Good afternoon, everyone. On behalf of the management boards of PZU and Bank Pekao, I would like to warmly welcome you to today's meeting. We are very pleased to have you here with us as we discuss the approach to the reorganization of the PZU Group and Bank Pekao. This session will be hosted by Mr. Andrzej Klesyk, CEO of PZU and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Bank Pekao, and Mr. Cezary Stypułkowski, the CEO of Bank Pekao. We truly appreciate your time and interest in joining us today for this important discussion. I will now hand over to Mr. Klesyk to commence the meeting. Perfect. Thank you very much. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, because I understand that everyone is in a very different time zone. We are extremely pleased, both of us, to present to you probably the most exciting and the most innovative project in the finance sector in Poland and probably in Central and Eastern Europe. We would like to make sure that the message today is only about the organization of the group. Therefore, any other questions related either to the bank or to PZU, we would ask you to postpone for separate discussions and meetings for a very simple reason: because we are running two organizations that are listed, and therefore we want to make sure that we are compliant with all the regulations related to the capital market. Let's start with the background of what we want to achieve. Both of us are obsessed with shareholder value, and we realize that one of the major questions related to our institutions is capital management that has a direct impact on shareholder value. We decided to proceed with capital optimization. Even last year, in December 2024, there was an agreement or MoU signed between the bank and PZU stipulated that both institutions would think about it, and the first step was solving an issue of Alior Bank. Secondly, in March, I presented a structure of the holding of PZU Group, which was one of the ideas to improve capital management. Just to remind everyone, it was very well received by the market. However, as being very creative and ambitious managers, we decided that we should not stop here, but we should also think about the next step and use currently changing regulations and regulations that are being put in place a few years ago that would allow us to even further maximize our capital structure using something called Danish Compromise. This is all today about capital management and Danish Compromise. This proposed transaction will free up roughly PLN 20 billion of capital. We cannot precisely determine the number, but we will talk about it later on. In addition to that, the transaction will carry three additional things or benefits. The first thing is we'll have a simplified structure. There will be only one entity listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Probably will be one of the largest, or definitely will be one of the largest in terms of market cap entities listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Secondly, it will allow us to make sure that capital allocation and capital management is efficient. Finally, there will be opportunities to increase top line and also corporations within the group. Without further ado, let us go through three slides, and then we'll open for questions. I will go through the first one, i.e., transaction structure, and then Czarek will talk about capital management and potential dividend policy. The first slide shows to us and to all of you the simplified structure of PZU Group as of today. You see that we have two listed entities. We have an operating entity that has an insurance license listed that in turn owns majority position, well, almost majority position in Pekao SA and Alior. We, as we discussed with you in March, said that this is suboptimal and we should create a holding. The first step of the transaction will be creating a holding where PZU SA, you can see on the left-hand side holdco, is an entity listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, is a small entity with a relatively big balance sheet, however not operating in insurance. The license, insurance license, will not be held by PZU holdco. You see that the structure below will be slightly different, i.e., Alior does not have a dotted line to anywhere because right now we are considering two things, obviously strategic options, and I personally promised to you that in September we will come back to you with a recommendation. Secondly, we still are analyzing where is the most efficient structure and how is the most efficient structure to be designed to maximize capital management. So Alior is still to be decided in terms of its position within the group. You also see on the right-hand side that the changes to Pekao SA are not existing. The first step is to create holding. Nothing from the capital or any other point of view will change in the bank. However, the revolution comes in the second step. This is exactly what today is all about. We'll have a transaction where PKO SA, a listed entity, merges or buys PZU holdco, not for cash, but for paper, as you call it, and PZU SA holdco will be delisted from the Warsaw Stock Exchange. We'll have the final entity structure as envisaged up there. Today we are not prepared to talk about exchange parities or anything like that because it's too early. However, we calculated rough numbers. It would mean that state treasury will stay at around 27+ percentage points of capital in the new entity. The rest will be free float. The whole transaction, again, will create, not create, will free up roughly PLN 20 billion of capital at the level of Pekao SA, so the topco company. We are still calculating with our advisors exactly precise numbers, and we'll talk about it in a second. However, that's the whole picture. You see that Alior again is somewhere hanging. Likewise, there is PZU Health. Likewise, entities related to our companies, i.e., investment funds. Those decisions will be made by us based on capital optimization and strategic freedom. I hope that is clear, and I will ask Czarek to walk us through the benefits. So the money. A few words from my side. I think that what we owe you is really to explain the background of that transaction, which, as Andrzej has said, is an evolution from the 2nd of December when we started the debate, mostly around Alior. At that time, it was pretty clear that for Pekao SA to acquire the stake from PZU and consequently to buy out the minorities, that will require the capital increase on the Pekao SA side in a significant amount of money. Our current capital buffer could not help. Either we will be diluting PZU or we will come with some different capital instruments, namely AT1, with a big magnitude. The market was not tested for that amount. That was a dilemma at Pekao SA. At the same time, CRR3 has been implemented as of 1st of January 2025, with some easing in terms of equity holding by banks of the other financial institutions, namely the insurance companies. During the discussions which we had between ourselves, we realized also that PZU will be under more constraint down the road, namely 2026-2027, when the solvency tool will kick in and with the consequences basically doubling the capital charge of PZU in terms of not changing the current structure and position vis-à-vis the equity holdings in the respective banks. All this created an environment where we started to dig down and to try to understand better the consequences and potential options which are in front of us. To be honest, we investigated five options which were on the horizon. The option which ultimately has been presented and endorsed also by the major shareholder, that has been very much supported by the Minister of Finance and Minister of State Treasury, endorsed, and I would say also welcomed by our regulator who was involved from the very beginning in our discussions, we realized that the most optimal structure, the ultimate most optimal structure on top of the holding process which has been already announced by PZU and the steps which need to be done at PZU Group, that this reverse shareholding because of the nature of the regulation which is existing in Europe. I would say also some industrial logics which is behind. As a person who used to work in insurance and in the bank, I have to say that when I was trying to understand and explain to myself the logic behind the different treatment of equity holdings in the banks and in insurance groups, I would say reverse direction, because CRR3, which has been implemented formally at the beginning of this year, even lowered down the threshold for the banks to keep the holding in the insurance companies. It used to be treated as a risk-weighted asset, the capital of insurance holding, with the risk weight of 370%. Now the threshold has been lowered down to 250%. I in depth investigated what is the background, and that has been in the process of implementation of these new rules of post-Basel III, Basel IV. I understand that the lowering of the threshold was the consequence of relatively extensive studies which have been done by mostly IBA and other regulators coming to the conclusion that the threshold at 370 was even too high. That's one. The second is that at the same time when there is this easing for the banks, you have the situation where the regulators came to the conclusion that for the insurance companies that has to be effectively doubled due to the fact that Solvency II at 2026-2027 will require the insurer to basically calculate the full capital position of the bank instead of the regulatory minimal requirement which was under the current regulation. One can ask why this direction, why the vectors of these regulatory changes are opposite. The only explanation I have is that regulators came to the conclusion that the overall risk profile of the banks is more aggressive than insurers. If you have a conglomerate, and we are effectively a conglomerate already, if the bank merges or the insurer has the equity position in the bank, significant equity position because it has to be above 10%, then obviously the risk profile of that institution is sort of getting more aggressive. Opposite, when the bank is owning a significant stake in insurance, as a consequence, it is being seen like lowering the risk profile of the bank. I would say conceptually this is the background of the overall regulatory changes which has happened. Obviously if there will be more questions around this issue, I will step in and will try to explain. Returning back to our particular case, we made some rough estimates which, and when I'm saying rough estimates, the issue needs to be explained the following way. The figures which you will be seeing are based on the third quarter of 2024. That's the background. We also adopted some assumptions that the bank will be operating with the TCR expected level of 14.5%. That doesn't mean that we will be working with that level, but that's the assumption for the calculation. In the case of insurance, PZU namely, we have estimated that the ultimate solvency requirement will be at 180%. That's for the calculation purposes. When we return back to the case of Pekao, you see that the current excess capital is in the magnitude of PLN 3.9 billion. As Andrzej has said, assuming that post the steps which will be done at PZU, which require some pushing down the operational activity and leaving the PZU SA as a holding company for the group and also cleaning up the situation where PZU has 20% in the bank, there is an expectation, and I'm sort of stepping in front of that of the more detailed structure. I would say we will be encouraging the shareholders of PZU to accept in exchange the shares at Pekao SA. Currently, as we know, PZU shareholders via PZU SA, they control 20% of stock in the bank. With this 20% being moved to the shareholders of Pekao SA, we will end up in a situation where ultimately the bank will do the call on the shareholders of PZU to exchange into the Pekao SA stock. We will issue new shares. With this step in our calculation, and assuming also that the companies, means the PZU hold call, will be merged with Pekao SA, we will end up in a situation where in our calculation currently will create a potential of PLN 10.7 billion of additional or the capital to be freed up. As a consequence, with these two moves, we are ending up with PLN 14.6 billion of the capital, which additional, I would say the capital which will be at disposal. That obviously elevates the TCR to the level of 19.9%. We are talking currently 16.9%. For the calculation, 14.5%. In reality, when these two steps will be done, we will end up with a proforma excess capital of PLN 15 billion-PLN 16 billion, which you see on the chart, which will lead us to the 19.9% TCR ratio. There was the issue about Alior. This is a relatively complex issue because, as I said before, in 2024, when we started this dialogue, we realized that PZU does not have its own ability really to acquire full-scale Alior without issuing new stock. The dilemma which we have been discussing was either disposal or the merger, which will require obviously some payout to the minorities, significant because PZU controls 32% of Alior right now. One aspect is the transaction between the two companies, but the very consequent strategy will be really to merge. To be honest, at that time, and I was very clear on the issue when we discussed with the investors post-2nd of December last year, that PZU, that Pekao SA at this moment is not fully prepared to absorb Alior. That was the capital element, and there was also operational element. We did not play down. Some of you may remember I was using the particular expression that is the option which is in front of us and which we can exercise down the road, I would say, gaining the market share and buffing also our balance sheet. The issue around Alior ended up basically in two scenarios which we are discussing right now, which is reflected in this step four. Disposing this 32% potentially can create additional PLN 4.8 billion of surplus capital. Alternatively, and that is the issue which is important from the, and that is the reason that Andrzej has said that we need more time really to decide if Pekao SA would be supposed to acquire and then buy out the minorities, et cetera, that will have impact again because we have again to issue potentially the capital. We decided or we are discussing or we are investigating other options, namely issuance of AT1. The amalgamated structure will be a much bigger organization. I would say the potential to attract AT1 will be bigger, but we have to be realistic that for the time being, AT1 accessibility for the Polish issuers is relatively limited. I would say the first issuance was from Alior Bank, but it was relatively small. The bank was also much smaller. If we will go through all these steps which are on the horizon, I believe that we will be able really to attract a significant amount of the investors' interest also in this more innovative or more exotic or more complex instrument which is AT1. In both cases, potentially we'll go down the road with these two options not to dilute current shareholders. That will create additional value for the shareholders. We potentially can end up with, as it is being expressed here, somewhere around 22%-23% of the proforma capital ratio, which translates into the successive capital in the magnitude of almost PLN 20 billion. There is one aspect which is on top of that. Let's assume that all the steps will be implemented. That will include the sort of release of PZU from Alior burden. Then on PZU side, there is up to PLN 8.2 billion in current calculation of excessive capital, which partly can be consumed also at the group level. Our current estimate is that we are talking about approximately PLN 3 billion loss. This is mostly due to the fact that risk-weighted asset multiplied by this 250, reflecting the capital position, adds up to that level. That's in capsule, wrapping up the capital impact just to give you the flavor which direction we are moving and what is on the horizon. As Andrzej has said, this will require more work on our side, also based on the figures which will be more reflecting our current position. Let's be fair, in the meantime, the bank and the insurer, we are making significant money which will be beefing up the current position of both institutions. One thing which needs to be definitely refrained, and this is something what is very specific and I would say almost a landmark or one can say ultimate reference to the Polish market, this is the fact that both institutions have a long track record, I would say, of consequent dividend payouts. PZU, which historically was paying regular dividends and sometimes even exceptional dividends, has this track record. Pekao SA has a track record of more than 20 plus years of dividend payouts with an exception, I believe, two years. One was the post-pandemic and one was, I think, around the 2008 crisis. The year after, we have been paying the dividend. There is a strong commitment on both on the side of PZU and ourselves that this policy of payout will be continued. We have currently, both institutions have a strong profit generation characteristic which has been proven over the last years. We have been announcing our strategy. The more profits are on the horizon. We are confident that we will be able to pay the dividends at least in the magnitude which have been paid over the last several years. If I can add one caveat to what has been already said, is obviously this transaction requires a lot of steps. I would say important aspect is that there is an operation burden on the side of PZU, specifically in the context of sort of pushing down the operational structure under the PZU SA, namely the PNC activities. I would say we've been discussing this issue over the last two, three months. We believe after investigating a number of potential transactions, that this one fits the best, the ultimate goal, which is better functioning of the group and better utilization of capital. As you remember, and that's my assumption that you've been witnessing or following what ministers have said, they made this estimate about potential impact on the economy. I think that there was a clear message from their side that the priority is the growth of the Polish economy, but we are realistic. Excessive capital ultimately belongs to the shareholders. We will be in dialogue with shareholders really how to manage this free-up capital in a dialogue with the shareholders. Perfect. Thank you very much, Cezary. Before we open for questions, I want to make sure that we also are well understood that dividend for 2025 will be kind of decided by respective institutions. We are talking about the future because the envisaged transaction will not happen in the first quarter and first half a year of 2026, or maybe by the end of second quarter. Secondly, I just want to make sure that also we are very well understood that some questions will not be answered today. We are right now in the process of negotiating term sheet between two institutions, as it was stipulated in the memorandum of understanding. The minute we are finalized with term sheet and appropriate corporate governance decisions are made, we will communicate with the market. Do not be, let me put it, angry. Too specific. Too specific. Too specific. Or if we kind of barge the questions, do not be upset with us. Thank you very much. Let's open the floor for discussion, for questions. Yeah. Thank you very much for your insightful presentation and for sharing your perspectives. We will now move on to the Q&A session. You are kindly invited to use the Q&A feature on your screen. We'll try to accommodate as many questions as possible during the remaining half an hour. The first question comes from Santander. This is about capital creation calculations. The question is, what options are considered for Alior Bank? And how do you calculate the excess capital creation for Pekao? Today, Pekao is not a shareholder of Alior. What is the base here? Sorry, I did not follow through. Okay. What options are considered for Alior Bank? How do you calculate excess capital creation for Pekao? Because today, Pekao is not a shareholder of Alior. What is the base here? Okay. I think that there are three questions. The second question, how we calculate the capital, I would ask Czarek because this is how we agreed we would do. In terms of options, we are standing behind what I said and communicated to the market in March, i.e., that we will come back to our investors by the end of September with specific recommendations. As you understand, we are right now in discussions. We need to again recalculate capital impact. As Cezary said, there is a wide range of potential impact in terms of capital. Obviously, we would need to discuss it internally and check it with our corporate bodies. Today, no specific answer to this. Czarek, about how we calculate. Obviously, Pekao SA does, maybe investment fund, they do have shares in Alior, but I do not know and I should not know. Yeah, that is correct. We are not shareholder. I am not aware that we are in any form, specifically if we are moving any threshold in this respect. I will not exclude that TFI has some positions, but obviously, this is a completely different animal than the bank. This is not for me to ultimately decide. This is a pure calculation in the case that 32% will be disposed. It is not that difficult really to calculate that 32% multiplied by current valuations will impact. Obviously, we don't know all the internal issues which are at PZU because how it was booked, what's the current value, et cetera. In our calculations, which we have sort of rechecked between ourselves, that adds up to that amount. The alternative, which has been reflected here at PLN 7 billion, this is the slightly different situation. This is the issue what type of capital structure we'll be using for the potential acquisition. It's a semi-artificial exercise, to be honest. I don't want to commit ourselves in this respect. I'm just saying that, and that was the reason that the PLN 14 billion, that in the public announcement, which has been done, this estimate had been done between PLN 15 billion and PLN 20 billion. Alior is a very important aspect of this announcement because potentially it can impact if there will be a just disposal that will add up. In the case of potential sort of repurchase of the minorities, it's a different game. Obviously, that will require either utilization of the excessive capital, which we have, which needs to be decided, and we are not at that moment really ready to make this decision. Alternatively, as I said, go to the market and invite the investors to put the money into the play in a different form. The capital in the form of AT1 is very expensive. Okay. Another question about that comes from Wood & Company. What will you use PLN 20 billion of surplus capital for? I think that for people like yourself, it's not that difficult to imagine what are the forms of utilization of capital. There are basically three avenues which can be used. Clear preference of the official sector participants, if I may say, that means the major shareholder, the endorsement done by the Minister of Finance was focusing on one aspect, growth of the economy and injection of the or utilization of this money for the growth of the economy. In this respect, I think you can say two things, just focusing on this aspect. The PLN 20 billion or PLN 15 billion can create a lot of value because the banks have the ability to leverage this money via the credit issued to the economy. It's not that complex to say that depending on the risk weights and the product, you can go to a variety of numbers. In bulk, one can say we are somewhere between PLN 100 billion-PLN 200 billion lots of additional credit creation to the economy. That's one factor. One, just sort of before you will ask me the question, what will be the timeframe in which I will be able to dispose this money in this format? Yeah, that's the separate issue which needs to be addressed. The current appetite for the credit in the economy used to be relatively low to some extent due to the fact that there was injection of relatively cheap money from the European Union, which has been distributed recently. As National Bank of Poland is stating, we will be approaching the momentum when there will be a cliff. I think that that will create much more space and more appetite for utilization. One aspect which I don't know whether it was reflected in our memorandum and post the memorandum, also the public statement, is that with this move, Pekao SA will be benefiting in terms of one client exposure limit, which currently is at PLN 5 billion. That will be doubled, which definitely creates much more space. I would say potential for the group really to go and offer and organize syndications or organize the consortia. That will be a much, much stronger player in the market than today. Putting aside this aspect, definitely the number two is potential M&A activity, both on the insurance side and the bank side. This has not been, I would say, we didn't profile this yet. Having this reservoir of the capital muscle definitely positions the group very favorably vis-à-vis other players in the market. The third is the dividend. I would say we are talking about utilization of this money was in this triangle. Okay. Last question about calculations from Santander. Could you please share with us what is the assumed level of TCR of Pekao after the transaction expressed in PLN billion? TCR model? What's the? Yeah, not the ratio, but the billions. What's the TCR, total capital, I guess? I have to check just a sec. I don't have the particular figure in my. Yeah, just a sec. Why don't you guys do it, the calculations? They should do the homework. Because when you think about the slide, let's go back, you'll see that it's 23% TCR in column number five. If this is 20. Yeah, I know. If they want to calculate it, then you can see what's TCR. If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about PLN 56 billion lots of own funds in terms of the TCR post the transaction. Okay. Thank you. There are two questions very similar coming from Trigon and mBank about the holding step, the step number one of the transaction. The transformation of PZU into a holding company was intended to optimize capital from bank ownership. If the bank is not ultimately to be the parent company, why is it necessary to transform PZU into a holding company in the first place? Couldn't Pekao immediately take over PZU in its current form? Czarek mentioned five different scenarios. Indeed, this was one of the scenarios that was contemplated. Indeed, it seems kind of obvious to create such a transaction. However, after having analyzed all the pros and cons, and especially risks related to making a tender, because it would need to be a tender for shares of PZU, we decided that this scenario carries too much risk related to the transaction. Therefore, the transaction was envisaged in a two-step scenario. This is what we are talking about, creating a holding for a very simple reason, because the bank should be able to merge with Holdco. Holdco will not have any banking or insurance license. Therefore, it is possible, it will be possible for the bank to merge. Merging directly with PZU would be impossible. Therefore, merger under first scenario would not be an option. I think that that's it. Let's move to a group of questions about the regulations and legal steps. Santander is asking what steps of the transactions are conditional on changes in law? Two steps, when you think about it, require different changes in law. I will spend some time mainly on the first step and then also comment a little bit on the second step. The first step requires two changes in law. The first is change in insurance law related to ability or possibility of an insurance company to split its operations. We would need to split operations related to insurance and everything else. Right now, unfortunately, there is not such an option in the insurance law. However, such an option exists in the banking law. We believe that it would be relatively easy to get this change in law because this is pretty much adopting a law in insurance to the law that is, frankly speaking, ahead of insurance, i.e., banking. Yeah, the background is, just to follow on, the background is that in banking law, there was not the, that I was splitting until the BPH has emerged. Then it has been amended. In insurance, there is only about the merge and not about the splitting. Exactly. There was also a small change in the law related to distribution, i.e., allowing agents to be, let's say, not transferred but moved from one entity to another entity without necessity to go through a very painful process of registration and so on and so on. This is technical. We got, I wouldn't say assurance, but in our informal discussion with our regulator, the regulator understands the issue. We believe that we can count on positive kind of support of the regulator. There are two other changes. There are changes in the banking law required for the second step because right now, a bank can merge with a bank. A bank cannot merge with a holding company. It would need to be amended. The banking law would need to be amended. One thing that needs to be amended, not amended, changed is adding Bank Pekao S.A. on the list of state strategic assets. I even do not know how this law is called in English precisely, but it relates to strategic assets that should be not controlled by, approved by the state in terms of sales or anything else related to this specific entity. Therefore, these changes are relatively technical, to be honest. We had a dialogue already specifically with KNF. I would say even the emergence of, let's say, P&C under the Holdco of PZU technically could be done just based on the commercial code. I would say KNF would prefer to have that type of regulation. I think the dialogue is being continued. I want to refrain what the Chairman Jastrzębski has said during his speech in Sopot. He said, "Something with respect to the interests of all stakeholders' groups, active involvement in the project gives us the opportunity to fully understand all conditions and provide support to the project leaders in conducting it so that all assumptions can be realized safely without disruption and turbulence." That is very important that we are not talking about transaction which we will then try to present to both regulator and the official authorities. We came with this memorandum after also intensive dialogue which has been done with the official sector. I'm not saying that we are done. We are at the very early stage. Definitely, what I'm seeing is that these changes are of a technical nature, and they can help, I would say, PZU significantly on the operational side. There was this question about the direct tender offer on PZU stock, which we discounted as a solution. I think that the major issue was there was, in my opinion, too many market-driven risks which potentially we would be exposed to. That as an expense, there are more operational challenges which are in front of us specifically on PZU side. Okay. There is another question from JPMorgan, which is slightly similar but also has additional information that is being asked for. Could you please outline the various steps in the approval process, which you just did? Could you go through the expected timeline of these steps? Again, we are right now negotiating and finalizing the term sheet. In memorandum of understanding, we committed ourselves to trying to close this by June 2026. Right now, we are calculating the timeframe based on a date when the legal changes are implemented, are in force. When we were signing the docs, we were assuming certain legal process because there will need to be changes approved by the parliament and the president. I would ask you to wait for two more weeks or three more weeks and the detailed timeframe, including assumptions in terms of timing and assumptions when the decisions are going to be enforced, will be in place. Again, we are committed to do it as quickly as possible. Just to remind you, everyone, there is an axe hanging over PZU because, as Czarek also mentioned in his speech, was the fact that we have to do something before the end of 2026. We want to do something by the end of 2026, hopefully in the first half a year of 2026. Otherwise, we'll have problems in terms of capital and excess capital on the 1st of January 2027. Okay. Another question from JPMorgan on the Danish. Could you please remind us the various steps and relevant authorities to get approval and the expected timeline? Only on the Danish compromise. There is another similar question here. Has the approval of the Danish compromise been discussed with the ECB? Yeah. The Danish compromise approval, which is a regulatory requirement, that will come only after the full, I would say, all steps implementation. That's the reason that we are presenting this transaction independently of what has been already said, that PZU has to do something with its holdings in full scale, targeting June next year with respective steps which need to be delivered, which will lead to the freeing up a significant amount of money. The approval can happen only after implementation of the full transaction on which we signed a memorandum. On top of that, we will be operating, as we do right now, as a financial conglomerate, which requires also the decision-making by the regulators. Responding to ECB, I don't think that sort of a Danish approval requires the ECB direct involvement. I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that there is a certain procedure since we are not under ECB regime, that in the case of the financial conglomerate, there is certain procedure between the KNF and ECB required. I can imagine it has happened also in the case where PZU was amalgamating the whole group. There is, I think, more type of a notification, as far as I know, than the formal approval or consent. The deal first and the Danish Compromise later. Yeah. Think about it to even simplify it further. Think about it as if it's exactly a similar process as if we were to issue a long-term debt and then we ask for permission to keep it as capital. That's exactly the same thing. We issue, money flows in, and then you submit to the regulator application. Obviously, how to phrase it, we would be completely stupid and naive not to prediscuss certain things before doing such a transaction. We will be definitely in the discussions with KNF on a regular basis to make sure that the deal has very, very, very high probability of being approved. I would say even more, we would not sign the memorandum without pre-screening the whole transaction with KNF. Another question from JPMorgan. Do you expect some kind of add-on to the bank capital requirements as a consequence of the transaction, for instance, in the form of higher D-Systemic Institution Buffer? I do not think that, currently, because there is this SIFI, whatever, four letters. Significant. What is the full? SIFI. Significant, Important Financial Institution. Significant, yeah. Requirement. I think Pekao SA is currently at what level? 1.4, 1%. I can imagine that that can be slightly elevated. I would risk an opinion that to the level which is the leading financial institution in the banking sector is being charged right now. Okay. About Alior from Odell BHFLS. Keeping current 32% stake in Alior is also an option. What would be the three key reasons to buy out minorities in Alior? For sale, this is for PZU. For buy, it's for us. In this sequence. Again, we want to make sure that before we go to the market and say anything, we need to discuss those things. Just to make it very clear, before any merger or any completion of the transaction, it is in the hands of PZU to manage and control the destiny of Alior. Obviously, we will be discussing it from the shareholder point of view of the whole structure. Right now, I would say that we both know that the current structure is not optimal. We know that we have to do something with Alior. Options are very different. Obviously, strategic options, as some people say, another is merger. There are options in between. Those options in between might include keeping a stake that would not impede capital position, so below 10%, for example, and selling the rest. This might be all the discussions that are ahead of us, but we do not want to speculate on this. That type of a question was in front of us when we entered this agreement or memorandum in December. I was frequently asked the question, "So about what is the response of Bank Pekao?" I think the situation has not changed. It is, again, to some extent, generic. I would say purchasing 32% of other bank and consolidating does not make a lot of sense from the banking perspective. That's the reason that in our debates, and I think I started to elaborate on the capital consequences, also referring to this aspect. I made it clear that if Alior will stay in the group, I think that it makes much more sense to amalgamate. Down the road, that's something I call the option. I'm not stepping out of what has been already said. As Andrzej has said, this requires much more internal discussions within the group. One has to be realistic with outside stakeholders. Okay. A question from JPMorgan. Could you please comment on the revenue synergies that you hinted in the press release? What are these related to, and do you have any initial rough estimate? I wouldn't be brave enough to commit to a specific number. However, we can say that the revenue synergies are well, well, well below our ambition level. To put it differently, from PZU point of view, I will ask Czarek to comment from the bank point of view. From PZU, we are getting more revenues from the bank assurance activities with Alior than we are getting from bank assurance activities with Bank Pekao. It can show you the potential. This potential will be definitely, definitely, and again, definitely captured. Czarek. Yeah, yeah. I'm 100% with you. I think that in our strategy, which has been published a few months ago, we have declared the ambition really to grow our bank assurance business. The target was at PLN 1 billion in two years' time. I have to say, I consider this number conservative. We are still discussing what can be done in this respect and how to grow. We believe that we did not spend, I have to say, this transaction is not driven by synergies. There was something that needs to be done upfront to all the analysts and investors. There is a strong potential on the revenue side. We believe that. We both believe in the bank assurance being an important, I would say, distribution channel, which will be emerging slowly in the Polish market as well. I would say the essence of this transaction is really to focus on the capital side and how much we can derive from the structure of our conglomerate right now in a more sophisticated way. As Andrzej has said, I am very confident that once we will deliver this transaction, this will be a reference financial conglomerate in Europe. I would say the markets will find the value creation, which is, I would say, uncomparable. Okay. Question from Principal Asset Management. Will Pekao pay annual bank tax on the assets acquired? Bank tax? Yes, on the assets that. I do not think so. Obviously, we are at a stage where not all the aspects have been already investigated. The probabilities, at this moment, I am estimating relatively low. Think about it differently. To make sure that we understand, operating entities that are regulated under insurance law and banking law will be completely different. Therefore, if there is any tax on the insurance, it is PZU who will pay. If there is anything on the banking, it is the bank that would pay. PZU in the bank's financial statements will be just one line. I do not think that, obviously, we will need to get interpretation, but I do not think that there will be any. Before doing the deal, we will obviously check all the tax implications, not only from the banking law perspective, but also VAT, CIT, and all other T's related to taxes. This will not be the first transaction of that nature in the market. I do not think that is the reason that I am so confident that these implications will be not significant. Okay. Thank you. I have a last question from PKO BP Securities. Gentlemen, you are two very experienced managers. Are there any discussions who would be in charge of the merged entity? As being older, I would step in. I have to say, we know each other. People will not believe, but since 1997, even 1996. Our first encounter was when we together created the Handlowy Bank, which unfortunately was ruined by Citigroup. Recently, remains of this beautiful creation, which would have been a result of our co-working, has been disposed in the transaction, which I do not want even to refer to. I believe that between two of us, we will find out the best way really to manage the company. I think that we are too mature not to understand, I would say, complexities of this transaction. That is the reason that our dialogue is critical for making things happen. Definitely, this is a justified question that at some point, the governance structure needs to be also explained. I think that from my perspective, I am confident that we will be working very cooperatively in the upcoming months. Cannot underwrite such statements more strongly. I would also add one thing. In the term sheet, that probably part of it will become public. We have a specific working group that will be devoted to not only governance structure, but also how we're going to manage in the interim process. Because there will be some very important decisions that right now are in the hands of the bank, but also in the hands of PZU. In the end of the day, we need to think about the bigger picture going forward. It does not happen very often, at least in my life, that we are in front of a transaction which can create such a big value. I would say it is a privilege to have this unexpected to some extent situation where remaking to some extent the group, we can free up PLN 20 billion. Things like that do not happen every day. As I said, I feel personally privileged to have the chance to participate in a transaction which will impact the potentially Polish market. As I said, potentially will be the reference for conglomerates in Europe. Let me conclude on this question. One thing. If we had people who did not trust one another as we do, this transaction would not have happened. That would be a tender offer. I just do not want even to imagine that type of situation. That is the reason that we came to the conclusion that the merger is the best structure of a transaction because this is an amicable transaction. That is something one has to be realistic about. The change of the seats to some extent, it is not trivial. It is not a situation which does not impact. I would say that the core of management is really to manage that type of situations. We are both matured enough to make it happen. Can we take one more? Sure. Sure. Okay. It's from Krishendra Dubey. Apologies. Of whom? Krishendra Dubey. Okay. Apologies if this is being asked, where would Alior's stake sit post-transaction and pre-Alior optimization? Also, are there any costs which we should be aware in the process of merger? We discussed the Alior situation. I think that there is nothing to add. In terms of costs, obviously, this transaction would require advisors, require probably investment bankers, fairness opinion, and so on and so on. Think about PLN 20 billion capital that could be freed up versus the cost of transactions. I believe that given the fact that we are working on this transaction together, the cost as a percentage of value creation will be much lower than in any M&A activity. Yeah. Okay. It looks like there are no further questions at this time. If you would have any further questions, please reach out to investor relation teams at PZU and Bank Pekao. At this point, I will hand over back to the gentlemen for their closing remarks. Thank you very much for participation. Again, I want to stress that we want to be very open with the market as much as we can say at this stage. We will come back to you when we are ready to talk to you and share some more details. Some more details, again, will be shared even in the later stage, for example, Alior. Yeah. On my side, I think that I made some effort to familiarize yourself with the background of the Danish Compromise and the consequences also in the Polish context. I believe that this creates unbelievable opportunities specifically that we have already conglomerate, which is consisting of insurance and banking. This allows us to execute and exercise in a better way the capital utilization, which is on the table, and it will be, I would say, irresponsible by ourselves if we will not come with that type of a transaction to our shareholders. That is our duty. This is the way we approach this issue. We will be in an education process with the investors and shareholders and also with analysts as the transaction will progress. This is our commitment. There is nothing to be hide. Since I was asked on a number of occasions about the potential risk on the legislation side, I want to assure that to the best of my knowledge, being the PhD in law, I should say these are technical changes, which I do not think will be controversial. I think that they will enhance, in principle, the Polish corporate law and Polish banking law and Polish insurance law. The political risk, they are always. All my life, my 45 years' professional career was mostly about being around political risks. But there are things which we can impact and things which we cannot impact. We just elaborated. Thank you very much then. All the best. Cheers. Thank you very much.