what people tell us, and that was also the case here. Yeah, that's how it was. Thank you, Steven. I'd like to give the word to the lady on speaker number four, then to the lady on speaker number five. The lady in green in number six, she was at four, but okay, you're there. Okay, good. My name is Lieke, and I am part of the ING Fossil Free Movement. My question is about ING's financing of liquefied gas from the United States, or in other words, Trump gas. Everyone understands that when you buy gas from Putin, you fuel Putin's war. Do you realize that financing Trump gas fuels Trump's repressive power and the dissolution of democracy? For bankers like you, Trump gas seems to be just another way to make big money, just another strategy, another smart deal. This is not a game. You are playing with the health of millions of people. You are playing with democracy and with our future. With ING's money, new LNG terminals are being built at record speed. Even when ING's project financing of LNG export terminals will end next year, corporate financing still continues. If you continue choosing Trump gas, you choose climate destruction, human suffering, and supporting authoritarian leadership. I want to ask, ING, whose side are you on? What do you choose? Fossil fuel fascism or a healthy world for all? Thank you. Thank you. Microphone number five. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Louise Wagner, and I represent Reclaim Finance, an NGO which focuses on research and advocacy to ensure that the financial system that you're part of serves both the planet and its people in the fight against the climate crisis. There is now a consensus among the major energy, scientific, and political institutions, so as you also mentioned, the IEA, the IPCC, and the UN, that fossil fuel expansion needs to stop. More specifically, in its net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, the IEA projects that to stay within the 1.5 degree Celsius limit set by the Paris Agreement this year 10 years ago, no new oil and gas fields neither should nor have to be developed, and no new LNG export should nor have to be developed. Banks like ING have a crucial role to play in helping achieve this target, and in doing so, in preventing the worsening of extreme weather events that devastate lives and livelihoods around the world. If sparing lives, forgive me the peppery note, is not so much of your concern, then perhaps protecting your balance sheet and your ability to operate is. Climate change will not spare you. As important and complex as your role may be, the first and most obvious step to avoid worsening climate change is quite simple. It is to stop financing the expansion of oil and gas. Other measures will have to follow, but without this one, any other measure will be meaningless. ING has taken a step in the right direction by excluding from its general purpose financing, so both loans and underwriting, companies actively, exclusively in upstream oil and gas that continue to develop new fields. However, this exclusion does not apply to integrated companies or majors, which are nonetheless responsible for over 70% of upstream oil and gas expansion. Moreover, this policy also, as you also yourself said, does not extend to companies involved in new LNG projects. While you have to commit to excluding financing for LNG export projects starting next year, we see a contradiction in your approach. This gap risks undermining your commitment to climate action and raises concerns about the potential for greenwashing if the policies are not adjusted to address the real drivers of fossil fuel expansion. Should I say that the only difference that you are actually growing is between your commitments and your actions? My question is, and which is also a call for leadership, will you solve your own inconsistencies and exclude major integrated players as well as LNG export companies who contribute significantly to the expansion of oil and gas? Thank you. To the lady in green, microphone six. Hi, I'm Winnie van der Velde. My name is Winnie van der Velde and it won't have escaped you. Last month, together with 30,000 people, we continued our legal proceedings against ING. We had a writ of summons of 10,000 pages, which we submitted. All these pages go to show that ING is responsible for its carbon dioxide emissions and the reduction thereof. Science is crystal clear about the following, namely, in order to achieve international climate targets, no new oil and gas fields may be drilled. What does ING do? ING happily continues to fund companies that start new fossil projects, even until after 2050. 2050, that's another 25 years. Please don't make me return to these meetings for another 25 years. These projects cannot continue if ING stops this wrongful funding. That way, it'll be much easier to achieve the international climate agreements, which is necessary in order to guarantee livability on our planet, especially people in the global south that have to flee, but also for my generation and for the generations that come after me, for future generations. Do you dare to look me in the eyes? I am a 22-year-old student. Do you dare to look me in the eyes and tell me that you're doing everything to guarantee livability of this planet? I don't think so, because what I see is that ING chooses money and power over and above people and climate. ING, things have to change, and there's simply no more time. You have to pursue a responsible climate policy. You have to do that. At your AGM and also at the court, that is what we are claiming from you, which is why I have one single question for you. Will ING halve its emissions in absolute terms in 2040? Thank you. We'll now answer the questions that were raised. Thank you. Steven, if I can give you the word to respond to the questions that were raised. All right. Thank you for the questions. On microphone four, but also on fiber microphone four, there was a question about LNG and continuing to finance LNG projects. We have said on the export projects that we have taken the approach in line with science that we would stop financing new LNG projects and that we do that after 2025 because we made prior commitments. That is what we do. We are in line with, let's say, I would say the strictest climate science of the IEA in that regard, where others perhaps are not. With regard then to a broader question, which is then about on microphone five, which is, do you then, because some of those companies may be involved in other still projects that you may then not specifically finance anymore, but you're still financing those companies? I think it is we have a night announcement on new oil and gas fields already a couple of years ago, and we act in line with science. We have a science-based approach, and that approach does not include stopping with these companies altogether. I think it's also unrealistic in that regard. The world relies still for a large majority on fossil fuels in the transition, and the transition means in the transition approach that it's a balance between transition away from fossil fuels, but also making energy affordable and available, also by the way, for the south. That is the approach we're following. That is called the transition approach as supported by climate scientists. That does not mean stopping everything altogether. We act in line with that scientific approach, and we continue to do so. To the question from Milieu Defensie on microphone six, you now ask for a reduction of 50%. It continues, but let's say it was initially 45, then 48, and now 50, but it's similar. That 50% or 48% reduction is a target that for 2030 was set for the world as a whole to reach the Paris Agreement goals. That is what science says, and you have supported in the past as well. It does not mean that every individual company will need to halve. Let me give you an example when it comes to banks. We finance the real economy, and that transition, if you hear me out, please, the transition requires significant investments, but also, for example, loans in renewable power. Now, let's take one project in renewable power. If we finance a renewable power project, including, for example, windmills, including solar panels, purely that project does mean that the total emissions that we finance go up. And it's still the right thing to do. Clearly, and we completely agree with that as ING, the world needs to reduce emissions, but steering for a bank towards absolute reduction for a bank does not contribute to responsible transition. That's my answer that I've given last year and the year before, and I also give that answer this year. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. What I hear here is absolutely no answer to my questions. No, yes, no, no. You're beating around the bush, and I understand that you don't want to say no because that wouldn't look well in this shareholders' meeting. You can't say yes because you don't intend to that. Nonetheless, I hope to hear a yes or a no, and preferably a yes, because we don't want to pursue our legal proceedings. We would prefer you to take the lead yourself. What we see is that ING has a responsibility, and we're sure that in the Shell case has a responsibility to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. We say 48% for a 48% is 2% less than halving. I'd like to hear a yes. Was u nou voor een scientific approach of niet? Ik ben voor een wetenschappelijke approach. Oké, maar dat betekent dus 48% voor de wereld als geheel en niet voor individuele bedrijven. Daar bent u ook mee eens, want daar staat de klimaat science niet voor. Ik denk dat elk bedrijf een verantwoordelijkheid heeft, en ING heeft de verantwoordelijkheid om zijn uitstoot naar beneden te brengen. En het IPCC-record zegt dat 48% CO2-reductie nodig is om in 2030 aan onze klimaatdoelen te voldoen, aan het klimaatakkoord van Parijs. ING doet dat op dit moment niet, en uit uw antwoord aan uw woordenspeling kan ik opmaken dat ze dat ook nog niet van plan zijn. Heb ik dat correct? Ja, then I want to go back to because clearly, so look, I think, and that is in line with science, you want to have an absolute approach that we don't think is applicable for a bank. I've said it before, and again, I say it now. Mag ik u vragen welke science? Can I ask you which science approach are you using? SBTI, IEA, and SBTI? We use. Want ik snap dat u graag wil. I understand that you want to focus on the SBTI approval that you were given, but. Laat ik een voorbeeld gebruiken. Disagree with you. SBTI, IEA, and SBTI. Ik heb naar het concept van de uitstoot van ING gekeken, and. We looked at the emissions of ING, and if you look at that, it looks good. But if I do an exam in the university and my first five questions out of the hundred are great, and the rest of the questions are bullshit, the professor is not going to say, "Okay, you passed." Say. We move to microphone number four. All right. Would you allow us to. Ladies and gentlemen, if I could ask you to give us the opportunity to answer the question. Steven. All right. It was quite a bit longer applause than I got for my presentation, but okay. Here you go. Probably true, probably true. Just one correction on your exam comments. Yes, it was a smaller part of the portfolio, but SBTI checks over two-thirds of all emissions, and that is the difference. I just wanted to add that for completion's sake. That was it. Thank you, Steven. If we can move to microphone four, then two, and then five, and then six. Dank u wel. Thank you. My name is Peter Prince. I'm a psychiatrist, and I'm a medical director at a large mental health institute in the Netherlands. Mr. van Rijswijk just talked about science. Research shows that at higher temperatures, the crisis services of psychiatry services are busier, and more people have to be taken in in mental health hospitals, and suicide figures increase considerably. What shocked me was a study that shows that as a consequence of an extremely hot summer in Brussels, the suicide rates doubled, which is why I have the following question. ING says it commits to the most ambitious targets of the climate agreement in Paris in order to reduce or limit the global warming to 1.5 degrees. ING is investing more money in fossil fuels than immediately after the Paris Agreement. Can you explain? Six. Ik wil eigenlijk eerst. Actually, first of all, I'd like to give Mr. Sloos, and he's not very mobile, and he would like to have the floor before myself, so I'd like to give him the floor. Thank you. My name is Arent Sloos, and my background is public law and funding of enterprises in the University of Amsterdam, and I graduated in the previous century. Now, what worries me is growth. First of all, compliments from Mr. van Rijswijk about what he said about the strategy of growth. I have two questions. In Davos, you said something about that there would be too many banks in Europe, and there was one you were zooming in on, the Banco Popolare di Sondrio in Italy. My question is, will you now, and this is a risk, of course, always for the shareholders, are you going to focus on acquisitions, or are you going to focus more on buying your own shares? The question was, because of all the noise, I could not hear it, but buying back your own shares, that was something that would be concluded by the 30th of April. Was that concluded? I have another question that also relates to growth, and you also have positioning in the U.S. Now, the mismanagement of Mr. Trump became very clear yesterday. He would rather be the president. He would rather make sure that Jerome Powell, the President of the Federal Reserve, would be dismissed because he's not getting his way with the interest rates. Mr. Powell can't do anything because, first of all, he has to wait and see what the impact is of the import tariffs. What if he's chucked out? That the growth will go down, that will also impact ING because you have operations not only here, but also in the U.S. Are you already taking preventive action in order to limit damages as much as possible? What about the damages in the future for ING? I can imagine that a company such as Ahold won't really be affected as much, but ING, after everything I read about it, it's unclear to me. These are my two questions. Thank you very much. Then come to you, Mr. Van Rijswijk, and then come Steven. All right. Yeah, I mean, on the first question, I don't know, it was sort of a statement, I guess, but I think that, look, we stick to our climate approach. I think I've said everything about that. Yeah, I think we are in line, and we want to be in line with Paris. Sorry? Can you repeat it? I was asking how can you explain that you are investing more in fossil businesses, and you're failing to answer me. We are acting in line. We've made our climate commitments, and our ambition is based on climate science and in line with the SWIX scenario of Paris. That does not mean that for any company in any sector, you cannot increase. Like I also just explained with windmill technology, you talked about science. I also talk about science. If you invest in new technology, it also sometimes means your emissions go up. You praat nu een beetje als Don Quixote. Okay. You're speaking as Don Quixote, talking about windmills. On the question on M&A, I think, look, our primary focus is to grow autonomously. I'm sorry, I missed the gentleman who asked the question. Here you go. That means that we grow on our own strength. That is what I also said, is that we are filling in in the next phase of our strategy, filling in the blanks, whereby in some markets like the Netherlands, we do have business banking or private banking, and in other markets, we don't. We first start to fill in those because in the retail markets, it is important to have local scale for many reasons, but from a scalability point of view, it is advantageous in retail to have local scale. In case there are companies that can accelerate that growth in a particular market, in either a certain product that we do not offer or a certain market segment that we are not yet in, we will have a look at that. Of course, it needs to fit in terms of the financial criteria that we have set and also the culture of that company with ING. I will not give comments on any names because those are only rumors. If there is a reason for it and there is a requirement for it, I will announce something, but there is nothing at this point to announce. Of course, we will be very mindful of it. First, autonomous growth. If we can buy a scale at the right price with the right culture that can accelerate that growth, we will look at that. We also then compare that to the return that we make on share buybacks and whether from a longer-term perspective, we can then do a better deal for the stakeholders, including the shareholders, or not buy that acquisition or not. With regards to the interest or let's say the situation that you described in the U.S., clearly uncertainty in general in the markets, and we have seen quite a bit of uncertainty, is not good for the economy and has a downward effect on consumer and industrial confidence and therefore will bring down economic growth. We've seen that also, but that's a real action on the import tariffs. More uncertainty is not good. Consistency of policy of countries is good because it allows also the societies and economies to take long-term decisions. I think what is very important in ING is we're very well diversified and we have good activities in many countries. We're not dependent on one sector or one economy. We have a strong capital position, we have strong liquidity, and diversification in that sense is very important for us because that helps us to also withstand potential headwinds that we face. Thank you. Thank you, Steven. I'd like to give the microphone to two, to Mr. van Rijswijk, then four, then five, then Mr. Fleckensen, one, and six, three. We'll follow that sequence. Please. Mr. Gowa, thank you. The explanation given by Mr. Van Rijswijk, following on the comments of Milieu Defensie, I think that is, I mean, it's quite logical. If you can't walk, you can't start running all of a sudden. This ties in with, and also with what Gerwin Evers of the VEB said. I mean, we are importing LNG, and I'm wondering what is more environmentally friendly, gas from the gas fields in Groningen because we still have about EUR 150 billion worth of gas. I hope that the journalists write that down because we've got EUR 150 billion in the ground. Now, like crazy, we are getting LNG from Oman, from the U.S., from far away places, which of course puts pressure on the environment. Mr. Flecken's point that in the U.S., forests are being cut down and I mean, entire forests are being cut down, and so we can't burn wood chips. I never heard ING talk about that. ING, of course, in hindsight, has made mistakes. They haven't focused enough on the environment. Ultimately, the person or the institute that is to blame is the government in The Hague, Prime Minister Rutte, all these windmills in the North Sea, not necessary. We've got people in Friesland that could have done something about PFAS years ago. Nothing was done. What about tidal power? We could have done that. Every six hours, the tides switch, so we could have generated power on the back of that. I have one question. What is ING going to do if, let me see, because I've got all these devices here, if a contribution is required for the State Investment Bank that they want to set up in order to cover research of university hospitals so that they're not sold for next to nothing, a study and research into Tata Steel, which is causing enormous emissions and companies like that. We've got to be realistic. I've got children and grandchildren. You've got children. We've got to be realistic. We simply cannot from one day to the next say, "Okay, we're going to chuck out all the fossil fuels." You can't do that. Fifty years ago, on Iceland, there were three gas stations, and you could already get hydrogen there. It already existed all those years ago. You could drink the water from the exhaust pipes because the technology existed already, but nothing was done with it. Of course, the environment is incredibly important. PostNL is a great example. You know what they're doing there, but you can't do this from one day to the next. As the Dutch people say, and they're very down to earth, it has to be affordable. I'd like to leave it at that. Five, six, one, three. Yes. Microphone four, please. Yeah. Thank you. ING's absolute reduction target applies to, and I quote, "companies with activities in upstream oil and gas." However, many clients that have activities in upstream oil and gas are excluded from this target simply because ING labels them differently. My question is, why has ING not set an absolute emission reduction target for all companies that are engaged in upstream oil and gas activities, regardless of how you, ING, label them? Thank you. Microphone five, please. Dear board members, dear shareholders, my name is Camilla Perotti, and I'm BankTrack's co-campaigner. My job is to hold commercial banks like yours accountable for the adverse impacts on human rights, the environment, and the climate caused by the coal power projects and companies they finance. We believe ING is ignoring coal-related risks, and I come here to demand a coal policy update that finally fully addresses these risks. Let me explain. ING's current coal policy allows for a relationship with some of the largest coal developers worldwide, namely Adani, PLN, and EPH. This concerns us and should concern all shareholders. First, Adani. Adani is reportedly one of the largest coal developers in the world, the largest private coal power company in India, with 61% of its power generation coming from coal power plants. ING kept underwriting Adani Green bonds despite numerous reports in 2023 and 2024, highlighting that the finance raised by Adani Green was then funneled to other subsidiaries of the Adani Group, which included its coal business units and its armed joint venture with the Israeli Elbit Systems connected to the ongoing war in Gaza. ING was even a book runner for the last two bond offerings at the end of 2024, then withdrawn because of investors' distrust in the company at the U.S. indictment of founder Gautam Adani. ING has also underwritten bonds of Perusahaan Listrik Negara, PLN in short, an Indonesian utility company whose revenue is 47% derived from coal power generation. PLN operates 135 coal power plants in Indonesia with a total power capacity of 20 gigawatts and plans to add 14 more gigawatts of coal power capacity by 2030. These coal power plants are reportedly already causing severe air pollution and health impacts among the Indonesian population. In 2017, ING committed to bringing its coal financing down to close to zero by the end of 2025. Yet, it underwrote at least 11 PLN bonds after 2017, with some maturing as late as 2050. According to Bloomberg and the Anthropocene Institute, both Adani Green and PLN are likely to offer new bonds soon, and ING has the chance to finally do the right thing and take coal-related risks seriously by not underwriting any of these bonds. Finally, ING has an ongoing relationship with the Czech energy company EPH, one of the single most active and polluting European coal and gas companies. 51% of its power production is coal power, and the company is infamous for the prolongation of coal power plants in Europe that were already set for retirement. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos reports, ING has financed more than $1 billion to EPH since 2016, more than half of which in underwriting bonds issued by its various subsidiaries. While we are aware of ING's commitment effective next year to no longer financing clients in the utilities sector that are over 5% reliant on coal, because of project finance still being allowed to these same companies to support the energy transition, in practice, companies like Adani, PLN, and EPH will still be granted funds that companies still expanding coal shouldn't be allowed to have. A coal policy that takes into account coal-related risks in full would rule out any kind of financial services for companies with coal expansion projects. This commitment should include bond underwriting and other streams of corporate finance, both for the companies and larger conglomerates still involved in coal power expansion, as well as for their subsidiaries. Could you please come to the question, please? Yes. Since there is a high chance that the funds raised by these subsidiaries, even the greener businesses, will actually be funneled to the destructive fossil fuel projects incompatible with the objective to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. My question to you is, when does ING plan on updating its coal policy to address coal-related risks in full, in line with our demands to close its coal policy loopholes and immediately stop financing Adani, PLN, and EPH? Before Mr. van Rijswijk replies to my question just by talking about the SBTI validation, I would like to say that even SBTI has publicly acknowledged that this validation is not enough, that it only focuses on near-term targets, not on long-term alignment with 1.5 degrees and net zero by 2050, like the IEA promotes. It does not cover commitments regarding human rights impacts and nature impacts, but only climate commitments, and does not validate action, just targets and voluntary commitments. We know that action shows that ING is definitely not even on their own target. Thank you. Thank you. I would suggest, Steven, that you answer these questions, I think starting with Mr. van den Bossch, then the gentlemen number four and five. Once you have answered that, we come to you, Mr. Fleckens. Then three and, sorry, six. Mr. Fleckens, six and three. Steven first. All right. Thank you. On the investment bank, yeah, I think, Mr. Van den Bossch, that you referred to the article we saw last week appearing in a few of the Dutch newspapers and starting sort of an investment bank, which is a type of KFW Bank in Germany, but then in the Netherlands. I think it's a good idea. Like we're working with the KFW Bank, who then takes some more equity type of risks or can take some equity type of underwriting risks, then we can do the debt financing side of it, because as you know, and you have been in the banking industry and following it for a long time, actually you worked in the banking industry, is that over the past number of years, the requirements for banks to hold equity for equity risks that we're taking have dramatically increased. That is why there are different types of institutions that are sometimes better suited to take that equity risk. I think just like with KFW Bank, this investment bank could be a solution for that. It is also one of scale. I think we need a company of scale to invest in the biggest transitions that we have because they can do more. I do not think there is anything to comment for me now whether we would take a stake on it or not, but we would for sure collaborate with them. I think that could be interesting in terms of the debt side of the investment that they would then make. When it comes to the question on number four, in terms of upstream and that, okay, we have then decreased, that it's clear that there is no need, at least according to science, for new oil and gas fields. That is not the only equation because there are also the broader oil majors. Therefore, how do we then deal with these ones? I mean, we look at these exposures and to, let's say, the glide path sector by sector. That means that there are different speeds. We think it is, and I repeat what I said. On upstream, we have adopted on upstream itself a phase-out by the target of 2040. We will need to look at the total emission levels and the emission intensity that we have sector by sector, but I'm not going to talk about individual companies. We look at this sector by sector, as I previously explained. It goes up. Mr. van Rijswijk, as you mentioned, you acknowledge the IEA that says that there is no room for new oil and gas fields or the exploration or the expansion of them. Therefore, you set a target, a target on clients that are active in these oil and gas fields. No, a target on financing oil and gas fields. No, the target, and I quote, is literally with clients with activities in upstream oil and gas. Yet a lot of the companies that have activities in upstream and oil and gas are excluded from both the finance figure that you report, the EUR 1 billion, also as well as the target that you report. That is my question. Yeah, so. Okay, so. No, no, I was waiting for the clapping, but I mean, no, sorry, sorry. I will continue. Here we go. All right. No, I think that, look, and in their terms, it depends on where these companies have their largest activities. You know, the NACE code, that is the activities that they predominantly have. Sorry, but within your report, you do not mention that you use NACE codes to specify the sector upstream. Let me stay. Let me reframe. Do you want me to answer or not? Yeah, go ahead. All right. The gentleman with microphone number four, please allow him to answer the question because you keep interrupting and it just becomes very. No, that's absolutely. All right. There is a company called Nike, you can forget it or not, but by which we are reporting. Companies who have the majority of activities in upstream, we report in upstream. Companies who have the majority of activities in midstream, we report in midstream, and so on and so forth. You can say, I would like to have a different type of reporting, but this is the way that we report, and this is the way that it is also looked at by the accountants, and that's the way we report. In that setting, we look at emissions on these subsectors to see if we can drive them down in line with science. We do it on a sector basis, and we stick to that approach. It is then similar to what the lady says at microphone five. You there talk about coal, and we have clearly said we do not finance new coal-fired power plants. We also have an approach for, let's say, generic energy producers that we say we want to, and we gradually phase it out until 2025, whereby we want to limit the total percentage of coal-fired production from a total production capacity point of view to less than 5%. That's how we then look at these companies in aggregate. That is in line that we have set up the policy already a number of years ago, and I think that is entirely in line with science. Thank you. Mr. Fleckens, just in the interest of fairness, I'd like to give the microphone to three first, but the gentleman has been waiting a long time. The lady on number six, and then number two. Can I just add one more thing on Nike's coats? It's on page 115 of that report, so it is being explained. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, sorry, you say it's unexplained, but it is explained. I just want to add that. Not now. I will definitely share with you the information that for this sector, it doesn't include enough. You send it to the media team, and we'll look at it. Dear Mr. Chairman, my name is Gillion Gayar. I work at PGGM. I'm here today on behalf of Pensioen Fonds Zorg en Welzijn and some of the EU median members, including Robeco. I have two questions on ESG. First, ING recently had its climate targets validated by the Science-Based Targets Initiative, covering scope one, two, and three emissions. We would like to emphasize once more the importance of SBTi validation from an investor perspective, and we're highly appreciative of this. In light of this, why has ING not yet linked scope three or total emission reduction targets to your variable remuneration? Does ING not consider this an essential signal to the market that climate goals are strategically embedded? My second question is on the future positioning within the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Given the recent announcement, a weakening of the NZBA's ambition from a 1.5 degree alignment to a well below 2 degree target, can ING explain us whether they will remain committed to aligning its own targets with a 1.5 degree scenario, or will it move in line within the changes of the alliance, which would be below 2 degrees? How does ING assess the reputational risks of remaining in a less ambitious coalition? Yeah, I think just give the microphone to the lady number six. Dank je wel. Fleur Jong. Thank you. Fleur Jong here on behalf of Milieu Defensie. I started working with Milieu Defensie as an organization because I no longer believed that the necessary change, the change that we heard reference to today, will come from within the companies, from within the banks themselves, ING itself. A bank that feels all rules and regulations to be very complex, as we heard, wants to have simplification of rules and laws. We know that when people find that rules are complex, they simply do not want to abide by them. It transpires that ING keeps financing companies that are not only old-fashioned oil-digging companies, but also actively finances exploration, although ING itself said there is more than enough fossil fuel around. Also, they want to align with Gen G more well than greener policies would be called for, really green policies. I wonder how attractive ING is for the younger generations. However, my question is what we can call the garage exit card of the green policies. ING developed policies where the upstream companies are going to phase out, but ING doesn't use a qualification. We see that only EUR 2 million is qualified as companies in upstream and EUR 15.1 billion is seen as mid and downstream companies. Is it correct that only upstream companies will be phased out? Only the EUR 2 billion in 2040 and not all the midstream and upstream companies, so the EUR 17 billion that you are working with? Yeah. Be good and tell it. Be good and tell it. Walk the talk. This is a problem. A problem that once again comes to the surface in ING in the past. I was at the external or the foreign operations of ING and saw how much difficulty they had in communicating the message worldwide. What did we do? We tried to see what was good, and ING was seen as the best emerging market bank in the world, and we were helping developing countries. Once again, the same may occur, but you need a communication department that is committed to the stronger side of ING. A small example, Mr. Guo was the CEO of Van Lanschot Bankers, and Van Lanschot Bankers since the 19th century has been working on the forest plantation. ING is a 20% shareholder of Van Lanschot, meaning that you're already planting trees. By a small action in March, you can give an example, and we were happy to see the growth that is possible. Society isn't really happy to see you as the main sponsors of football. That's nice, but they want you to be the main sponsors of the World Wildlife Fund. There's something really good you don't communicate. Half of what is behind this top table is female, four men, four women. That's great. You're doing a fantastic job. It's really great to see this. Why wouldn't you also join the World Wildlife Fund? That would show Mr. Van Rijswijk can, for instance, join and will bring part of profit with him, helping the fund to speed up. In 1972, in the Rome Report, it already knew that everything was going wrong in this world. Now, 50 years later, things are really going wrong in California, in Florida, in Spain, completely wrong, and also in Central Europe and even in Limburg. You can do much, much more in terms of communicating all the good things you're doing, but you are too modest. Simply properly communicate what you are already doing. How are you going to live up to this? That's the question. Last, Stephen, to respond to. Oh, en nog één opmerking. De enige twee. One more remark. The only two who are properly communicating the good things you're doing, that was Mr. Evers and myself. We were showing because Mr. Evers was showcasing all the great things you're doing. Thank you, Stephen. Yeah, lots to learn, lots to learn. Regarding the questions of Amadeon, the first one is about linking executive remuneration to the scope three target, if I'm not mistaken. We do. In the VR, there is an element taken into account that is about a TERA approach, which is the driving down emissions approach that we're taking. That is mostly the case in wholesale banking. It comes also back to what Milieu Defensie says about small level of emissions, but emissions have a big impact because it's two-thirds of the emissions. Most of the emissions in scope three are in the wholesale bank. That is the TERA approach, and part of my VR and of some of the other execs is linked to that. That's maybe, there you are. That's number one. Number two is on the alliance, yeah, the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Yeah. Look, in the beginning, when that alliance started, there were no clear scientific targets yet. The Net Zero Banking Alliance was there to say, okay, can we jointly then set up these targets? Or how do we go about the targets for the banking sector? Because it was for the real economy and not necessarily yet for the banking sector. In the meantime, science did set targets for, did set targets, and therefore where the NZBA started, which was about how do we set joint targets, it is now much more about how do we share best practices. We do not need the NZBA anymore to set targets. Those targets are being set by climate scientists that were also mentioned today in the room, but it still provides a good platform for sharing knowledge and best practices, how to engage in the sector, but also how to engage with the real economy. As long as there are people and companies who want to engage on the topic, we are happy to continue that engagement, but it does not determine our course of action because that's set up by scientists and by the IEA. Okay, good. Regarding upstream, yeah, we have the first, maybe a few things to say. We have indicated, or we have said that we would phase out pure play upstream players. Why is that? Because the only thing that they do is develop new fields. Because we have said we are not going to finance new fields, yet there is no logical fit anymore. We have already given enough information about the definition. One thing to say about midstream companies, some of these midstream companies also have pipelines that can be used for renewable energy. To just say, oh, why do you not just phase it out altogether as well? There is also alternative use that you can have. Other than that, I was sticking to what I said before and to the approach we already gave. Regarding Mr. Fleke about the communications and Van Lanschot, yeah, indeed, we have announced that we have taken a stake of a bit less than 10% so far in Van Lanschot, and we're asking the authorities for approval to take an additional bit over 10% stake. For us, it's a good financial investment because it allows us to move more capital to the wealth management private banking business, which I also talked about. In that sense, we would be very happy with that. We're very happy with that financial investment. Regarding forests that I said, although I'm not saying I think it may be good to invest in a piece of forest, we do not use that to net our emissions. We just, because we think that that approach yet is too unstable, stay away from that for now. Last but not least, yeah, you already said something about communications. There are many communications people of ING listening to this meeting, and I'm sure it will take something into account in terms of how can we improve our communication about the three key strategic pillars, including sustainability. Thank you. I'd like to go to the lady who's been waiting at five, I think, patiently, and then one, three, and six. Thank you very much. Ik ga het in het Nederlands doen. I'm going to speak Dutch. My name is Florence Greithuis, and I'm not only a shareholder; I'm also a year student in landscape architecture, focusing on the preservation of nature and looking at the way how public space can be set up in a sustainable way, meaning that your grandchildren and their children will enjoy the beautiful Dutch landscape in the future. In order to achieve this, however, you and I have to roll up our sleeves. As the largest bank in the Netherlands, you have a large responsibility to stop the danger of climate change. It is no secret that you at ING love oil, and it's all about oil here, oil there. As a financial institution, you seem to have the monopoly on oil. No other bank keeps financing so many energy companies or fossil fuel companies as ING. As the previous speaker said, I also didn't miss the fact that in 2024, ING underwrote a bond for Aqua BV, a company that is searching with North Pole for new oil fields and with a tenure up to 2054. I'm 26 now. I have my whole life ahead of me. This deal of ING means that when I'll be 45 and my first husband will leave me for a smart car or anything, that this company will still be drilling for oil at the North Pole when I'll be 50, with this kind of horrible Sarah doll in the garden. They will still be drilling for oil with the engineering when I'll be 55, more than twice as old as I am, having grandchildren maybe as you have now, that's Aqua BV, still with the aid of ING will be drilling for oil. I have a question. I'll repeat one more. In 2024, ING, you underwrote another bond for Aqua BV, a company that is searching the North Pole for oil with a tenure up to 2554. How can you reconcile this with what can be right in your site? Net zero in 2050. Thank you. I'd like to give the word to microphone number one and three and then six, please. Dank u wel. Namaste veenweger. On behalf of VEB, by the way, you really need to ask this question because underwrite a bond of companies that are clearly involved in upstream operations is something that we and our constituents don't like to hear. We've seen things differently during the preparation up to this AGM with lots of analytic documents. You see that usually it's not financed with credits. Companies such as Shell don't need external capital for this. A little bit of banking, but certainly not for investments. This is happening more and more. Unfortunately, as a result of the very high oil and gas prices, they can cover their own expenses. Ten years ago, it would have been a different debate, but I don't see ING as a prominent player. It is important to have an answer to the question. There is no need for this, and really it should not happen. Mr. Freeking started making compliments, but then it became exciting because before you hand out the cards for leaving the garage, there are some questions that need to be answered. One, U.S. We have the tariffs coming. I mean, they have been frozen for a while, but it is not in the palm of wrist, if that will ever exist. ING strategy. What if the tariffs are introduced? What does it mean for your clients, for you? If you can, for instance, not reallocate capital from the U.S. because there will be also tariffs. Exporting companies suffer, many of your clients. Do you have any scenarios for this? You will probably say yes. The second question is, are you willing? If Trump really pushed forward with his crazy tariffs to share them with the markets as quickly as possible, it's really important for the market and for other involved parties. It's really valuable information. Another question. We've seen the spread between the interest rates. They need to be high in the U.S. to fight inflation. In Europe, they're going down, and that means that the interest margins for ING are going down, and that means a high interest rate is a high margin. What about buyback of shares in the light of the margins for Tier 1? There's only a small margin, one ten basis point. In the light of your capital position and allocation of capital, is your commitment still standing? M&A. Would you please repeat the last question? The commitments you made in the past about buyback of your own shares related to your net yield and the 30% core Tier 1 as a minimum, is it maintained or should it be amended in light of the low interest rates? That's very concrete about last week. M&A. We've seen that you're looking across the borders, particularly in Southern Europe. I'm not as extreme that I'm saying don't do it if you see opportunities, but we have learned that the margins from the current retail operation in Italy are not that fantastic. Be cautious, and if you do something in Italy or in Spain, really substantiate, otherwise it will not be rewarded in this price. The Van Lanschot Kempen operation. The family said no way for ING to take a large stake. Now, I understand you have asked permission from the central bank why you need to do this, and you can grow to 20%. What is the strategic rationale behind such a stake while the family that has all the possibilities to defend itself is not really happy about this? I understand that you have acquired this from a third party. Is this mainly a financial investment, or is the EUR 4 billion-EUR 5 billion you need to come from Van Lanschot Kempen? Compliance, cost of capital has grown as a result. Can artificial intelligence and generative AI help you to fight this difficult CDD? Know your customers, due diligence. Can you handle this? Would the central bank allow for it? Are the margins of error acceptable? Because that would be fantastic news for both customers because they won't have these enormous packs of information to fill out, but also good news for investors because you are losing a lot of money on compliance. Germany and Belgium. We see that Germany sees now Chase and 26 entering the markets. Will that affect the ING strategy? What will you do about it? Do you have to lower your fees, for instance, in the segment for customer acquisition? Will there be additional costs? Belgium is going in the right direction in small steps, but still compliments for this new movement. Two brief last questions. You want to diversify. You want to have more income from fees than from interest. Do you actually see something happening that we want to see, which is that people who are saving are starting to invest? What limitations do you see? Is this administrative? Is this about filling out a risk profile? Are people unwilling to run any risks in investments? Securitization. Mr. Van Rijswijk, you spoke out in favor of more securitization. We believe it can be done in a safe and transparent way. We also support this, and we believe it's a good alternative. What do you see happening in this respect? How will you inform shareholders and involve shareholders in this respect? A last remark. A statement was made, and I think a very correct reaction came from the room. Why import LNG if you have it in your own subsoil? I understand that we have earthquakes in Groningen. That's awful. The stocks were assessed at EUR 150 billion, which is now worth EUR 900 billion. This is a geostrategic question. Should we give all the power to Trump and Putin, or should we help the people in Groningen to have quick, safe houses? That needs to happen in any case. If the Russians really advance, what can we do? The government in The Hague is saying that we can't handle this. There's no capacity. That's humbug. I mean, 15,000 can be built in years. All the homes can be made safe. If you can't stack stones in one way, you can do it another way. You can fight the impact of seismic shocks. If ING starts supporting that, I think the Netherlands can do a fantastic job, and that will be a huge boost for the economy. You need political commitment and safety for the people of Groningen. If there is momentum for withdrawing a stupid decision, then you should take that momentum. Microphone three, and then we'll ask Stephen to answer the question and come back to the other speakers behind. Thank you, Chair. My name is Diede Kok, and I work at PGGM. I'm here today on behalf of Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn and some Eumedion members. I have a question concerning biodiversity and specifically the strategy and implementation of it. In its CSRD double materiality assessment, ING recognizes biodiversity as a material topic, which the VBDO had also pointed out. At the same time, it is indicated that the analysis of ecosystem dependencies and impacts is still under development. My question: What concrete steps is ING taking in 2025 to establish quantitative biodiversity targets, and how will progress be reported to its investors? Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. There are a lot of questions. Yeah, on item five, sorry, item five, microphone five, that is about the oil and gas projects in the Nordics. Look, what concerns ING, we have an approach sector by sector, and you want specific commitments on clients. We have an approach sector by sector. I'm not going to comment on individual clients. We phase out upstream, as I said, by 2040. We have made that announcement earlier, and we do issue bonds for key lending clients only because also these clients, they require time to do their transition. Why have we said that we would phase out of pure play upstream oil and gas players? Because as long as they say pure play, they're not phasing out, but we need in a transition to give clients time to make that transition. Therefore, we say we include first unless. The approach that is sometimes being advocated by some of the questions being asked is now you have to exclude. We need to have the time to transition, and the fact that we say now we need to exclude immediately is just not realistic. For key clients, we also provide them with bonds. As we phase out lending to pure play upstream clients over time, gradually we will then also stop bond issuance services for these companies. You cannot certainly go one by one and pick one client and say, now you need to stop this, now you need to stop that. You need to look at do they move sufficiently to actually go to net zero over time in terms of what they can realize within their setting. Mag ik daarop reageren? You can always react. Ik denk namelijk dat. I just think that it's not that difficult at all, and that you can look at a way not to provide bonds to fossil companies. It doesn't have to be a client per client thing. Furthermore, I'd like to ask, don't you see this responsibility that you have to take as a large bank to counter the climate crisis? Because what I just heard you say seems or sounds rather cowardly. Don't you think so yourself, Mr. van Rijswijk? Dat is een harde comment, want ik vind het een beetje cowardly. Look, you may disagree, but we have taken an approach, and I think that we are being seen as one of the leaders in the world. You may still not agree with it, but we have taken a transitionary approach based on science, and you asked us to do something else, and I'm not going to go in that direction yet. I'm sorry you may disagree, but that's what I stick with. Whether you find it cowardly or not, that I leave to you. Ja, here we go. Can I? Yes, then we go to Mr. Evers. With that, I've answered your first question. You have quite a number of questions on the United States. Yeah, look, you basically ask, okay, do you have scenarios ready in terms of what would happen if there are big economic impacts? Of course, we do have them because we have scenario planning from a recovery and resolution point of view in terms of when real, real dramatic things happen, what would then happen to our capital and to our liquidity and to our funding? We make many of these scenarios consistently, and they're being discussed at the board, and they're discussed with the supervisors. Also, where it comes to import tariffs, we look at what would that mean for different sectors and for different companies. Even then, for some sectors, although there may be an impact of it, whether it is food or international liquor, if you will, or it is production that goes from one continent to the other, it also really depends company by company what it means because some of them do have production facilities in the States, and some of them have easier ways to move their exports to other regions than others. From an overall bank stability and safety point of view, we do make these analyses, and we have these stress tests, and they are for us, and they are for the ECB. When it comes to clients, we talk to many of them in the sectors that are more vulnerable, but the approach will always remain individual because there is no one-size-fits-all, and those we will obviously not share given the confidentiality of our customers. When it then comes to the, you talked about the interest, and interest levels coming down, and whether we are able to keep our commitments going forward. Look, let me put it this way. We typically would announce things during quarterly fairs or something, but there is no reason, and we are currently, there is nothing that I have to report that we do not maintain our targets. Our targets are currently still, as we've communicated them, and on Capital Markets Day, as I said in my presentation, endure the fourth quarter figures, as I said, and the current situation has not changed that. We continue on the direction we said we would. With M&A, let me first say these are articles in newspapers. Before I start to comment on articles in newspapers, I hear loud and clear that if we make an acquisition, we would always need to explain that well. According to you, with some acquisitions, we need to explain a bit more than with others, if I translate it well. On Van Lanschot Kempen, this is a financial stake. Is this in everything we do? No, of course not. We are continuously investing in broadening our services, making it more specific to certain market segments, rolling out products for mass affluent markets where we do not have them as yet because indeed we have a target of EUR 5 billion commission income by 2027. Also to balance more because we're quite dependent on interest income compared to many of the other banks, we try to balance that out. This helps partially with that, but it also helps because we also have, like I said, half of our capital locked up in wholesale banking to gradually also move the balance of our capital from wholesale to retail where, in general, we make currently the higher returns. That's also what this helps doing. It is a financial investment, and I know that a number of people have asked me that a number of times over the past weeks, and again, I repeat myself, it is a financial investment. On AI, yeah, I mean, on AI, again, it always has to be a balanced approach. I think there's a lot of promise in AI and GenAI. At the same time, we also need to make sure we keep our clients safe when it comes to data, when it comes to cyber, when it comes to hallucination risk that we do not offer something that doesn't exist. At the same time, from a productivity point of view, and in the beginning this afternoon, both Mr. Goy and I talked about increasing productivity in Europe, and part of the increasing productivity in Europe on the supply side can come from technology, and that technology is also AI. I think also we work already with AI for a number of years, but now GenAI can accelerate that. We're also experimenting a lot with AI in the area of KYC. I think that we can get a number of improvements in there, more consistency, more digital, more data-driven. Hopefully, we can, well, limit more or avoid a burning society with questions that may not be so useful in fighting financial crime. We have constructive dialogues with the DNB about the use of AI as well in that field. When it comes to Germany, we see you call it Chase. That is, I presume, what was formerly Chase, now JPMorgan, and N26. Yeah, look, there's always new players coming in and going out. ING started about 20 years ago in Germany with the first small acquisition, and then we organically built it up. In that period, there were all kinds of Enspire, Kafton, and Landesbanks, and large private banks, and neobanks, and everything came by. In the meantime, we step by step by step by step by step increased our market share. We have been selected for the most believed bank in Germany, so the most loved bank in Germany for the past over 10 years, if not close to 20 years in a row. We're very competitive. We're very focused on customer experience and to actually now become more of a universal bank. That comes, of course, always with formidable competitors, but it also makes us better. Do I know them? Yes. Do they have things that we need to take care of that we also make sure we continuously improve? Yes. Am I concerned? No. When it comes to savers and making people who save into investors, yeah, there's differences in culture in different markets, so that is not the same in every market. There's countries where there is more of an investment culture beyond savings. In the Netherlands, people save relatively more to what they invest compared to other markets in which we are active. It is also balanced because you want to make a return, but you also want to have liquidity for the long term. How to do that in a safer way and investments come with more risk is undeniable. I can only look at the fact that there is more and more and more money on a European basis flowing towards investments. There is wealth going from one generation to the other. People want to save or invest something beyond their pension. It is sometimes more left to the private market than the public market. It also means that more people for, let's say, a longer term or for their pension age want to invest to secure their wealth, if you will, for a longer term. That is not only for the wealthy, but that's actually for everybody. Now, that's what you see happening now more and more. ING is developing its product rollout in the different markets. We started quite simple with brokerage, so investments that people do themselves. We own and facilitate towards more advice and personal advice. That means that ING, from a European scale, is still a relatively small player, but that's also part of the diversification trajectory that we have and did. Securitization, yeah, for maybe other people, this all becomes quite technical, but it's about the savings and investment union. If you want to invest more in Europe and you want people to invest more of their money in Europe, currently maybe sometimes done indirectly through investment funds or pension funds, but then the money flows outside of Europe. If you want the population to invest more in the economies of Europe, you also need to facilitate that. That is why the EU has said we want to have a savings and investment union and therefore enable people with standard processes and prospectuses and regulation to make it simpler for all of us to invest in SME companies, for example, or larger companies that currently is not so simple because they do not go to the bond market currently, for example. Now, if you do that, I think that is very good because it helps Europe to invest in Europe. If you do that, it can also help with the securitization. Why is that? Because many of these loans first go to banks, then you package them, then you bring them to the markets, and then you do it all over again to gradually bring that flow of money to the market. That is what I've said. I said as part of the savings and investment union, you need to also facilitate that. Ignite that and securitization is part of that. I think that also the EU Commission is looking at that as it's trying to get information and feedback how to best do that while also keeping the securitization market safe because we also learned a lesson in that regard. In terms of LNG and Groningen and gas, yeah, look, that's probably not for me to answer because that is for the politics to do. That is, of course, a very large societal debate. If you want to move and transition, how do you do that? In the best possible way, had to move away from first coal and then oil and then gas. What is then the best order in that? Where do you then get your gas from? I acknowledge the societal debate in that regard, but it's not for me to respond to that. Thank you. On PGGM, sorry, I forgot the question. Biodiversity. Yeah, there are no standards yet. We currently do talk to a number of, we have said we are going to start in some of the sectors and with a number of the clients, and we start then also with a number of client plans. What we also do is try to work with a number of other actors, including scientists, on trying to develop frameworks because if you then talk to a client and say you need to move from A to B, you need first to get the baseline right because otherwise we talk across purposes. That's what we also try to co-help develop there as well. Yes, we do focus on it. Yes, it is in our ESR policies. Yes, we do talk to a number of clients on biodiversity topics, but to set the baseline right, we're not there yet, and no one is there yet, as a matter of fact. Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. Mr. Spanier, there are a couple of people waiting behind you for a second. I want to give them the turn and then come to you. Four, five, six, and then Mr. Spanier too. Yeah. Yeah, thank you, Fauzette. Thank you. My name is Christian Acker. For 19 years, I've been playing in the cello group of the Royal Concertgebouw. Sometimes we have children's concerts, which are sponsored by ING. Thank you. Fantastic that you are helping pass on valuable music to future generations. I am worried about the love for culture and how that ties in and tallies with investments that could put children in danger. I am talking about new oil and gas fields. It's most probably in violation with the climate agreement. I hear some dissonance here. Starting new oil and gas fields, does that tally with the Paris Agreement, in your view? Can you give us another reason why ING still invests billions of EUR in companies that carry out these operations? You more or less commented on it, but I still fail to understand how this can foster transition. Thank you. My name is Jacqueline Roudfoot. I have three grandchildren, and I am very worried about the future in a world that is heating up. Mr. van Rijswijk, I don't know whether you have children or grandchildren, and so whether or not you are worried about their future. I do know that you are the CEO of ING, of course, and I would assume that the future of this bank is very near to your heart. The climate crisis is not only a threat to our children, as you well know, but also will involve many risks for your banks. Drought, extreme heat, forest fires, flooding are already causing enormous damages. Areas are inhabitable. Foundations of houses are being affected, even here in Amsterdam. Ms. Filip, she is head economist of ABN AMRO. She is warning for the risk of the collateral of mortgages. ING has lots of these mortgages and collaterals that are dwindling in terms of value. I have my own house. It is located in Groningen. It has been affected by the earthquakes, but it has been financed with an ING mortgage, and repairs have been made, and I hope that damages will not worsen. If I cannot sell my house, the largest part of my equity will have evaporated. According to the ECB, the greenhouse scenario will also lead to such problems. People will not be able to pay off their debts. You could do something to limit these risks, which is why I am asking you for all the children and grandchildren, but also for ING. According to the common differentiated responsibility principle of the UN Climate Treaty, developed countries must take the lead in the climate crisis and so must do more than the global average. Do you subscribe to the CBDR principle, and do you believe that a systemic bank as ING should take the lead, and do you think that that is, in fact, what you are doing? Thank you. Microphone number six. Hi, my name is Chris Champion, and I've worked for 25 years in international education, helping young people to become responsible and caring citizens of the world. One of the tasks I had to do was to guide my students in setting targets at the beginning of each study project. I'm quite proud to say that over the years, they became quite good at setting challenging targets. This was the first step. They knew that in order to achieve these targets, there might be hard work necessary. Now, the ING Bank seems to see things a bit differently. On the 26th of March, you proudly announced on your website that your climate targets have been validated by the Science-Based Target Initiative, the SBTI. In your own words, you say that this is an exciting milestone and sets a new precedent for climate leadership. Really? When I validated my students' targets, none of them turned around to me and said, "Hey, Mr. Champion, this is an exciting milestone. This sets a new precedent for leadership." No, they knew that targets are meaningless unless they are backed up with credible action. Let's be clear about this. The Science-Based Target Initiative has only said that your targets are in line with science. That's nothing to get excited about. They said the same thing about KLM, Ryanair, and American Airways. Now, I would not want to be associated with those three businesses if I was serious about reducing my carbon footprint. This is not all. In ING's last annual report, you show exactly what percentage of the emissions of your loans do and do not fall under the TERA approach. Analysis of this shows that ING has not set a reduction target for the largest part of the emissions of its loan portfolio, at least 70%. How is it possible that you claim to have a good climate plan with targets that set a new precedent for climate leadership, and at the same time, you have no plans to reduce more than 70% of your emissions? Thank you. If I can give the word to Mr. Spanier, microphone two. Okay, I've been announced for the notice. I've been announced Spaniard for the minutes. That's my name. I have a question. Mr. Trump, of course, is the culmination of unpredictability. He probably will be awarded the Emmy Award or something along the lines. Otherwise, I would give it to him. My question is, did you receive a letter from the ambassadors of the U.S. in terms of what you are doing? Because you are engaging in diversity and inclusion. Have you received a letter that you should reduce that or keep that in mind? I understand that in France and Belgium, where you also have operations, and in the Netherlands, that they're saying, "Right, if ING has bank accounts for embassy staff, you'll be boycotted or whatever." Is something like that going on? Did the letter say, "You have to invest in oil and gas, otherwise I will boycott you in the U.S.," etc.? Could you tell us a bit more about what possibly was in these letters? Stephen. Yeah, on oil and gas, and you're from the Concertgebouw. Yeah, look, I think I've said what I've said in terms of that, our approach on the upstream oil and gas companies and on the new oil and gas fields and the phasing out of these companies by 2040 and staying in conversation. If they're only in upstream oil and gas fields, there is no need to stay in conversation anymore because then they're only focused on that. That does not change what I've said before, and we stick to that approach. On microphone number five, you talk about indeed transition risks and climate change as such. You talk about fiscal risks, which we clearly also see happening that we need to cater for. We talk about adaptation, so climate adaptation that people need to do. We need to do all of it. Again, also, let's say that IEA, the scientific approach, also caters for that, but that also means that we need to end transition and need to adapt, but also to cater for fiscal risks because the approach we talk about here today a lot is about the transitional risks, but there's also a number of fiscal risks that you talked about, and we need to take them into account as well. We, as a big bank, want to play a leading role in helping our clients and to cater for transitional risks, but also for the fiscal risks. The gentleman on microphone six, you made some quotes, but those were the quotes from SBTI, not from me. No, they're not. They're quotes from your website. All right, I have here also similar quotes from SBTI. I can send them to your media center later to go. All right, yeah, that's good. Please. On the fact that on the majority of the emissions, we don't have targets, that is incorrect. We have set targets that were validated, and those targets are for two-thirds or more than two-thirds of the total emissions. What we want to do is every time there is more information coming available on other sectors, as a result of which we can set those targets, that we set those targets. On some of these sectors, that information is not available. As soon as that is there and that is being validated, then we can set those targets on those sectors as well. The sectors that we now have set targets on, they are linked to the majority of the scope three lending emissions that we have, and we need to continue to develop that over time. Whether I'm excited or not about that, we will note then, but it's about being able to set those targets, not about not wanting to set those targets. About Mr. Trump and whether we get letters or not, yeah, I never comment on supervisors or governments whether we get letters or not, but you heard Mr. Gura talk about that we stay consistent to our policies, so I think that says enough. Thank you, Stephen. I'll go to five and six. The lady at number four has been waiting longer for me, so I'd like to offer. All right, microphone four, five, six. Good afternoon. I'm Marieke Butain from BankTrack. Before I ask my own question, I want to point out that you didn't answer Mr. John Beard's second question. We have been talking a lot about climate targets today, and rightly so. His question was about human rights and community impacts, and we don't talk about that at all today. His question was about LNG export terminals that are extremely harmful for these communities in terms of health impacts and loss of livelihoods. His question was, does ING care about human rights, a right to a healthy life, to clean air, to a safe environment? What is ING going to do to take responsibility for these impacts that are created in these communities due to your financing of these LNG terminals? Please also answer that question. I will go to my own question now. I will be asking this question on behalf of Share Action, Reclaim Finance, and BankTrack. Today we are asking if ING will show leadership by committing to set an ambitious target for grids and battery storage financing to support its existing and future commitments to finance renewable energy. Earlier this year, Financial Times reported that wind and solar farms across Europe are increasingly wasting the energy they generate due to a lack of capacity to transport or store the electricity when demand is not high enough to use it straightaway. ING itself acknowledges in its 2024 climate progress update that global power generation sector is facing severe headwinds due to grid-related bottlenecks. Share Action's latest report, Mind the Strategy Gap, notes that analysis by the International Energy Agency, Energy Transitions Commission, and Climate Policy Initiative implies that grids and storage should make up 38-47% of investment in power generation and infrastructure. However, disclosures required under the EU taxonomy regulation indicate that they represent just 24-27% of clean energy financing by Europe's 20 largest banks. Positively, ING is amongst just three out of 20 largest banks which have developed a target specific to the renewable energy sector. ING has also rightfully underpinned this target with the IEA net zero scenario. However, it can now show further leadership by setting a supporting sectoral target for grids and storage to support its renewable power target. We welcome the bank's financing of Sosteneo Infrastructure Partners to provide flexibility and reliability to the Italian grid. However, it is currently not clear what plan ING has in place beyond ad hoc project financing, meaning investors and other stakeholders do not know how ING plans to navigate the complexities of the energy transition. The bank states publicly that it supports the urgent need to upgrade and expand grid networks as advocated for by the industry. A specific grids and storage target would help achieve this by outlining a clear strategy for investors whilst also sending market signals to businesses and policymakers. Importantly, whilst critical for the transition, target setting is not a substitute for setting and adhering to robust sector policies such as ending all kinds of financing for companies with oil and gas expansion plans. My questions are, given that ING's renewable target will expire later this year, will the bank commit to updating it with a revised ambitious renewable power target? Will ING set a new complementary target for financing grids and storage, also underpinned by a credible climate scenario, to ensure ING's renewable power financing has its intended impact? Thank you. Thank you. Microphone number five. Thank you. My name is Peter. I'm 26. I'm by no means a financial expert, but I like to think that I can reason logically. I have three questions. ING has said today and before today that you see the need to stop financing companies that start new oil and gas fields, and I will assume that you still agree with this. Do you also share my observation and the fact that diversified fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, just to give an example, but I understand you won't comment on specific companies, but just to be clear, that they in absolute terms finance the starting of new oil and gas fields in like an order of magnitude more than those pure player upstream companies that you say that you want to exclude and for whom you also see no reason to continue financing. If you agree with that, how can your conclusion be anything other than that you also need to phase out these oil and gas majors because in absolute terms, they finance more new oil and gas fields? I'll give the word to Stephen, and then we'll come to microphone six. All right, to the questions to the lady at microphone four. First of all, on the questions asked by the gentleman on LNG, I did answer the question because I said, yeah, I did, because we. On human rights impacts. Would you mind if I answer the question? I did because I said we also there take the ESR policies into account. And already earlier, I answered a question on International Labour Organization that we also take that into account. In our ESR policies, there are also human rights policies. In that regard, if there is a requirement to ask questions about human rights, we will also do that also with these types of companies. The answer is yes. On your own comment on setting new targets because you said renewable power, yeah, renewable energy. We need to have now set targets until the end of 2025. It is now too early to talk about what will you set targets for thereafter, but we will look at it. I have to think about your question about the grid and battery storage a little bit. It is a good comment. To be honest, I'm not sure whether that helps because we need those grids in any case. What then if they do not do it? What impact will that make? I will take a look at it because you have put my thinking hat on. Thank you very much for that question. On microphone five, and by the way, if you want to discuss that separately with our Head of Sustainability, please do so. If you say, look, these are things that we would do, we can always use inspiration and good ideas, by the way. On microphone five, on diversified financials, yeah, look, we have already answered that question many times, and you have now said again, you say, well, why don't we do that? I don't comment on individual ones. We have to go through transitions. It also takes time, and that means that also these companies also finance other things than only oil and gas fields. And we are sticking to our transition approach, although you prefer us not to do so. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Steven, the only thing I would add to Steven is that to make the transition, I think it's particularly important to make sure that the storage and the grid in Europe lives up to it, because otherwise we can produce a lot of sustainable energy, but if it's wasted and not delivered, and the state of the European grids at the moment, pan-European, is not the best. In some countries, it's okay. In other countries, it's not. There needs to be a pan-European initiative on that. Six, and then the lady in green and five. Ja, dank u wel, voorzitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my question in Dutch. My name is Josse Letchert. I have been an employee of the Postbank, ING Bank for 26 years, and together with colleagues, I really enjoyed working in the IT sector of payment operations. Let me start with that. During my professional life, during the years I worked with ING regularly, I raised questions about matters of climate, biodiversity, sustainability, and nature. The consequences of ING's investments became clear even back then, and that was the substance of my questions. Year after year, I've been surprised about the downplaying response of ING. When IPCC raised the alarm five years ago and climate change became a very urgent matter, now finally ING acknowledges the urgency of the matter. It keeps saying that financing non-sustainable activities is essential, providing credits to oil companies that don't want to become sustainable and that have hardly any results on CO2 reduction. Is there any kind of central direction? As a former employee, I feel concerned with the bank with all my heart, and this is why I became one of the claimants in the climate court case. I know that other former colleagues did the same. They also became co-claimants in this case. I have the following question. ING is one of the few systemic banks that believes that their financing can increase in fossil fuel companies. We see that other systemic banks are decreasing their financing of new fossil projects. Is it correct that financing such projects is more profitable for ING, more profit-generating than financing clean energy projects and that you follow short-term profitability in your preference against more sustainable projects? Do you have any other reasons for doing this that I fail to perceive? Thank you for answering my question. Microphone number five. Goedemiddag. Good afternoon. My name is Marjolein van Wandelen. I am a concerned mother and citizen, and let me tell you why. From my youth, I was a client with Postbank and ING up to some years ago when I discovered that ING invests in water producers that supply arms to countries that violate human rights. Really, I lost my illusions with ING. I gave up my accounts and found another bank. Later on, when more and more people became concerned about the climate, I learned that ING invests a lot in fossil fuels and continues doing so. These investments harm the environment and uphold human rights or destroy human rights. I wonder whether people working with ING have a conscience and sleep well at night. I can't fathom how the CEO of such a large company can show so little responsibility without caring for a reduction of CO2 emissions, making a contribution to climate injustice in the world. This is why I'm standing here today to defend myself, my daughters, and many, many other people. I have come here about the following matters. You keep financing companies that explore new oil and gas fields even when the world actually has a surplus of oil and liquid natural gas, according to your own data in your energy outlook for 2025. My question is the following: What should an oil company do in order no longer to be welcome for a cup of coffee with ING? Thank you. Give the microphone four, but if I can make a request because it's the same question that's coming back every time, and I'm afraid the answer is not going to be different, but please. Ja, dank u wel. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Thersa. I was born in October 1990, like the government campaign stating that a better environment starts with yourself. I grew up with this slogan in my head. This was my conviction. I'm vegan. I don't buy new stuff. I bank with the Sustainable Bank. I have no children. I travel by bike or public transport. I go out to the streets very regularly to make my voice heard. Today, where I could do lots of other things, I am here, standing here for the second time together with about 100 other concerned citizens. Because now, 30 years plus later, I'm aware of something else. Little things help, obviously. While consumers such as myself and these hundreds of other people are making a huge effort to improve the environment, large polluting companies like ING keep polluting as if there were no climate crisis. The signs we're talking about, Alton, have been clear for a long time. Climate change threatens everything that we have built up as a society. The Climate Treaty of Paris was signed nine years ago. Today, in Paris, one out of five youngsters experiences climate stress. Maybe I don't qualify as a youngster completely. I'm also very concerned about the way I will see change in the world. ING says it's committed to the most ambitious targets of climate to limit the climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But now ING invests more in climate fossil fuels than immediately after the Paris Agreement. Can you explain that, please? Are there more questions on the same topic? The lady at number five. Is your question on the same topic? Yeah, it's pretty much around the same topic, but I would really like to state the question nonetheless because that's my right as a shareholder in this. Yes, of course, but please come to the question. Thank you. I'll continue in Dutch if that's all right. My name is Tessa Harken, and I understand that some irritation is resulting from the questions that we are raising with our fellow activists. But please understand that you leave us no other choice. I became a mother. My daughter is almost four months old. And then you may be wondering what I'm doing here. Wouldn't I be cuddling with my daughter on the couch? I would have loved to do so. I think that all of us are making efforts all the time to conduct research and to conduct actions to bring you to your senses. That is why I am here today. I want to discuss responsibility. We know the phrase, "With great power comes great responsibility." This is not only a beautiful quote we can write on the wall. This is a quote that actually found its way into the UN Climate Treaty because we read in the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities principle that developed countries must be on the forefront of dealing with the climate crisis, that they must be doing more than the worldwide average. Do you subscribe to the CBDR principle? Do you also believe that a systemic bank such as ING in a Western country should reduce more emissions than the worldwide average? Thank you. Heeft u een vraag? Ja, ik dacht. Do you have a question? Yes, good afternoon. I hope there would be an answer to the previous question. Good afternoon. My name is Manuel Segon Folbacher, 68 years old. I came on foot, so I don't need any card for exiting the garage. I am an ID shareholder, and I was an account holder when you still had the post-check of operations. It was a not-for-profit bank, and more importantly, it showed a lot of care to financial care and the universal well-being. Know your own history now. For how long will I stay with ING? A question that occupies many minds here, even in Block 1 and Block B of this room. On the one hand, I'm happy to see ING understand the impact of climate change. You subscribe to this on your sustainability page. However, after today's meeting, I don't know. You subscribe that on the other side. I'm really indignified that twice you have been corrected by the Publicity Board because you claim to invest a lot of money in green energy. However, research shows that you spend three times as much billions in fossil fuel companies than in renewables. Twice, you have been told off for greenwashing. I'm ashamed as a customer and as a shareholder. Now my question. 97% of the investment of ING in energy companies are spent on oil and gas, and only 3% on sustainable energy. This is confirmed by independent research of the Honest Money Monitor. How do you reconcile this with your ambitious climate plans? Microphone four. If you have a question, please ask. My request would be, please ask the question. That would be great. Thank you. My name is Piet Janssen. My name is Piet Janssen. I'm a retired GP. When I started my GP's office in the 1980s, I chose the Dutch retail sector bank. When the International Netherlands Group was established, this bank was absorbed by the new group. I have fond memories of the National Netherlands Group where I worked. When ING was incorporated, I felt comfortable, and I'm still a customer with ING. I recently even acquired a share, not to make money, but as a grandfather, I am worried about the path ING follows in terms of climate change and obstinately pursues. Mr. Chairman, I won't let anyone down. It is AGM. I want to express my concern about the deterioration of our living environment and the climate. ING, that I feel so connected to, provides financing to companies that bear responsibility for this. My and your grandchildren will pay the price. Mr. Chairman, all of us have been warned by oil companies in the report Climate of Concern in 1991. Even Mr. Keeling in 1954 already warned about this. In a report financed by the financial industries, he warned about climate risks. The oil or fossil fuel producers have been knowing about climate risks for 70 years. Seventy years of knowledge about the risk of climate change should be enough for ING to take its clients to task. Chairman, our bank, our ING is still only talking about best effort and is not looking at the absolute reduction of CO2. I mean, cleaner air travel is a nice target, but more air traffic upsets this. Recently, in the Trout Daily, there was an article saying that despite all efforts of aviation to reduce emissions, the absolute emissions are only growing. Does ING believe that absolute reduction targets are unnecessary? Could you please comment on this? Thank you. Microphone number one. Mijn naam is. My name is Otto Den Haag. I have a question about the financing of the grid, the grids connecting energy producers. The chairman just referred to this, saying that this is a bottleneck, and the same applies to the Netherlands. Tenet should really expand its operations, but it would cost tens of billions. The question is this: In what sense ING is showing responsibility for investing in the power increase of the European grid or the capacity increase of the European grid? Before the next round of questions. All right. There were a number of questions on individual oil and gas companies and how do we link our approach with the fact that sometimes we would still finance more oil and gas projects. Again, our approach is based on that science and on intensity. Our approach is to not finance anymore based on science, but it's no longer needed. I do not recognize the 97% that was stated by a gentleman, I think, on microphone six. Yeah, that was you. If you look at, and I think that was already mentioned by the VEB, if you look at the total upstream financing that came down from EUR 4 billion to EUR 1 billion. So yeah, you can. I don't recognize a number of these things, but here we still clash on approach by you want us to stop immediately and we want and have an aim to act in line with Paris. I'm sorry if I can't make you happy with that, but that's the approach that we have taken. Leadership right. Sorry? That's not leadership right. It's going beyond the requirements. No, but this is, sorry. The leadership is also that we want, first of all, we have set ourselves a target. Many have not. Two, we are engaging with our customers and to help to drive down and to finance them. It's also leadership to stick with your clients to help the world to transition rather than exit everybody and cancel everybody. That is also not leadership. We want to apply leadership by staying close to our clients, not to turn away. If you disagree with that, so be it, but that's the approach that we have taken. That's our definition of leadership. When it comes to the question on how do you force the grids or make sure that people can enlarge their grids as such, yeah, that is not so easy for us to do ourselves. Clearly, it needs multi-year commitments, multi-year financing. You clearly now see with all the electricity coming on the grid with renewable energy, but also with new data and AI, that the capacity requirements are enormous. That requires long-term commitments to be able to finance these in different countries, most notably also here. Many people are really looking at it, how can we enlarge that as quickly as we can? Of course, we are then one of the bigger financiers. We try to see how can we then help customers to finance that both from a financial point of view, but also from an advisory point of view. That's where I would like to leave it. Thank you, Stephen. This is the last round of questions, if I may, on the topic. I'll start with two. Secondenbos. Number one, six, four, and five. Nicoa, bedankt. Mr. Goy, thank you. I'm a bit worried about the timing for two reasons. Has any Chinese takeaway food been ordered? In addition to Madame Verhagen, I see Mr. Phutrakul, I believe the name is, looking around very worriedly. Is he afraid of the people? Is he afraid of the shareholders? That question came to mind all of a sudden. I see the good man looking around in great distress all the time. Madame Verhagen is a kind person. I do not think he is afraid of her. What is the problem? With respect to my colleague, Tanate Phutrakul, there is no problem at all. I think he always has the same smile, even when I have had the most serious conversation with him. I will give one, four, five, six. Three is waiting. Three. I am sorry, but we need to stop because some of you are now coming back with a repeat question, so I will come back to you after that. I know I heard you. I agree, I know, the times have changed. I understand your point. Sorry. If I can just give—sorry, I have lost my thread now. One, four, five, six. Number two. One, please. Yes, dank u wel. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, other members of the board, attendees, my name is Jørn Spiehl, and I am a shareholder investor since 1978. Very proudly, you have once again been reporting fantastic figures. Nothing new. A buyback program made possible for you and for me by a very beneficial tax climate. Not so bad. My comrade, Mr. Elderson at the European Central Bank, is in charge of a team that looks into the climate sustainability of banks. This brings me to my point. There has been a fire in LA, a city fire, and that added one more dimension to climate problems. Even the CEO of Allianz, the largest insurance company, more or less your colleague, raised his eyebrows and said, "You can't insure this. Things are getting worrying by the year, also according to Allianz." Hence my question to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the board, aren't you afraid that in this way, in the near future, our beautiful way of life is going to be a matter of the past? I'm not talking about 50% in 2030 or other matters that have been called for. No, our beautiful way of life. That's my question. Thank you for your attention. Yes, indeed. I believe the order was four, five, six. Let's do four, five, six. I think we're following the speaker, but okay, fine. Thank you. My name is Yip. My name is Yip. I studied film science because I love stories. When I was 10 years old and with my parents, we moved to ING, I thought it sounded well. I also preferred orange as a color because for a child that concludes the story. Now I like stories with depth, no escapism, maybe dark stories or a bit stubborn. When these stories become reality or resemble reality as a result of the ongoing, deep-going, and worldwide effects of climate change, there is no room for escapism. Everybody has a role to play in this story. Now I want to know about the role of ING. Large polluting companies are gathering enormous profits, and they have devastating effects. Capital financing is one of the most important sources of financing of these companies. ING facilitates this with EUR 43 billion and for years has been promising to report on the emissions related. Once again, your annual report fails to do so. My question is, why not and when is it going to happen? Yes, allereerst bedankt voor mijn gelegenheid. First of all, thank you for this opportunity to ask a question. My name is Dirk, and many people stood up here to ask you to care for the world simply because it's the right thing to do. I would love to do the same. However, the fact is that I have very little confidence that such an approach is going to work. I don't have the impression that you care about the climate seriously. I have the impression that the stage is more opposed to you. The TERA approach is a good example, the approach that we mentioned before. ING emphasizes that this TERA approach has the intention to cover the most emission-intensive, but it only covers a part of the 262 megatons of emissions by the bank, less than one third, to be precise. Do you have the idea that the TERA approach is a success? Thank you. Three. Het is vandaag. Today, once again, it became clear. Thank you. Ik heb een. I have a question not about fossil fuels, but about the measures you have to take to counter terrorism and money laundering. I am curious to know how much this costs ING and how many people are involved in this. For instance, the Save the Bodies box has been abolished. I have been trying to get access to mine for years. It's been lost, although some family jewels there. I would like to get it from ING, but ING can't tell us where it is. In addition, I think that a lot of staff time and financial means are being used to fight money laundering, and I have very strong doubts whether it's actually generating results. My impression is that we should put these people to work in the armed forces. They would have more benefit there than checking receipts at ING. I think it's generating very little results. I don't know how many people, how many clients are being sent off per month. I do know that Rabobank is sending off 15,000 clients per month because they believe the risks are too large. They are very afraid of receiving fines. It is time to really resist this with the Dutch central bank, not only you. It should be done by all the banks at the same time because a lot of money is being wasted here, destroyed here. Holding an empty account costs EUR 50 a month, and it used to be free. Only this to finance all these pointless checks. Other bodies are really short of staff. Let's use the staff numbers more efficiently. Wij kunten, toe. Het is vandaag, maar. Once again, today, it became dramatically clear that ING will not take responsibility and is not going to show a proper policy on climate. You are causing damage to the climate and violation of human rights, and it needs to stop. This is why there's only one thing that we can tell you, ING, and that is, pay up. Let's go. Thank you, Mr. Freekens. Wat mij Something that strikes me is that this is the most interesting AGM that I've ever seen for the first time of psychiatrists and a GP. Could you wait a little bit? I can compliment you with a certain level of substantive contributions. Now I'll take a short break. Het mooie is, het actie radius gaat tot zes uur. Our range is up to 6:30 because at 7:00 they want to be eating their pizzas. Mr. Freekens, please go ahead with the question, and this is the last question for this round. Could I ask the security people to remove the lady disrupting the meetings, please? Die heeft mij verwierp, die verwierp de boel de hele wereld. Ik had net gekozen om de hele wereld voor jullie verwijt. They had me alive, they had the fools in my mind. Voor jullie stoppen met liegen, bedriegen. I ask. Ik ben verwierp, die heeft mij helemaal verwierp. Hey, stop her. Stop met woorden, stop met lieven, stop met bedriegen. Stop her. Stop. Wees eerlijk. Stay honest. Stay honest. Stay honest. Stay honest. Je bent opnieuw iedereen verwierp en bedriegen. Stop her. Kijk in de spiegel. Wees eerlijk. Stay honest. Wees dapper als in de spiegel. Stop met bedriegen, stop met bedriegen. Stap je dood als je in de spiegel kijkt. Al vier uur lang zijn jullie aan het bedriegen achter uw eigen aard. Wees eerlijk. Wees dapper. Je weet dat het niet klopt. Stop met bedriegen en bedriegen. Ik had net de wereld bij dood leeggehouden voor de verzuipen. En honderden honden naar huis door jullie verleiding. Stay honest. Stay honest. Stay honest. Staan we EUR 3 miljard. Ja. We zijn niet in de maatregelen. Nee, we hebben ook personeel. Nee, maar dat is al tien jaar lang. Ja, EUR 3 miljard. Ja, over EUR 30 miljard. En we leveren ons verzamelen. Nee. Als we het opleveren, dan gaat het over de administratieve inhoud. Dan ga je groter en dan kunnen ze beter de personeel en de pensioenregelen. En dan heb je tenminste wat aan. Dat is juist een hele geheime zaak. Die begint flikkeren aan de slag. Luister, het is heel simpel. Je ziet de regeling. En de kanswagen gaat 32. In de financiën. Maar je doet hem niet. En je zegt: "Nee, we zeggen het zo." En dan zegt de bank: "Nee, we doen het niet." En dan doet hij het flikkeren. Nee. En dan moet je dat met de banken samen doen. En dan zegt de bank: "Ik doe ook." En dan zegt de bank: "Ja, dat is de winst." En dan zeg ik niet dat je dat alleen moet doen. Dan moet je gewoon met alle banken samen doen. Banken en banken. Marketing is a psycho kind of thing. Ik vind je klote gast. Het is dezelfde initiatieven die vaker zijn veranderd. wat rijden ze nog. Mr. Freekens, thank you. This is the last question, ladies and gentlemen, on this round, but please. No, one more over there. I'm working with Erik Scherder, who wants to get the Netherlands moving and to reduce the problems of obesity. I was very happy to see that we had a GP and a psychiatrist who made a very good contribution to this AGM. To the best of my knowledge, that never happened before. Something important is the fact that our government is making a mess of new housing construction by your building corporations. It would be good if ING could make a contribution to this, meaning that the 150,000 new homes per year will be achieved. It is very nice that the rent is not being raised. Many account holders are having problems with this. I can bring this forward now or during the presentation of the auditor. Questions about money laundering. Will the auditor speak? I can raise the question. Very hungry, I can see. I think if you keep it short, then we'll try to advance. Yes, but then I will raise my question when it's his time to speak. Because then the noise will be gone and the communication will be a bit more pleasant. Mr. Van den Bosch, I'm sorry, we're trying to see, but please finish your question and then. Ja, wat witwassen betreft. Yes, about money laundering, I believe that ING easily invests EUR 1 billion in this and has 3,000 staff, and the same applies for ABN AMRO and Rabobank. However, the prosecution level of the prosecutor's office is less than five or ten cases. It's not really cost-efficient. It's a good thing to see you being active on fighting money laundering, but then it's also important for the people doing this actually being prosecuted. Otherwise, it's a pretty curious operation. We, as account holders and shareholders, pay lots of money to finance this hobby activity of the Dutch authorities. Sword, and then there are no questions on the chat as far as I know. All right. This is the last round of questions, then we start putting it to vote. I think I start with the gentleman at microphone one, that gentleman who said, "Look, I'm very concerned about the climate and can we keep our lives as we have it?" I think we share a concern. Climate change is real, and we need to act, and we all need to play our part. We also see that there is climate change, and that's why we think it's important that we help to drive down emissions, and we help people to finance their new technologies, and we help everybody to participate. You saw today that there are many people who are concerned about the climate. We don't always agree on how we should do it, but that we are concerned about it and that something needs to be done, that is clear. I don't recognize the, well, the EUR 43 billion is a total in our energy portfolio. By the way, we are the, in Europe, sorry, in the Netherlands, the biggest financier of renewable energy. We finance more renewable energy than all of the other banks in this country combined. Do we call our TERA approach a success? Look, in the end, this is a long-standing challenge that we need to embark on. I think we have a very good approach, and we stand by the approach, and we need to progress, and we need to learn and develop, and it goes for all of us step by step, and it also goes for TERA because that also evolves depending on how the world is evolving. We talk about AML. Ha, it's back on the agenda. Two questions, which is about how do we are not alone. No, indeed, we're not alone, and we're also not alone in AML because we're spending indeed a lot of money and a lot of people in that in trying to prevent and fight financial crime. As I've said many times, also in the past, we can do this on a much better risk-based methodology. We can do it together, much better together, so we don't duplicate. This is a matter of how do we bring the societal impact that comes from checking this in sync with a risk-based approach. I must say we are in very good contact with the Ministry of Finance, but also with the Dutch central bank in terms of how we can collaborate much better. I am very hopeful in that regard. Clearly, we need to fight financial crime, and that's something that we need to do, but we also need to do it so that it becomes much more effective than we currently do it. Yeah, of course, Winnie from Milieu Defensie said that we do not have a good climate policy, but we already know that we differ in opinion on that, and we'll talk about that, I am sure, also after this meeting. That concludes the answer on the questions. Thank you, Steven. Now we will move to voting. If I can give the word to Frauke. Thank you, Chairman. Most of you are familiar with the voting procedure, but I'll go over it briefly. You've all been given a voting pad and a chip card. In order to vote, you need to insert the voting card into the voting pad with the gold-colored chip facing towards you. Once you have inserted the card, you'll see a welcome message and your name on the screen. Once the vote is opened, when I open it, you have three options. Ik heb geen antwoord gehad op mijn vraag, dus dat wil ik nog wel even hebben, dat die antwoord op dat antwoord komt. Sorry, was aan de AML, right? Nee, ik had een vraag over dat witwassen. Ja, en I had a question about money laundering. That was AML. I didn't get an answer to that question, but I might have missed it because of all the upset here. AML and witwassen. We spend a lot of money, and we work with thousands of people. Like I said, we need to become much more effective and risk-based. That means collaboration between banks and with the field and with the prosecutor because it creates a big burden for society. In the end, we are there. We have a role to play in fighting financial crime, but we need to do that more collaboratively and in a more risk-based way than we currently are doing. I am very happy with the conversation we have in that regard with, amongst others, the DNB and the Ministry of Finance. I think they also advocate the same thing as I am advocating, so that's hopeful. If I can ask, okay, no. I'm not satisfied with the answer, but let me stop with that, and I'll come back to this next year. Frauke, saying once the vote is open, you have three options. You can press one if you wish to vote in favor, you can press two if you wish to vote against, and if you want to abstain from voting, you can press three. You'll receive confirmation on the screen of your pad, and you can change your mind during the vote. If you want to change your choice, you can do so. The last number showing is the choice that will be valid in the voting. This is the procedure for voting, and I suggest we now move to the advisory vote on agenda item 2C, which is the remuneration report for 2024. I now open the vote. You can vote. I now close the vote. Let's take a look at the results. I see that the advice is positive. 95.25% has voted for. All right. Thank you. That was 2C. That was 2C, yeah. Right. Now it's the time for financial statements for 2024. If I may invite auditors, Mr. DeWitt of KPMG, to make his comments and observations. Just a second, we'll find the clicker. Y ou failed to shareholders. My presentation would have started with "Good afternoon," but I'm afraid it's now "Good evening." Nevertheless, I'm glad to address you. My name is Peter DeWitt, and on behalf of KPMG, I'm standing here for the fourth time as your external auditor. You, as shareholders, are our former client, and therefore it's my privilege to address you today. As usual, I'll be covering three topics for you today: the conclusion of our audit work, the audit work that we performed, and our observations in the 2024 audit. I'll take you along this cycle. What did we audit in 2024? First of all, we audited the 2024 financial statements of ING Group, and we issued an unqualified auditor's opinion on these financial statements that you can find on page 341 of the annual report. At the request of the Supervisory Board, we also performed a voluntary limited assurance engagement on ING's sustainability statement. We issued an unqualified limited assurance report, and that you can find on page 350. We performed limited assurance procedures over selected non-financial indicators, as included and defined in the 2024 annual report. That assurance report you can find on page 353 of the annual report. Furthermore, because of ING's listing in the U.S., we also performed an audit of the 2024 financial statements filed on Form 20F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, we also performed an audit on the effectiveness of ING's internal controls over financial reporting as of 31 December 2024. Both audits resulted in unqualified audit opinions. Since you will be voting on the Dutch financial statements for 2024, my presentation focuses on the audit thereof. First, let me remind you what an unqualified audit opinion means. First, the financial statements present a true and fair view at balance sheet data for the year under audit. Second, the financial statements are prepared in accordance with IFRS as adopted in the European Union and Title IX of Book II of the Dutch Civil Code. Furthermore, management's report and disclosure is consistent with the financial statements and does not contain material misstatements. In addition, the report and disclosures contain all the information required by Dutch law. Now I'm going to tell you a bit about the audit process. The objective is to plan and perform the audit engagement in a manner that allows us to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence for our opinion. We performed our audit with a reasonable, but not absolute, level of assurance, meaning we may not detect all material errors and fraud during our audit. We communicated progress and findings of our audit procedures with management and the audit committee at various moments throughout the year, and we presented our final report to the supervisory board by means of our auditor's report. We apply materiality in performing our audit procedures. We consider something material if the size of a misstatement is such that it is likely to affect you as the users of the financial statements. At ING, we applied a materiality level of EUR 350 million, up from EUR 300 million in 2023. This materiality equals 3.8% of the reported profit before tax, which we considered the most appropriate benchmark. We reported audit misstatements of EUR 17.5 million to management and the supervisory board. KPMG is not only the external auditor of ING in the Netherlands. We are the external auditor almost in any other country that ING is operating in. In 2024, we applied a new audit standard for group audits, but that did not result in a significant change in our approach. We conduct our audit based on risk assessment. We focus on those areas where we have the biggest risk or potential for a material misstatement in the financial statements. Usually, these are larger account balances or larger amounts or areas that require management estimates or judgment. For efficiency reasons, we decide which audit procedures should be performed centrally at the group level in Amsterdam and which should be performed locally. Particularly, audit procedures regarding elements of expected credit loss provisioning in IT are performed centrally. We make use of local auditors for the audit of 25 so-called components across 16 countries, and we requested them to perform audit procedures for group audit purposes. These component auditors work under strict group audit instructions, and we assess their independence, their competencies. We have contact with them frequently to discuss our collective assessment of risk and the progress of their work. Finally, we reviewed their group reporting to us, and for a selection of countries, we reviewed the local audit files. In the audit of ING, we encounter various areas of complexity and judgment, and we make use of specialists in the risk assessment and execution of our audit procedures. The specialists, such as IT, credit risk, and valuation specialists, are an integral part of our audit team. The largest contribution in terms of hours is delivered by our IT specialists. We have frequent communication with the Executive Board and the Management Board Banking during the year, and we consider the communication open, transparent, and constructive. We attended all the meetings of the Audit Committee and also all meetings of the Risk Committee of the Supervisory Board. These meetings facilitate our understanding of risk for the audit, and we discussed risk assessment, planning approach, and findings from the audit. Let's have a look at the findings. Based on our professional judgment, we identify significant risks. Significant risks have a higher likelihood of a material misstatement occurring in combination with the magnitude of the potential misstatement. Significant risks are often linked to significant non-routine transactions or to matters that require significant management judgment. We design and execute our audit response in accordance with our assessment of risk. Based on our audit of significant risk, we then identified two key audit matters that you can find in our audit opinion. Key audit matters are those matters that, in our professional judgment, were of most significance in our audit of the financial statements. The first key audit matter relates to expected credit losses. Due to the significant and complex auditor judgment required to evaluate the estimation uncertainty related to the determination of expected credit losses, or in more simple words, the loan loss provision, this topic qualified again as a key audit matter in our audit of the financial statements. Determination of expected credit losses requires significant management judgment and is based on estimates related to, amongst others, the probability of default, loss given default, forward-looking macroeconomic forecasts, the triggers for significant increases in credit risk, and the assessment of management overlays. We perform our audit work on expected credit losses in close collaboration with our credit risk specialists. Our audit work focuses on the accuracy and completeness of data, such as the principal, interest, collateral valuations. It focuses on the appropriateness of the credit risk methods and models and the support for management's assumptions used in the expected credit risk calculations. We tested internal controls over the preparation of expected credit loss calculations, and we performed substantive test work, such as the reperformance of models and backtesting of model calculations against realized credit losses. In addition, we evaluate on a worldwide basis individual credit files and their specific loan loss provisioning, the so-called Stage III individual loans. In 2024, we observed a number of individual credit files that resulted in elevated individual loan loss provisioning. We performed extra procedures to understand whether there was a relationship between these individual files or whether the individual files were indicative of a certain trend. Our work did not result in specific findings. Based on the work that we performed, we concluded that the valuation of loans and advances to customers and banks is within a reasonable range and adequately disclosed in the financial statements in front of you. The second key audit matter concerns user access management and change management. I already said ING is highly dependent on its IT environment for the continuity of operations and reliability of financial reporting. In our audit work, we involve IT audit specialists in all stages of the audit, in planning a risk assessment, testing of internal controls, and a reevaluation of the effectiveness of such and the implications for our financial statements audit. Our test work resulted in the identification of control deficiencies and in improvement areas in the IT control framework, in particular related to high-privilege user access and monitoring, including access to modified configurations, deploy code, or change data. These deficiencies were similar to last year, and management implemented the program to remediate these deficiencies during 2024. For the remaining risks open at year-end, we perform procedures to respond to the risk of unauthorized and/or unintentional access or changes to automated controls. This included testing of compensating controls implemented by management and additional substantive procedures. Overall, we did not identify unauthorized user access activities in the systems relevant to financial reporting. We reported to management and the Supervisory Board that the IT control environment improved compared to 2023. Next to the key audit matters, a few other comments. First, I start with our appreciation of estimates. We inspected the reasonableness of significant judgments and critical accounting estimates and assessed if these were influenced by the Executive Board by performing, for example, retrospective testing on previous year estimates. Based on the applicable reporting framework, we consider management's estimates to be fair and balanced. We consider the internal control environment relevant to the preparation of the financial statements as part of our audit procedures. We evaluated the design and implementation of key controls and tested the operating effectiveness thereof, particularly in relation to the significant risk areas that I mentioned before. Our view of the quality of the internal control environment is in line with management's view, as expressed on page 89 of the annual report. Management reports from page 159 onwards about the top and emerging risks, including cyber risk. In our audit, we assessed the risk of material misstatements resulting from cyber. We did not identify any incidents that impacted our risk assessment, and therefore, we did not change our audit approach. We have reported our observations related to internal controls that we have identified during the audit to the executive board and the audit committee of the supervisory board. The topic that we discussed most this year relates to the general IT control framework, including user access and change management, as I just mentioned, as key audit matter two. A word on climate risk. ING's Executive Board considered the impact of climate-related risk in the preparation of the financial statements. We performed procedures to understand and assess management's process, and we involved our climate risk specialists in our work. We considered both transition and physical risks, and we focused on the relationship with management's judgment in relation to expected credit losses. This included model risk, management risk, and the risks of stranded assets in the valuation of collateral. We also considered the insights that we obtained from our assurance work over ING's sustainability statement, for example, on the reported so-called direct current year financial effects from climate change, and noted that they were not material to the financial statements. We found that climate-related risk did not have a material impact on the 2024 financial statements. On fraud risk and non-compliance with laws and regulations, our work related there to did not result in significant findings. I would like to mention that on page 324, management reports about two events that happened after 31 December 2024, and we considered these as part of our audit. The first is the announced sale of ING's business in Russia. ING estimates the negative impact of their disposal to be around EUR 700 million. We concurred that this loss should not be recognized in 2024. The second topic is the announced acquisition of a 70.6 stake in Valens Hold Kempen. Again, we concurred with the disclosure, and there is no impact on the reported performance in 2024. The shareholders are come to a close. I hope that this presentation provides you with additional insights into the work that underpins our opinions. Thank you for your attention, and Mr. Chairman, with that, my presentation comes to a close, and I'm available for any questions related to our audit. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could we open it up for questions? Number two, Sir Spanjer. Ja, voorzitter, Spanjer is mijn naam. Yes, Chairman, my name is Spanjer. Of course, I have loads of questions for Mr. De Wit. Mr. De Wit, with your firm, you were given a EUR 20 million fine last year because there was exam fraud. You might well have learned something and reflected on it, but no, no, no, no. You did not learn anything from it with your colleagues. There is this guideline of your professional group, the quality assessment, says that you should include your name in the report. That is just one or two words. I mean, that cannot cost a lot of ink. Why did you not do that? What about the name of the supervising authority? I talked to a KPMG accountant at another AGM, and this accountant said, "Oh, I just forgot. This is the name." The next day, I talked to another auditor of KPMG, and he also said, "I can include the name of the supervising authority." You deny. You refuse to do that. I'm just going to insist and insist until you finally tell us who the supervising authority was, because according to Guideline 1149, must also disclose which key issues he or she found in your audit report, a sort of assessment of you by the supervising authority. We read this in paragraph 4.3 of these guidelines. Why don't you include that name about the sustainability report? There's a lot of information lacking because the double materiality reporting, the material sustainability developments that could lead to possible financial risks for the company, such as raw material scarcity, extreme weather conditions, and transition risks. I have seen nothing at all of that. Neither have I seen anything on social materiality, impact of the company on human beings, the environment, diversity, and violation of human rights in the chain. Nothing at all on that. Then information on intangible issues, non-financial indicators such as the capital. I saw nothing at all about that. I want all these items to be replied to one by one. I have a chair over there, so I can wait for your response. En dan. Check it out. Gewoon in het Nederlands. Nou, in Dutch. In Dutch. I'm sure there's interpretation somewhere. Twee. Zo van een box. Oh, dat is geweldig, hoor. Vijf. En dan. Geef je briefje nou even af. Dat is veel makkelijker. Ja. Mag hij zijn briefje afgeven? Is he allowed to hand in his notes? Because that is much easier for you. Which notes? That's more convenient, isn't it? Shall I do this in Dutch? Yes, you can. Ja, ik voordat je... Sorry. Before you give the answer, can we ask one, three, and five? We're coming to you, Mr. Spanjer. Oké, dank u wel, meneer de voorzitter. Ik heb twee complimenten en twee. Two compliments and two very concise questions. Compliments. Compliments for your presentation. It's the very end of the day, and we all want it to be as short as possible, that wouldn't do justice to all the work performed by the auditor throughout the year. Compliments for that. And compliments with the choice of your tie. Questions as follows. Access and change management. For four years in a row, this has been a key audit matter. This is something that starts to worry us. As an auditor, can you specify what these shortcomings entail exactly and why this is such an issue for ING? Because usually, you try to resolve these things, but it's a very persistent matter. Second question. You just said that you make a lot of use of the component auditors, the auditors elsewhere abroad. There are some doubts as to whether they follow the strict instructions of KPMG organization locally or the supervising authorities, the regulatory authorities in the U.S., and the accounting practices have not been structured as well as in the Netherlands. How can you guarantee the quality of the work for them? Do you do reviews for some components in the U.S., for instance? Do you perform them extra carefully? Okay. Thanks. In ING's sustainability report, they maintain a double standard when it comes to reporting credit facilities. On the one hand, you've got the sustainable finance mobilized ING report for that, the full limit, stating that this is because credit facilities can draw up at any moment of the time. On the other hand, you've got the financing of the oil and gas extraction. There, they only report the drawn amounts, and this significantly downplays their fossil financing. This reporting approach is inconsistent and misleading, like the gentleman Herbert Averts, the chair of the VEB, already mentioned earlier today that what's in the sustainability report is true and that it's significantly reducing. However, the opposite is actually the case. Now, as an auditor acting in the public interest, under the code of ethics of professional accounting, you are required not only to assess the technical compliance with the criteria, but also to consider whether information provided could be misleading to the public. My question is this: In light of this clear inconsistency, same product, different reporting approach, why did you choose not to include a short explanatory note or perhaps an observation in your report to prevent the misinterpretation of these figures by the public gentlemen like the chair of the FEB? Thank you. Thank you. Four and then two. Dank je wel. Nikkie van Dijk, Milieudefensie. Ik heb een vraag over uw kapitaal. I have a question about your capital market financing. Earlier on, you said that the number EUR 34 billion is not a number you recognize. This in response to what one of the people asked. It's in the report, your own report of the Basel Committee, in terms of what your capital market funding is. I read your annual report with great expectations. For three years, you've been saying that you are going to report on the emissions linked to capital market funding. This year, I was rather upset because it said that ING does not consider this to be material, which I find extraordinary. You might know that capital market funding is one of the most important ways in which fossil companies get their hands on their money. I would like to hear from the auditor whether he has looked at this, and if so, why he believes it is not material. For years, he has promised to report on that, and this year, he has decided not to do so. Thank you, Mr. van der Bosch. I keep forgetting to say that I am here as a retail shareholder, and I just wanted to add that. Let me see. My question to the auditor, the management letter. The number of key issues, has that decreased, remained the same, or increased? Another question to the auditor. You're the successor of Mark Hogendorn. Another question. In your team, have you had anybody in your team who was guilty of committing fraud in the exams passed within the context of KPMG? Another question. Your audit team, what was its composition? How many partners? I mean, this is such a large client. Or were they all junior auditors? People just graduated. One more thing. Are you in touch with the auditors of the Dutch Central Bank concerning all these issues with job limits closing? In closing 2024, why don't you have a provision with the impairment concerning Russia? Undoubtedly, you will have known what the amount would have been that ING had to write off in terms of its participating interests in Russia. Why didn't you take part of it in 2024 preemptively? I mean, I would say you were sort of polishing the balance sheet, and the numbers weren't that great because there was very little organic growth, which is why I'm asking this question. Why didn't you take a temporary provision, which would be the common thing to do? You could have said, "Okay, we expect this much, so we are going to account for it now, and then next year we'll state the final figures." Those are my questions. Mr. Frerike. Good afternoon. Thank you for your beautiful contribution to this assembly. I am in dialogue with the boards and supervisory boards of Randstad, Ahold, KPMG, PostNL, ING, Heineken, TomTom, and also of IKEA and ASML, trying to bring the communication to a more sustainable level to really focus on proper communication on sustainability in terms of defense, in terms of innovations. I have shared this with all the auditors of these companies, advising them to indicate in their reporting what they do in the field of sustainability, how they communicate about this, because communication is, you know, I see it. It is really below par. They do a lot, but they do not show it in their advertising. Therefore, I would like to see the following: involving pension funds who have EUR 1,600 billion and less than EUR 100 billion is being invested in the Netherlands. It should be much more because we have to speed up sustainability and innovation and defense. There were many concerned shareholders, and there were many facts being mentioned, but it would be good if you could check them. We do not know everything exactly, but you, as an auditor, can check most things. Mr. Evers has a certain authority. He says that ING is doing a great job, and I would like to see this confirmed by the auditor. Sponsoring. ING is the sponsor of the national team of the Netherlands, the Concertgebouw, and Rijksmuseum. However, there is something that is lacking. There is this huge focus on sustainability, reforestation, investment in biodiversity. It is about time for the members of the Supervisory Board not only to be present in all major companies, but also in nature conservation associations because it liberates money. It makes money available, and we need to make haste. These are the concrete questions I raised with all the boards, all the supervisory boards, and also with all the auditor associations. The great thing is to see that the auditors are now committing themselves. All of a sudden, VEB is talking about sustainability. The entire nation is genuinely becoming sustainable. Now, we need to pass on the message. Mr. Beetje, could I ask the security people to close that door? Because when the light comes in, it's blinding for us. The one in the middle. Thank you, Mr. Beetje. All right. I'm a bit in doubt. There was a request to respond in Dutch. I saw that you responded to all questions in English. I'm also fine to do it in English, but yeah. Okay. Mr. Spranger, good to see you again. I think we had a good conversation a year ago when I explained everything about KPMG and the answer sharing find that we received of the PCAOB. Since then, of course, we have been under scrutiny of both the PCAOB and the AFM, KPMG in the Netherlands, on the follow-up of the findings. We have done root cause analysis and related programs to learn from it. If you would like to hear more about that, then I think it's better to approach the KPMG Netherlands board. They can provide you that detail. Because, yeah, my. Wie moet ik dan bij de Nederlandse tak van KPMG bellen? Dat wil ik. Who should I contact with the Dutch branch of KPMG? I need a name. Sorry, ik verstond de naam niet. I will, if you stay until the end of the meeting, I will give you the name. Oké, goed, doe ik dat. Maar goed, ik ga nu even verder. That's fine. Please carry on. Your passion for audit quality equals mine. In that sense, we're on the same footing here. Let me first say that we take audit quality as a number one priority as the ING group team in the Netherlands and everywhere. In line with the regulation that you referred to, yes, we do have so-called engaged quality review partners that supervise our audit work. That has also happened last year for the ING audit. Now, you want to know the name? I don't know really why. I give you the question. Nou ja, de. If you, as a professional group, like as auditors as a whole, are showing your capacity to clear up your mess because colleagues from another office, from another firm, have defended their PhD thesis on gender 2025 and gender growth on the difficulty auditors have with acknowledging mistakes and looking back. She wrote 220 pages of a thesis on this in her PhD thesis. Mr. Spranger, can we just give the word to Mr. Beetje to finish answering the question? Because otherwise, it becomes a dialogue. You've asked the question, which is fine. Let him answer. Thank you. In that report, she points at the importance of performing root cause analysis. That is what I mentioned before to you. Thank you for pointing that out. You said something about the financial effects in relation to the sustainability reporting. Sure. That you couldn't find it. It's on page 192, for example. There is a clear reference by management to EUR 14 million of losses in relation to physical risk. That related to the floods in Valencia. There is a reference to the complexity of bringing climate risk into the credit risk models. ING is working on how to best do that. In the absence of that possibility, has considered, yeah, would there be a possibility to quantify transition risk on top of what comes out of the models? We have ordered that exercise, and that has led to EUR 29 million of additional loan loss provisioning. That is also being referred to on page 192. You had a question on the double materiality analysis that management performed. You can see in our opinion that that was subject to our work, especially this first year of reporting. Management has described in the sustainability statement the five-step process that they have gone through, how they have then considered qualitative and quantitative thresholds, how they have engaged with stakeholders. We have also inspected all of that work. Still, we make reference to it in an emphasis of matter paragraph in our opinion to say this was a first time. There is no possibility to look at how it was this last year. There is also not a possibility to look at what are others doing in the industry. This is all very new. It was the first time. I think it is all well explained in the annual report and also in our opinion. I come to the VEB. I think general IT controls are a tough topic for all large complex banks and also for ING. What we have seen, though, and I also mentioned that in my speech, was a clear improvement in 2024. Last year, I was here, and then I think you asked a question kind of of the similar nature. I said that in the course of 2023, we really saw an elevated effort to structurally address it. At the year end, there was still a bit open for which we're compensating controls that we tested. At the beginning of 2024, we started with that more or less open position if you go to, let's say, the intended set of controls. During the year, we have seen a significant improvement in that regard. In that sense, I'm hopeful that next year, my text will be a bit more favorable. On your comment of audit quality around the world, yeah, that is, of course, something that we take very seriously. I think one of the things that we do on an annual basis is make sure that we really know the people that we have to lead the audit work at the local level. So, we know the people, we know the team, and we inspect their work. We talk about it, and we inspect their work. On top of that, for example, we have an annual cycle of quality control per country that is led by our international, you could say our global audit quality QP team, quality review team. For all of the countries that we have worked with, I have also read the quality inspection reports per country to see are there any topics in there that require our attention in the supervision of audit work in the countries. That is what we have weaved into our review work. Therefore, I'm confident that the quality is not only in Amsterdam, but around the world to support our opinion. I think microphone five. Yeah, your question is, yeah, I also take it as a compliment. What do I mean with that? Fully mobilized, financed emissions, facilitated emissions, all of these, and also the data approach. Now, what I see as our role is that the way these metrics are used, that they are defined, that you can read it in the annual report and that you can also read how they are used. In my view, you can say it's inconsistent, but you could also argue it's well explained what each of these metrics means in the total set of metrics that management is applying. If you have a question on, yeah, is that the right mix, then that is not a question for us as the auditors. No, sorry, Mr. De Wit. First of all, is it clearly explained? It's indirectly, implicitly implied within page 100, page 100, 329, for example. I would definitely not say that it's clearly explained. Second of all, it is your role not to, you know, address, and as I mentioned, you know, it is, first of all, your role to verify if there is compliance against criteria. That's what you correctly now say, right? Yes. Two criteria are placed. It's correctly. There's a correct compliance or the compliance is there. Yet your role is broader than that. Your role is specifically to actually act in interest of the public and to notify whether or not things are misleading or potentially misleading. In light of this, and this is a clear inconsistency that also, and we have already seen this today, it already is misleading shareholders, as we saw with the gentleman of the VEB. In light of that, can you not reflect on your role as an accountant, as an auditor, and then say, okay, you know, we might, we should add an explanatory note where we underline the difference in the methodology? Because that's something that ING does not do. It does not explicitly make the difference in this. Yeah, I think we evaluated that definitions and the way in which they are applied, that you can read them, let's say, in a fair way in the annual report if you feel that this can be put together more, let's say, conveniently in one place. It's not about the reporting. It's about the misleading. Why have you not stated it in this year? I just agree with you that it is misleading. Then, Milieu Defensie, the EUR 43 billion that was being mentioned, that is making reference, I think, to page 115. And then we have, I think, a comment on page 123 where management explains about facilitated emissions, that it's their intention to start reporting on this in the 2025 report on the assumption that a good methodology is going to be, let's say, defined and that also the data to provide you with meaningful information can be gathered. That is going to be an attention point for us going into the new year. Out of the DMA process, as described before, you can, I think, read what the process has been and also what the outcomes are. Again, now that we see, we have an opportunity to see beyond what we could see in this first year of reporting, both management and ourselves. We are in a benchmarking exercise to also take into account interpretations that other banks have done. That is going to feed into our 2025 reporting and assurance process. Could I reply to this? Because the methodology has been made several years ago by PKF. Also, I think the data is available because it is exactly the same data you would use for calculating your financed emissions, and you are doing that. I think that means that all the data is also available for the facilitated emissions. Also, the reason why you do not report on this in your annual report is not because the methodology or the data is not clear. You mentioned that it is not material, and that is a different reason. Apparently, you also have the data to say that it is not material. Could you explain why you say that? I will rephrase my response to you. I should have first said you can, we believe, read about the DMA process and the outcomes, and we believed that they were fair. On top of that, there is this comment made on the bank's intentions to consider reporting about facilitated emissions when it can be done in a way that is meaningful. I am afraid you have to wait for another year. Then, Mr. van der Bos on the management letter. For US-listed clients, we typically do not issue a separate management letter, but we use our quarterly rhythm of reporting to the audit committee. At the year end, when we conclude on the audit opinion on the internal controls of financial reporting, the SOX audit, that's typically the time when we report about control deficiencies. I can tell you that last year, we had a few significant deficiencies, and that number has decreased this year as of the end of 2024. We have had a positive evaluation in the year 2024. The structures are very readable. Last year, there were a few, so let's say around three, and this year, less than three. You can say zero. There was a question on the team composition. That is a good question. We have all our teams led by partners and managers, and also the specialists that I referred to are also of partner and manager level. We have reported also the details to the audit committee. I think from the top of my head, around 35% of the hours are made by partners and managers on the overall audit of ING. You wanted to know whether we are in contact with the Dutch central bank. The answer is yes, but most of our contact is with the ECB, given that ING is supervised by the ECB. At least once a year, we meet with the joint supervisory team to exchange our perspectives of risk. I also remember the time when you could, as you mentioned, polish the balance sheet, but that is not today's IFRS accounting. In Russia, I also mentioned it in my speech, the estimated impact of the disposal of EUR 700 million negative is going to be in 2025, and there was no possibility to already start accounting for that in 2024. No, sorry, I had to turn the page here. I appreciate your concerns for solid communication. With that, I can say that the annual report is only one means of communication. In fact, we have worked hard, management and ourselves, to get to a first time of a sustainability statement that, in its size, I think is striking a right balance between providing you the information you need while still being compact. We've seen other financial institutions that have reported more than 200 pages, and we strongly wonder whether that is better information. Again, there's facts in the sustainability report. For example, the table on page 115 with the outstandings to the energy sector that most of the people that have unfortunately left cared about. Of course, that was a table with details that were subject to our procedures. Thank you. Mr. Spanja, you have a question? Yeah, I do. I have a question, but I'd rather raise it now with you as a chairman. We'll have the omnibus system in the future. That means that many of the CPR questions are going away. I assume you're happy with this. Are you working with CSB? And how much money is it going to mean? And then it's a question with the CCR. Everything about every employee, the number of kilometers per car, everything you mentioned, it had to be included. It's a question to the auditor. How did you deal with all the information? Which car? What gas use? How did you receive all the data for all the other countries? Was it clear? Was it one big, big mess? Was it a big lump of information? Could you give more information? For our auditors, I will. The second question is about CSRD and the CSRD and the CSDDD. I will let Steven answer that question. Perhaps Steven first, and then we head it back to you. Do you have a separate question, but you did ask? Yeah, apologies. I had a different question. Okay. Shall I ask it now? Yeah. Please. Yeah. Nicky van Dijk, Milieu Defensie. Het viel me op in uw jaarverslag. Something struck me in your report, I think it was page 145, that I was reporting on financed emissions. It struck me that for the first time you stated per industry how many of these fall under the TERA approach and others do not. In previous years, you always said what part of the total final emission report falls under the TERA approach. I took the liberty of calculating it myself based on this state table, and I come to more than 70% of the emissions reported by ING do not fall under the TERA approach, so you have no emission reduction targets for this. Can you confirm this, please? The CSIG Steven will come back later. First, on the granularity of data, let's say, in general, we mirror ING's approach. Sometimes the data is gathered centrally. Sometimes it needs to be received from the local offices. We focus on where the risks really are in going about that type of procedures. Our focus has been much more on the reported information in TERA and not so much on the own operations and own staff emissions. We believe that the work that we have done, and this is limited assurance, so this is about an understanding of the reporting process, analytical reviews, and inquiry with management, that the information in the report is sufficiently explained. On page 124, thank you for your compliment on the readability of that table. Our job is to make sure that what is presented here reconciles back to the underlying records and that we can confirm. Thank you. Steven, CSRD, how much money did we save in the simplification process? Simplification hasn't taken place yet, so clearly we believe that if there's further harmonization and standardization across member states, it will be beneficial because it basically means we can use the same data, the same approach, the same reporting, and different. What we see a lot is that with that under CRR2, which is the regulation that is law, then everything in Europe is the same. When it comes to CSRD4, then basically we get to guidelines that then are translated into different laws. For us, it's much more about harmonization and standardization across member states because that will mean that we can report and we can do things in the same way. Clearly, there is a focus of the EU and the EU, the European Committee, to simplify and harmonize that. To date, we haven't seen something yet, so it's too early to call. No. We'll put it to thank you, Pete. Thank you. If we can put this item to vote, Frau Kief, I can give you the word. Yes. I hereby open the vote for item 2D. I close the vote. 99.64% voted in favor. Thank you, Frau Kief. We can now move to agenda number 3. Items 3A and 3B both relate to the dividend and the distribution, and we discuss together. I refer to the annual report for the explanation of the dividend and distribution policy and details of the proposed dividend for 2024. It is proposed to adopt the total dividend for 2024 at EUR 1.06 per ordinary share. After the interim dividend of EUR 0.35 was paid in August 2024, a final dividend of EUR 0.71 per share will be paid in cash. If there are no questions related to it, I see none. Could we move to vote? The vote is open. I close the vote. 99.96% voted in favor. Thank you. We now move to agenda item number 4. Agenda item 4A and B relate to the discharge of the members of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board in respect of the duties performed during the year 2024 and will be dealt with jointly. Discharge is the term used to relate an executive or supervisory director from liability in respect of his or her duties performed in the year. The discharge relates exclusively to the actions of the Executive and the Supervisory Board members that are evident from the financial statements and the annual report and are about the shareholders and about which the shareholders have otherwise been informed during the meeting. We propose that both the Supervisory and the Executive Board members be discharged for their duties over 2024. If there are, we now address to the questions if there are any. I see none in the room. If we can put it to vote. Yes, I open the vote for item 4A. The vote is closed. 98.12% in favor. Thank you, Frau Kief. We now move to agenda item 4B. This is about the discharge of the members of the Supervisory Board in respect of the duties performed during the year 2024. I open the vote. The vote is closed. 97.86% voted in favor. We now move to agenda item 5, the proposal to appoint Deloitte Accountants B.V. as external auditors to provide assurance on the sustainability statement for the financial year 2026- 2029. The draft CSRD implementation bill requires the general meeting to appoint an external auditor to provide assurance on the sustainability statement as of the financial year 2026. It is proposed to align the appointment of the external auditor to provide assurance on sustainability statement with the appointed external auditor for the financial statement of ING Group. During the 2024 AGM, Deloitte was appointed external auditor of ING Group to audit the financial statements for the year 202- 2029. Therefore, the Supervisory Board, following recommendations by the Audit Committee, proposed to appoint Deloitte to provide the assurance on the sustainability statement for the years 2026- 2029, subject to the draft CSRD implementation bill coming into force. Are there any questions in the room? None. Could I give you the word? Yes, I open the vote. The vote is closed. 99.91% has voted in favor. We now move to item 6A, 6A and 6B. 6 is about composition of the executive board. 6A is reappointment of Steven van Rijswijk. 6B is reappointment of Ljiljana Čortan. We have two executive board members up for reappointment. First, the proposal will be introduced, followed by the opportunity to ask questions. After the questions, there will be a vote on each proposal separately. The supervisory proposes to reappoint both Steven van Rijswijk and Ljiljana Čortan as members of the executive board, both with the effect from the end of this annual general meeting until the end of the annual general meeting to be held in 2029. Steven van Rijswijk is nominated for reappointment based on his performance as CEO, where he has consistently demonstrated strong leadership skills and the ability to drive ING's strategy forward, even through his challenging circumstances. The Supervisory Board believes that Steven van Rijswijk is well positioned to continue leading ING into the next phase of its strategy. Ljiljana Čortan is nominated for reappointment based on her performance as a CRO, where she has consistently shown her ability to manage ING's risk profile, foster a sound risk culture, and drive awareness in both financial risk and non-financial risk aspects of ING's businesses. The Supervisory Board believes that Ljiljana Čortan's experience, leadership skill sets, and deep understanding of ING's business will allow and enable her to continue to make valuable contributions to keep ING safe and secure. I would like to now open the floor for questions on agenda item 6A and B. Please. My name is Van der Bosch. My name is Van der Bosch. I'm a retail shareholder. Isn't it dangerous to have two people from a board consisting of three people to reelect them, to reelect two out of three? Perhaps you could have preempted this with a different term of office. Another point, the reelection of Mr. van Rijswijk. I'm not that happy with it. Why am I not that happy with it? I'm used to different kinds of directors, directors that were or are much more active. I'm not the only one who feels that way. I hear this across the organization from top to bottom within ING. Other directors, you saw them walking around, walking on the shop floor. You never see Mr. Steven van Rijswijk. I don't know. I have an opinion on the performance of Mr. van Rijswijk, but that is also based on the entire money laundering checks. A couple of years ago, I sent a paper about the money laundering situation and a more efficient way to deal with that. Sometime later, I saw an interview in the Financial Dagblad in which he said, "No idea how to approach this," but he had the paper. Colleague Swart of ABN AMRO. He talked to the Ministry of Finance, the entire money laundering situation. I mean, you can deal with it in a much more simple and efficient way. I referred to PostNL, IMAC in The Hague. This is the International Distribution Center where everything is received and everything is sent out. I'm talking about parcels. Under the auspices of the customs, this is a customs area. The PostNL people have the authority to open parcels under the supervision or auspices of the customs authorities. You can organize money laundering the exact same way. You have a compliance department of ABN AMRO, ING, Rabobank, whatever. You put it in a cardboard box. To that, you add public prosecution office, auditors of the Big Four, done and dusted. That will work much more efficiently. Now each and every bank has to reinvent the wheel. This is costing an inordinate amount of money, and it's absolutely not efficient. Why? Because you're not allowed to share information. You can share it if you work under the auspices of the public prosecution office or the Ministry of Finances. Done. Mr. van Rijswijk, I just offered it to him. It was ready-made. Sometime later, in an interview in the Financial Dagblad, he was crying wolf. I sent him an email. I said, "You're crying wolf. Pathetic." The answer was, "You are pathetic." I'm thinking, "My good man, what is it that you're talking about? Why did you say, 'We've got a document, we can get to work, but the Ministry of Finance refuses'? We'd be done with it. It's as simple as that. You can laugh about it, but am I talking nonsense or not?" Yes, it was before your time. Let me start by addressing your first question, which is, is it, from the Supervisory Board perspective, good to appoint two members of the Executive Board reappointment? The answer is yes, because based on their performance, but also for continuity, it is important that we make these appointments. They have performed well, and they are well into the second phase of our strategy. Based on that performance and based on continuity, it is important that these appointments are made. That is the first question. Your second question related to the AML process and how we've dealt with it, I think that I would like to split it, if I may, in two parts. The first part of it is what I would like to address is the practicality of the suggestions that you're making that we take an approach with other financial institutions in the Netherlands and make it practical and deal with it. That may well be the case that would indeed make it a lot more efficient. I think, in effect, each one has a different issue that we had to tackle with. There's a big difference in our case because of being a globally systemic bank. Therefore, we have to work with the rules and regulations that are set in place by ECB, as well as with the regulators, locally and then opened by ministry in Netherlands. In terms of that process, we have been through that process in all the thoroughness that needs to be approved. In this part of this process, DNB has come back and looked at that process, and we will continue to stay on top of it to ensure. With respect to what's happening at other financial institutions, be it ABN AMRO or Rabobank, we cannot obviously comment here. That is my answer to the questions you raised. Ik had graag het antwoord van meneer. I would have loved to listen to the answer provided by Mr. van Rijswijk. The thing is, these are all financial institutions. Fraud in the Netherlands is the exact same thing as fraud that can take place in Germany or that can take place in Suriname. That is what we are talking about here. The issue is that the banks should keep their back doors locked and that the information under the auspices of the public prosecution or the Dutch central bank or whoever you want to involve, that you would centralize that. Now we have tens of thousands of files on the desk of the public prosecution. I hope that the journalists present here today finally write about it. We have tens of thousands of files collecting dust, sorry, at the public prosecution office, and nothing is being done. If you want to deal with it very efficiently. I am just going to go on because Ms. van Oostens-Slingerland was speaking, so I decided to pause. Anyway, that way you can structure things very efficiently. I know that Mr. Swart addressed this with the Ministry of Finance, and Mr. van Rijswijk did nothing. He was crying wolf in this interview in the newspaper. I would say, you know, show some courage and say to the Ministry of Finance that there are efficient measures. He never did that. That is weak. That is the gist of the matter. Take your comments in our thought process, but I have nothing further to add on this one other than what I've said. I would like to put this now motion to vote if I can ask Frauke. The vote for item 6A is now open. I close the vote. 99.75% votes in favor. Thank you, Frauke. Steven, Liliana, congratulations. Oh, sorry, we have to do Liliana now, which is item 6B. Sorry. Yes. 6B is open. I close the vote. 99.84% votes in favor. Liliana, congratulations. We move to item 7, the composition of the supervisory board. We have two supervisory board members up for reappointment. In addition to these, there are two new supervisory board members proposed for appointment. The goal is to ensure that the supervisory board is always composed to be able to perform its duties effectively and also to make sure that we have continuity in how we conduct our role. Finding suitable candidates is always challenging as many requirements must be met. The new proposed appointments take into account views on future composition and the smooth transitions as some of my colleagues retire at the end of their term. With the proposed reappointments and appointments, the proportion of the women in the supervisory board will be 36%. Now, let me introduce the supervisory board members that are up for reappointment and appointment. First of all, Margarete Haase, chairperson of the Audit Committee, and Lodewijk Heimans van der Berg, chairperson of the ESG Committee. Today marks the end of Margarete Haase's second four-year term and Lodewijk Heimans van der Berg's first four-year term. Since this will be Margarete's third term, she's proposed for reappointment for a two-year period until the end of 2027 annual general meeting. Lodewijk Heimans van der Berg is proposed to be reappointed for a four-year term until the end of 2029 annual general meeting. Margarete Haase serves, as you know, as the chairwoman of the Audit Committee and is a member of both the Risk and the Remuneration Committee. She brings a great deal of expertise in finance and audit. With her tenure on the board, she not only offers continuity but a wealth of experience and insights of ING. Lodewijk Heimans van der Berg is the chairman of the ESG Committee and member of the Risk Committee. He's nominated for reappointment based on his strong expertise in legal sphere, in corporate governance, compliance, and ESG, as well as his performance as a member of ING's supervisory board. For the new nominees, Petri Hofstee is nominated for appointment due to her vast experience in the financial and corporate sector, including roles as auditor, controller, and CFO, and regulator, I should say, with her expert knowledge in finance, risk management, and audit. Stuart Graham is nominated for appointment based on his more than three decades of experience in our industry, in particular in banking insurance. He will bring new insights, we believe, to the supervisory board. Further information on the backgrounds of Margarete Haase, Lodewijk Heimans van der Berg, Petri Hofstee, and Stuart Graham was provided in the explanatory notes to the agenda. I would now like to open the floor for questions if there are any. One, two, three. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All the appointments, we can agree with them. Congratulations with the appointment of the executive board members with a vast majority. The shareholders are very happy with the CEO and CFO. You might not have expected that after everything that happened today. I have one question, not about the person. Petri Hofstee, there was a bit of a question here. Ordinarily, as a director, when you transfer from one company to another, you have a cool-off period, which is also mandatory. The corporate governance code in the Netherlands says nothing about that for supervisory board members. It is quite strange that someone moves from being a supervisory director of Rabobank to being a supervisory director at ING. Which mitigating measures did ING take to not interfere or undermine the very friendly relationship, I hope, with Rabobank? In terms of strategies and risk models of Rabobank, Petri Hofstee might be very much in the know, and that might be detrimental to Rabobank, could be used at ING to the detriment of Rabobank. It would have been better to have a pause of one year in between, and perhaps that should be worded better in the corporate governance code. It's up to us to do that. My question is, which measures have been taken at ING to that effect? Yes, you're absolutely right. In the code in and of itself, there isn't a requirement. In effect, what we have agreed with Rabo is that, in effect, from the time when she stepped down at Rabo and when she will in effect start, even though the appointment is effective now, will be more or less six months. Okay, that is a regular. That is a regular cool-down period. So that reassures us. We feel more comfortable with that. I left Goldman Sachs and I started ING. There was a three-month cool-off period. We're following a longer cool-off period than that. Okay. Thank you. Chairman, my name is Spanja for the minutes. I have a question. It's quite unfortunate that the members that we have to appoint and reappoint, that they're not present and that the members that we need to reappoint, in your introduction, you never said why they are not present. Are they perhaps ill, or do they have other commitments? You didn't say anything about this. I find this quite and very unfortunate. Perhaps you can correct the wrong. They are not physically in the room because for security and other reasons, everybody that needs to be present here, legally, we've ensured that. I understand, I accept. Please accept my apologies. Okay, maar goed, niet in want anders had ik de vraag. Yeah, otherwise, I would have wanted to ask a personal question to Ms. Petri. I can't do this. I've been around for so many years, insecurities. This is the first time I don't see anyone. The last time I attended an EGM for a different company, there was a video connection. I was thinking, you could have had a video connection with someone sitting in the room next door. Sorry? Reiner. I agree with Mr. Spanja. If somebody is appointed or elected or reelected, it simply has to be present. You could always solve it in a pragmatic way. You know from experience that the climate activists, you know, come six o'clock, they need to go home for supper. You could have asked this person to join us in the room a bit later. That would have solved the problem. It is quite unfortunate that they're not present here, but that may be a lesson for next time. If you're reelected, you should be there. No, that Margarete Haase is here. But you. We do the other three. I meant the other three, the ones that aren't present, the three that are absent. I understand your point. Three appointments. Yeah. Staker. No, I begrudge your position. Two new and then sake the new. Two new ones. Especially for the new ones, it would be really wonderful if they'd taken the trouble to come here. If it's for reasons of security, of course, you have to find solutions for that and pragmatic solutions. Thank you. Can we open it to vote, please? Yes. Item 7A is open for vote. The vote is closed. 91.49% voted in favor. Thank you. Congratulations, Margarete. We move on to item 7B. I open the vote. The vote is closed. 92.14% voted in favor. Thank you, Vroukje. Lodewijk, if you're listening in, congratulations. Moving on to 7C. Vote is open. I close the vote. 99.71% has voted in favor. Thank you, Vroukje. Petri, if you're listening in, congratulations. Item 7D, the vote is now open. I close the vote. 97.27% voted in favor. Thank you, Vroukje. Stuart, if you're listening in in Botswana, congratulations. Seven is done. Eight is done. Come to eight. I'd like to draw your attention to agenda items 8A, B, 9, and 10, which I would like to discuss together. These are the annual authorizations given to the Executive Board that return to the agenda each year. Under agenda item 8A, it is proposed to extend the Executive Board's authority to issue new shares and/or grant rights to subscribe for shares for 18 months as of today, with a maximum of 40% of the issued share capital on a preemptive basis. Under agenda items 8B, it is proposed to extend the Executive Board's authority to issue new shares and/or grant rights to subscribe for shares for 18 months as of today, with a maximum of 10% of the issued share capital, with or without preemptive rights of existing shareholders. These proposals allow ING to manage its capital and to respond adequately to developments in the financial markets as required by the circumstances. At the same time, as much consideration as possible is given to the interest of shareholders to prevent the dilution of their shareholding. Agenda item number 9 relates to the authorization of the Executive Board with the approval of the Supervisory Board to acquire fully paid-up ordinary shares in ING. The number of shares that can be acquired in this way and the acquisition price are subject to restrictions. This authorization can be used for any purpose, including for a share buyback program. Agenda item 10 participates future share buyback programs and enables ING Group to cancel shares in its own capital that have been purchased by ING in a future share buyback program without requiring a separate resolution by the general meeting. The precise wording of these resolutions can be found in the agenda and in the explanatory notes. Are there any questions related to these items? I see none. I open the vote for item 8A. The vote is closed. 95.32% votes in favor. I suggest we move on to 8B. 8B, yeah. The vote for 8B is now open. I close the vote. 97.87% has voted in favor. Now nine, please. I open for 9. The vote is closed. 97.27% in favor. 10. Moving to 10, the vote is now open. I close the vote. 98.69% in favor. Thank you, Vroujke. These were the last agenda items of today. The final results of votings will be posted on ING's website in a few days. The draft record of the meetings will be posted three months after the meeting and the official record of the meetings six months after the meeting on ING's website. I would like to, on behalf of everyone, thank you all for being here, our auditors, as well as our notary. It's been a long day. I realize that. I'm grateful. Thank you. I'll give you the word in a second. Yep. I think we're not doing any rondvraak in this session. It's not as it's planned, no. Just give me a second. Before I close this session, I'd like to give the word to you, please. And if you want to say something, please do. Dank u wel, Gerwin Evers. Thank you, Gerwin Evers. On behalf of what is it, 28,000 retail shareholders that could not all be present but have been helped by a good meeting. I'm very happy that physical, in-person AGMs remain in place in the Netherlands. That's possible. It was pretty intense today, but I think that I speak on behalf of many shareholders that I didn't feel challenged or unsafe at any point. Thanks to the good care of security, the police, there was applauding there for other matters. I think that on behalf of shareholders, I can really ask a round of applause for the people who made it possible to maintain an in-person AGM. Another item. With all these matters about the environment, wouldn't it be good to say that there can be 20 questions explicitly about the environment and that we'd after turn to financial matters? That is really what this is all about. I mean, many of the questions that were brought forward were brought forward by the people behind us. They should go to The Hague to ask these questions. There was a lack of that. Everybody needs to take solar panels, but then we see that the power grid cannot handle it. We keep going on like this from one mishap to the other, and you cannot blame a company for this. Therefore, my advice would be to have a maximum of 20 questions about the environment. Even if you have 300 people in the room, you answer 20 questions and that is it. Can you work through it? I think the only thing I wanted to say is there may be legal limitations of what we can or cannot do. Suffice it to say, in a personal capacity, I don't see it differently than you, but there are things that I have to do because of the legal obligations we have. Thank you anyway. I would like to thank all of us that kept us safe today, everybody that worked to make this a success. Several of my colleagues are sitting up on the gallery patiently, all of the security people, the cameramen, people behind, the police officers behind and in the fore for keeping us safe. Thank you very much. With that, I would like to close this session. Thank you much, and I wish you a good evening.