Good day, welcome to the TCS Group Holdings Q2 2021 IFRS results call. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Oliver Hughes, CEO. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, and hello to everybody. Pleased to report on another quarter of significant growth for Tinkoff. The second quarter of 2021, we reached 16.7 million total customers, up 5.5 million from a year ago, and delivered RUB 16.1 billion of net profit, up 57% year-on-year, and amounting to an ROE of 46.1%. The Tinkoff flywheel continues to gain momentum. We're attracting millions of customers by offering them best-in-class financial and lifestyle services, which in turn opens an increasing range of ways to engage and monetize them. This in turn, means we can invest more in making our products a notch or three above anything else our competitors can provide. Before we move on to the key financial and operational results Q2, I'd like to stress the importance of the recent governance changes. We're swiftly moving towards building a world-class governance structure that will not only safeguard the interest of minority investors, but will also provide strategic guidance and insight to Tinkoff management as we grow the business in Russia and beyond. Their expertise and experience to new business verticals, M&A and working with large companies will be of particular value considering the size and complexity of the business we're in. We've become one of the few tech companies in the world with a one share, one vote structure. We brought on board five new independent non-executive directors, bringing the total share of independents on the board to 2/3 and increasing the board's breadth and depth. We formed two new committees, the strategy and sustainability committees, both of which have hit the ground running and have already held several meetings since they were created. To increase transparency, we've improved our segmental disclosure and kickstarted a series of strategy sessions to give the market more clarity and insight into where and how we create value at Tinkoff. We've held sessions on investments, SME, and acquiring, and we plan more for the rest of this year and into 2022. On the sustainability side, we've appointed a new head of sustainability, published our first sustainability report according to GRI. We became signatories to the UN Principles for Responsible Banking, and launched a project to assess and reduce our carbon footprint, and are looking to ingrain more ESG principles into the strategic objectives of the group. We're not done yet. Over the next few weeks, we plan to announce three more directors as we ultimately target a board of nine-ten members. All in all, we're confident that a high quality, independent board of directors and governance structures will be instrumental to creating and cementing value for Tinkoff shareholders for many years to come. Now onto the business and second quarter results. A growing engaged customer base remains a strategic imperative for Tinkoff. In the second quarter alone, we added 1.9 million total customers to reach 16.7 million. This represents an active customer base of 11.5 million customers, making us confident that by the end of 2021, we'll be able to reach the 14 million active customers mark. Our efforts to engage with these customers go hand in hand with the growth of the customer base. Our MAU reached 12.5 million, our DAU, 4.2 million, and our products per customer metric reached 1.5. It was up from 1.4 last time we spoke. Key to this is the continued growth in Tinkoff Black, our viral debit card product, which is adding 1 million active customers per quarter, having reached 6.8 million by the end of the Q2. Customers now entrust us with more than RUB 375 billion of balances, transacting more than RUB 500 billion per quarter. This product remains the main gateway into the ecosystem as customers increasingly move on to using other products like brokerage, credit, insurance, and many more. This increase in customer numbers and engagement is also due to the continued development of our super app. We're improving the customer journey, providing increasingly intuitive UI and UX, targeting and tailoring contextual advice and offers, and encouraging organic opening of new products and services. We're well on track to meet and exceed our 2023 strategic targets of over 16.5 million active customers and 1.7 products per customer. Tinkoff Investments had a very busy Q2. We launched a sizable brand building marketing campaign in April, enabling our customers to top up their accounts through Apple and Google Pay. We launched Tinkoff Private, our product line for higher net worth individuals, continued refining our customer journey and the functionality of the Pulse social network, participated in several ECM and DCM deals, launched three new funds through our in-house asset manager, Tinkoff Capital, and launched a derivatives offering. Our assets under custody continued to grow and exceeded half a trillion RUB with our active customer base reaching 1.6 million customers. This continued diversification and product development enables us to grow pre-tax profit by more than 10% quarter-on-quarter, despite a noticeable 17% quarter-on-quarter drop in trading volumes on the back of lower volatility in global markets. Product pipeline remains very active, and we're confident this business will continue to drive customer and bottom-line growth for many years to come. By 2023, we aim to exceed RUB 40 billion of revenues and deliver stable to improving margins. Tinkoff Acquiring, our B2B payments business, had a stellar quarter as we continued to ride the wave of growing digital payments with products that offer best-in-class integration, UX, and conversion. Our TPV grew 40% quarter-on-quarter and 2.6 x year-on-year, with stable acquiring commissions driven by continued growth in merchants and transactions per merchant. This delivered a quarterly record RUB 5.5 billion of gross revenues and RUB 1.1 billion of pre-tax profit. As e-commerce penetration grows and merchants look for efficient and effective ways to move online, we're continuing to see huge opportunities to partner with marketplaces and merchants of all types and sizes through the Tinkoff Kassa platform, as well as through our subsidiary CloudPayments. We're continuing to unlock synergies with our SME business in offering partners a complete set of merchant solutions. We're well on track to deliver 50% TPV CAGR between 2020 and 2023, as we announced a few weeks ago. We also have an international payment strategy in the works. It's still taking shape, and it's a bit too early to provide details, but we're excited about the transferability of our know-how outside Russia's borders. A few words also on our BNPL service, Dolyami, which is also developing nicely. We launched in April 2021 and have already signed up 20 large online merchants and expect several hundred more merchants to sign up by the end of the year, including some of the large Russian marketplaces. In the offline space, we're currently testing an integrated offering with our newly acquired subsidiary, Koshelek, which will enable customers to pay with Dolyami BNPL solution in app at any merchant that has a loyalty card available in Koshelek app. It's still early days, but we're very optimistic that this service can gain a meaningful position in the Russian payment landscape. Tinkoff Business, our digital offering for Russia's SMEs, continues to make progress in the segmentation of its customer base and in tailoring our financial products and business services to the needs of various sectors. This is driving more efficient customer acquisition and monetization. Every four newly registered individual entrepreneur in Russia opens their first account at Tinkoff. For larger businesses, we continue to make their life easier. For example, better and faster payout options, shorter wait times for opening new financial products, and an acceleration in SME lending with our portfolio more than doubling this year-to-date to over RUB 5 billion. All this is resulting in active customer base growth that is accelerating and reached 332,000, with revenue and pre-tax profits growing 40% year-on-year. This gives us confidence that we can grow our active customer base to over 500,000 by 2023 and our revenue by 30% CAGR. Our credit business continues to evolve in both size and diversification. In the first half of the year, we've already exceeded our full-year guidance for loan growth by delivering 35% year-to-date net loan book growth. We're particularly happy with this result because it's increasingly coming through cross-sell. In fact, our fastest-growing channel for new disbursements is cross-sell to existing Tinkoff Black debit card holders. This has a positive effect on the economics of our credit business because acquisition costs are lower. We have more data and can calculate more precisely the credit risk and NPV of each new loan dispersed. This is particularly visible in the personal loan part of the portfolio, which is largely dispersed to existing customers. Our loan book is also increasingly diversified. For the first time ever, credit cards no longer represent the majority of our loan book, and collateralized loans presented more than one-fifth of our credit portfolio. We remain positive on the outlook of our credit business, given increasingly precise underwriting and scoring models. Still low penetration of unsecured consumer lending, room for market share growth driven by our more efficient direct consumer and cross-selling channels, and through the launch of new products such as mortgage. Last but not least, I want to say a few words on our international plans. As of a few days ago, it's now in the public domain, but we've created a subsidiary based in the Philippines that will be applying for a digital bank license over the coming weeks. The Philippines is an attractive market in that credit penetration is low. It has a sizable and digitally predisposed population, where we see a road to obtaining a license that gives us the flexibility of offering a comprehensive set of financial services, and that should enable us to build a solid monetization capability. It therefore ticks the boxes that we've flagged in the past and that we believe are necessary to build a long-term, sustainably profitable fintech business. With that, I'll pass the word to Ilya for more detailed analysis of our financial results. Ilya? Thank you, Oliver. Hello, everyone. I would now like to describe some of the main trends that we observed in our business throughout the second quarter of 2021. Traditionally, I will start with the balance sheet composition on slide seven. After a relatively flat first quarter, total assets of the Group grew by 10.6% in the second quarter due to solid 17.6% growth of the net trade book, as well as some rebalancing we did in the asset composition. A portion of our treasury position was sold with a profit during the second quarter in order to free up some of the capital to adequately address growing loan portfolio. The result, net loan book increased to 53% of the total assets, while treasury position declined to 24%. Much of the cash proceeds from the bonds sale reside on the corresponding account of the bank, therefore pushing the cash balance of the group to 11% of the total. Our funding base is depicted on slide eight. The seasonal slowdown at the beginning of this year across retail and SME client segments gave way to a healthy 10.3% growth, mirroring the growth on the asset side. Here I have to mention an outstanding 14% growth in the current accounts and 33.4% step increase in the balance on brokerage accounts. On slide nine, you can see shareholders' equity increased by 11.3% in the second quarter to RUB 147 billion, thanks to strong quarterly profits and absence of the dividends. Our Basel ratios were flat for the quarter at very comfortable levels. RWA density decreased from 93% of the real assets to 89% as risk-weighted assets grew 40% slower than the total assets of the group. Next slide shows that statutory ratios were basically flat during the quarter, despite the solid growth of the credit book and the annual remeasurement of the operational risk with total capital adequacy going down 20 basis points to 12.2%, and core capital adequacy going up 20 basis points to 10%. We reiterate our intention to keep reasonable buffer over the prescribed Central Bank minimums. Recent regulatory changes in RWA calculations will bring some additional pressure on our capital ratios, nothing dramatic, though, taking into account our ability to generate profit and manage the speed of growth of the loan book. I will turn to the income statement starting on slide 11, where you can see the breakdown of our revenue by major business verticals. It's a graphical representation of what you can see in more detail in our four-segment analysis on our financial statements. You can see that the split between credit and non-credit components of the revenue steadily shifts towards non-credit, which now represents 44% of total. Revenue grew 29% year-on-year to RUB 121.8 billion on a semi-annual base, but most visibly in the second quarter of 2021, 14.3% compared to the first quarter of the year. Our next slide is on cost management, where you can see that we stepped up our investment into growth as customer acquisition costs comprise RUB 10.7 billion or 44% of total cost for the quarter. This is more than 2.5 x acquisition of the same period last year, which explains the V-shaped curve of the cost-to-income graph in the middle, due to the pandemic slowdown a year ago. Moreover, we increased our acquisition efforts compared to the beginning of this year, as the strong momentum in all our businesses encouraged us to onboard more customers, also through intensive TV advertising. The second part of the cost story is the growth in the salary expenditure. It comes both from the growth in personnel, where we still have some backlogs, and therefore we will have to continue to hire more professionals in IT and analytics, as well as the growth in the compensation per person. Both base salary and long-term incentive programs have to be in line with leading technology peers. Slide 13 shows the dynamic of our net income and the contribution that credit and non-credit businesses give to that growth. You can see that the second quarter net income climbed over RUB 16 billion, which is a record number in our history. Consumer finance was the main contributor, thanks to low credit risk and growing revenue. Non-credit part develops multi-dimensionally with current account business coping with significant investments into growth, resulting in segment losses. Before acquisition, our current account business is near breakeven. It should be noted that in our segment reporting, the benefit of lower acquisition costs when cross-selling to debit card holders accrues entirely to our consumer finance, InvestT ech, payments, and InsureT ech businesses, given that we do not use any internal transfer of acquisition costs. This means that in spite of the negative result, the current account business is still accretive to earnings. On the next few slides, I will cover the results of each business segment one by one, starting with our bread-and-butter credit business on slide 14. Our loan portfolio showed a solid 15.3% growth during the second quarter on a growth basis and 17.6% growth on the net basis. We continue to exploit the opportunity for healthy and fast growth. It was driven by all components of the credit book, including unsecured and collateralized loans. All segments contributed to the growth, but secured loans, SME loans, and personal loan loans grew faster from a lower base. Therefore, the share of credit cards fell for the first time to less than 50% of the total book. Still, credit cards remain a key core product for us, and we still see huge potential in this market. In the second quarter, we added 890,000 new activated credit cards. The economics of our credit business is shown on slide 15 and 17. In the second quarter of 2021, interest income amounted to almost RUB 40 billion. It is 22% growth year-on-year, but the growth really happens from the second half of 2020. Our headline gross interest yield on the credit portfolio decreased from 29.8% to 25.5% year-on-year, mostly due to the growing part of non-credit card loan portfolio. The reduction does not happen evenly. For example, there was none quarter-on-quarter due to the accelerated growth of the portfolio. It is safe to assume that towards the end of the year, gross yield will continue to gradually move down to the 24%+ area as a result of the changing portfolio mix. Our blended cost of borrowing declined from 4.6% to 3.3% year-on-year and was this low thanks to large inflows of cheap SME, retail, and brokerage accounts. In the second quarter, cost of funding picked up 20 basis points as we marginally increased our rates on deposits and current accounts following the Central Bank's decision to hike base rate. For the year, it will stay within the guidance announced earlier. Net interest margin declined year-on-year by 3.6% to 16.1% because of the reduction of the growth yield, softened by the reduction of cost of funding. Cost of risk continued to improve during the first half of the year, continuing the trend of the second half of 2020. The reduction in issuance of credit products during the pandemic period last year played an important role in bringing down cost of risk, as our portfolio statistics are now largely dependent on these best of the best vintages. Now, we are issuing much more and may expect certain manageable increase in the cost of risk during the second half of the year. The improvement in cost of risk allowed our risk-adjusted net interest margin to get to 13.7%. The next two slides give more granular information about the unsecured and secured parts of the loan book, including growth yield, and cost of risk. Slide 18 shows the unsecured loan book where you can see a continuing improvement in asset quality and still very attractive risk-adjusted margins. Slide 19 shows the secured part of the portfolio split by car and home equity loans. The average yield is stable at 14% and cost of risk slightly picked up on car loans due to the front-loading effect as this sub-portfolio grew very fast in the first half of the year. Some comments on our non-credit businesses on slides 20 to 24, starting with our debit card business. It was another record-breaking quarter in terms of customer acquisition, as we added 1.7 million customers to get to 10.6 million in total and 6.8 million active. GPV of purchases increased greatly and reached RUB 539 million, which is 31% quarter-on-quarter growth, and balances also grew noticeably to RUB 375 billion. Our revenue added RUB 1 billion to stand at RUB 8.1 billion for the quarter, net of the cashback that we return to our customers. Bottom line result is a loss, but a bit over RUB 3 billion, coming mostly from acquisition of new customers. Physically, in this quarter, we started an extensive, yet very expensive but very successful marketing action with no annual fee forever, which has converted into new customers subsequently in July. We see more value in growing the customer base and in the potential synergetic effects with other business lines rather than a source of pure net income. Our SME business has found ways to increase profitable customer acquisition in big numbers after a ranging period for a few quarters that has improved its churn statistics. You can see from slide 21 that at the end of the quarter, we had 547,000 total customers and 332,000 active. We earned revenue of RUB 4.2 billion in fees, treasury income, some interest on SME loans, and almost doubled that income number to RUB 2.1 billion. After a seasonal dip, balances on accounts also grew in the second quarter to RUB 93 billion. Our investment business had a solid quarter in terms of customer acquisition. At the end of the quarter, we had 2.3 million total customers and 1.6 million active. We are clear number one in the country, both by registered and active customers, but there is a lot of room to grow. Our customers already hold half a trillion rubles in assets under custody. After an astonishing Q1 with lots of marketing promotions, and they could deal, volume retracted a bit, but we expected to resume growth in the second half of the year. Nonetheless, the profitability did not suffer, as we were able to hold on revenues at RUB 4.6 billion level and increase quarterly profit before tax to RUB 1 billion or 10% quarter-on-quarter. Could you please turn to slide 24? Acquiring is a business line which is benefiting from the accelerated transition to e-commerce. Our internet acquiring business is the second largest in Russia, providing best-in-class conversion methods for our merchants. Including our offline acquiring business, we processed RUB 329 billion of TPV in the second quarter, which represents 2.6 times growth year-on-year and 40% quarter-on-quarter. Combined with a stable commission of 1.7%, this led to revenue of RUB 5.5 billion for the quarter and profit before tax of RUB 1.1 billion. This business works both with large aggregators as well as individual merchants, in roughly a 50/50 split. It is also an important part of value proposition to many of our SME customers. Now to the final slide of my presentation. You have already seen our quarterly profit number. To reiterate, it is another quarterly record of RUB 16.1 billion and landmark RUB 30 billion+ for the first half of 2021. Return on equity is over 46% for the quarter, despite heavy investments into customer acquisition and hiring. In my view, such returns justify our decision not to pay dividends. Return on assets went up to seven percent for the quarter and to 6.7% for the first half of the year. Now back to Oliver for closing remarks. Thanks, Ilya. Second quarter of the year showed good progress towards our 2023 strategic target of building the most comprehensive, engaging, and innovative financial and lifestyle ecosystem. We'll continue to do this while producing substantial sustainable profitability. Our better than expected performance in the first half of this year has led us to upgrade our 2021 guidance. We're now targeting more than RUB 60 billion of net profit, driven by faster net loan growth, which is now expected at over 50%, and by lower cost of risk, which is now expected to be in the five percent area. All this while continuing to invest in those businesses that will enable us to grow in Russia for many years to come. The growth opportunity in Russia remains substantial, and we look forward to augmenting it with well-thought-out and researched opportunities outside of Russia. We're confident that with the depth of our management team and guidance from our revamped board, we'll continue to deliver value for all of our stakeholders. We're super excited to make our first international move. 15 years after Tinkoff was founded, we're now laying the foundations for continued growth for the next 15 years at least. If we see positive traction in our Philippines venture, we'll consider other markets as well. With that, we'll be very happy to take your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. Please ensure that the mute function of your telephone is switched off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, please press star one to ask a question. Let's take a brief pause to allow all the participants the opportunity to signal for questions. Our first question today comes from Mikhail Shlemov of VTB Capital. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the presentation and congratulations on great results. If I may ask the first question, or actually, on the updated 2021 guidance, specifically on the loan growth and the cost risk side. While it's very logical to see the upgrade of the loan growth guidance, given the very strong performance in the first half, I'm somehow surprised by the fact that you are actually downgrade cost of risk guidance, especially as the loan volumes are actually picked up. Once I actually look at the historic data of how the credit losses have actually stacked up across the credit cycle, I was coming at somewhat higher implied cost of risk numbers. Especially given the context that the cash loans are growing the fastest right now, and you were commenting earlier that the risk profile on those products And the unit economics on those products have been inferior to the credit cards. I wonder what I'm missing here, so your comments would be appreciated. I have some follow-up questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mikhail. I will answer this question. Our initial guidance was seven-eight percent for cost of risk, and with cost of risk at 4.5% in the first half of the year, to get into this guidance by the end of the year, we really have to have cost of risk in double digits in the second half, just mathematically. Therefore, I understand that our initial guidance is now outdated. Your question really is the five percent area is adequate enough, is it sufficient, or could it be higher than that? We have some statistical models that show that in the second half of the year, our cost of risk should be slightly higher than the first half. We do not see this increase anywhere to dramatic effect. We think the total for the year should be about five percent, maybe a bit more than five percent, which can give you an idea what we expect to get in the second half. Ilya, thank you very much for this. Actually, if we take it a little bit forward and actually think about 2022, do you think that this, let's say, around five percent area cost of risk is a new sustainable cost of risk we should get given the current loan mix? It's difficult to give a guide for the next year because it could go either direction. It could go down for the reason of changing portfolio mix. For example, if we accelerate our secured lending, and if we are successful in upcoming months building our mortgage part of the business, then cost of risk should go down. If the status quo in portfolio mix stays the same, then cost of risks should be at the same level or maybe a little bit higher than we see right now, and than we see in 2021. Again, everything changes so fast in the economy, then sometimes it's just too difficult to look that far ahead. We'll give some guidance on that end of this year, beginning of next year as usual, I think, Misha. Okay. Thank you, guys. Just like perhaps you could give us a little bit of a more precise date. When you are going to scale up the mortgage issuance? As far as I understand, you'll be doing some pilots, but when you think we could realistically start to scale up so we could time our cost of risk assumptions in the models accordingly? Sure. We'll start, according to our plan, in October, November this year, offering them to real life customers as opposed to internal test. We won't, as usual, we tend to have this kind of semi-pilot regime for a while, where we're learning how to do the business, where we're understanding how the portfolio metrics look, understanding how the marketing funnel works, testing different channels, et cetera. We won't be putting our feet on any accelerators at all. We'll have a portfolio that you will see in our total portfolio, so it'll be visible if all goes according to plan in 12-18 months' time. It won't be a number which makes a huge impact on any of our P&L balance sheets, risk numbers or anything else like that, Ilya, I think it's fair to say. Excellent. Thank you. Just like the second question is actually about the operating expenses. We have recently seen a trend of actually the underlying cost ratio ex acquisition trending higher. I think that Just Like in the press release talking about hiring a more 800 people into the IT, into the several development hubs. I wonder if you could give us some color on how big is this ramp up in the development versus the current scale, so how many developers you have right now, and perhaps what is driving such a big hiring spree? Perhaps there's something spending on the international expansion or something else. Sure. Well, I'll kick off, and then Ilya can come with the numbers maybe. The number was unfortunately not 800, but 1,800. That's the number of predominantly tech professionals we're hiring this year into HQ and the development hubs. We're currently around 7,000 people in HQ and development hubs, and that will increase probably by another 800 or so to the end of the year, so in the second half. That is before we start thinking of hiring for international. This is just our need to continue building the platforms, supplement the existing product teams, the business lines, as we call them, obviously maintain the systems that we have, so people to run the business, not just to develop the business. This is the interface on our mobile apps, our payments business, et cetera. There's a bit of an arms race going on out there in the market, hiring tech talent. We're one of the participants in this. Tech talent is now very sought after. There's a certain scarcity, and it's getting more expensive. At that point, I'll hand over to Ilya to talk about the numbers. Well, actually, the numbers, I can just reiterate from what I said earlier, that yes, it grew to almost half of our costs. I mean, the administrative staff costs. The growth comes from hiring new people and increasing the salaries and compensation to the existing probably 1,500 heads recently. Yes, we'll have to continue hiring people because first, we have in every of the businesses, we have a queue of different features and products that we want to implement. That's one thing. That's a kind of a backlog that requires more hands basically to do. Second thing, we're trying to do the new releases faster, basically to stay ahead of the competition. Excellent. Thank you, gentlemen. Probably the last one on international expansion. Just like we appreciate, obviously, the announcement of Philippines as a launchpad for the international expansion and all of the talk about the international payments business strategy coming through. One thing, really, actually, you talked actually about the several countries. I wonder if you're thinking about the second country to test the digital bank concept outside of Philippines before the year-end, or that it would be just like the payments. Second one is, when you would be building the bank in Philippines, to what extent you can leverage the IT development which you have been already doing in Russia, or you have to actually replicate it outside Russia as well? Well, you called your fourth question the second question. Now you're calling this fifth question. It's actually six questions in one mission, but I'll try and answer them. Sorry, honestly, sorry, too many of you. No, don't worry. It's a good question. Let's try and break this down into bite-sized chunks. The first is, I alluded in my introductory piece in this conference call to an international payments project, which is completely separate and will probably not be in the same market/markets as the neobank project. Yeah. That's being worked on, and that's part of the acquiring business which we want to take international. We'll leave that aside. Now, moving on to your question about the neobank, which we want to build in the Philippines. The Philippines has already been announced. We had to announce because we've already submitted an application for a digital banking license in the Philippines. You guys have already seen that. That we believe will be the first of one or several markets, two or several markets, I should say, in our international neobank project. We're looking at a range of options for the second market. We're just at feasibility stage. We're thinking, we're researching. There's no decision being taken on that, if we launch a second market at all. The Philippines, just by gut feeling, obviously these things take a bit of time to build. We'll not launch this year, obviously there'll be more information communicated on that this year, which means that there certainly won't be a second market launch this year, if at all. The third part of your question was on the tech stack. There are certain components of the Tinkoff tech stack that we can use and will use for the international project, so for the Philippines. There'll be another layer of tech stack that will be built specifically for the Philippines, and if we launch another market, it will be used obviously for other markets. There'll be two stacks, basically, what we take from Tinkoff in Russia and what we build to support our Asian initiative. Perfect. Thank you so much, and good luck. Thank you. Our next question comes from Elena Tsareva of BCS. Good afternoon. Thank you much for the presentation, and congratulations. It's very strong record results, and I was impressed with the acceleration of your customer number growth. I have first question on your capital position. Given what you already commented with high risk rates and also as the SIFI status, and also given your international expansion, how comfortable are you on capital position going forward? This will be my first question. Yeah, that's a question for me. Right now, we have a very comfortable position. We have 2% over the prescribed minimum total capital, and even more than that on core. It's like 3% over. We are obviously forecasting our capital position going forward, taking into account the development of our lending business in several directions. We obviously have to have some capital available for the international expansion. Fortunately, it's not going to be huge, at least in the foreseeable few quarters. Also for potential deals that, again, we have hinted on earlier. That is why we also have to have some capital available for purchase of some of our GDRs to pre-fund our management incentive programs, by the way. Saying all that, we see that our bank, as a standalone operational company, will probably have sufficient capital for its development. We also have other operational companies that are able to upstream some of their profits in terms of dividends to the holding level, which will allow us to finance some of our new endeavors from that. We also obviously have to be aligned about the potential actions taken by our regulator in terms of increasing the burden on capital from the consumer lending business. The recent moves by the Bank of Russia will obviously have some drag on our capital requirements. Fortunately, not very significant. I expect that on a, I would say, 18 months horizon, the recent moves of the Bank of Russia will take up to half a percent of our capital, something like that. Again, it's moving around. It could be changed again and again. The last thing that I want to mention probably is that recently, subsequent to our quarter that we are reporting, we did an initial securitization deal on our home equity loans. If we will be a frequent issuer of these securitization papers, then we will have some ability to free up capital as well. Thank you very much, Ilya. Just partially to this question, are you going to return to dividends next year? We are not going to pay dividends this year. Decision about dividends next year will have to be announced later, probably on our annual call as usual. I don't have this kind of visibility right now, but I only hope that our stakeholders enjoy the returns that we have in our business here. Understood. Thank you. My next question is on your cooperation with the Moscow Exchange. If you can just share how it contributes to product offering on InvestTech and maybe some more details on this. Over to you. Hi, Elena. This is Sergey. Hi, Sergey. Look, the Moscow Exchange is one of the cases where we see a lot of benefit of taking a commercial relationship onto the strategic level. The Moscow Exchange is an important and vital element of the capital markets infrastructure in Russia. They're a great provider of liquidity on a lot of securities in Russia, and they're key to our successful implementation of our digital investment growth strategy. Basically, we've taken this five percent position for strategic reasons and appreciate, and in the foreseeable future, we have no plans of changing the quantum of our participation in their capital. We're very happy with this relationship. Thanks, Elena. Yeah, thank you. Just maybe a small question also that SME loans got a bit visible on your loan book, if any data on quality and product range, I mean, loss of risk in this segment? Sure. Just very briefly, Lena, we have three types of lending product. We have very short-term, basically overdraft facility, which is a one-three months. We have a slightly longer working capital loan for three-six months, sometimes a bit longer. We have a longer term, basically business investment loan where people invest in growing their businesses. The third category is small, but we're beginning to build it. The first two loan categories are what is driving the growth in the loan book. We currently have around RUB 5 billion, which I think I mentioned. It's grown quite a lot. We're still tiny, obviously. We kept it around RUB 1 billion-2 billion during the pilot phase. We didn't have a kind of formal end to the pilot, but basically ended about one year ago, nine months ago. Now we're quietly confident that we know how to do this business. We're cautious still. We're still learning. There's obviously a very different underwriting approach to the one that we have consumer loans. We like what we see. We obviously have a very big SME customer base that we can use to cross-sell this type of product. As we move up into the SME segment, the medium-sized business segment, this is a bit of a must-have as a prerequisite for growing our business. Early days, we like it, and we're going to cautiously grow this business over the next few years. Actually, just for completeness, Peter, we also have one other product, which is guarantees for projects for state-owned companies in the municipalities. State guarantees, we call them for short. That's still, again, a relatively small business, but we would like to grow that as well. It's a slightly different approach to lending. Thank you very much. Very helpful. You're welcome. Thank you. Cheers. Our next question today comes from Gabor Kemeny of Autonomous. Oh, hi. A few questions from me. Another follow-up on loan growth. I think in the first half, your growth annualized a bit above 80%, and you say 50% plus for the full year. Shall we expect some slowdown in the second half? Would that be driven by the CBR regulation, or do you see some changes in demand perhaps? The second one is on payments. The Bank of Russia just published this other consultation paper on payments, which includes some recommendations on payment systems as well, and I understand that they will open up payments and acquiring to some non-financial companies. My question is, how do you think about the risk that some of the non-financial companies, like retailers, would potentially internalize acquiring, online acquiring as well, which is growing nicely, I think of right now? My final question is on the Philippines. If you could perhaps talk a bit about what would be your strategy to crack this market. What would you start off with? Would that be credit, potentially your original flagship product of credit card? Or would you perhaps flag other opportunities? Thank you. Thank you, Gabor. I will start with the loan portfolio growth. You're absolutely right. We will have a slightly slower growth. We at least see ourselves growing a little bit lower in the second half compared to the first half. First of all, we are mindful about our capital. Second, important thing that we run not just a number of products, but a lot of different channels, sub-channels, and we are mindful about their performance. Basically, their underlying economics in these channels. We will be just managing our channel mix basically to have it more profitable. Especially taking into account that the cross-yield is going down slightly and taking into account that we expect a certain increase in cost of risk in the second half of the year. You are right, we will grow a little bit slower than the first half. Moving on to the second question. Hi, Gabor. Your question is basically about the regulators' recent statements on opening up the payments business even further. This basically goes along a continuum. It's a line towed by the Central Bank for quite a while. There's nothing new here. It's a logical extension. If we interpret this correctly, they're talking about opening up the SBP, the Faster Payment System, which has been around now for over two, maybe three years, I suppose, to non-credit organizations and non-financial institutions. This is, as I say, consistent with what we've been saying for a long time. It's certainly not come as a surprise. It's consistent with our policy to bring the cost of acquiring or cost of payments down for merchants. The erosion of interchange, which has been happening for a while, will continue, and it will happen over time. It won't be a big bang, but it'll certainly happen over time. It certainly could lead to some merchants internalizing acquiring. However, there's a few things which give me cause to believe that this doesn't necessarily cast a cloud over our payments program. The first is that large merchants get high volume discount interchange rates from the payment systems anyway. If you're a large merchant, you qualify for this category called high volume merchants, and you get a much lower interchange rate. If you just think that there's a cost of doing payments yourselves, that means if you're paying an interchange rate of 0.5, then you're probably not far off, if not better than, the level that you would be paying yourself if you were acquiring your own volumes. It's certainly not far off the SBP rate. Basically equivalent. That's the first thing that comes to mind when we're discussing this. The second thing is that payments is a whole business. In order to process, ensure stability and reliability, fraud management, connectivity to the various different payment systems, of whom there are many, updating your tables and making sure that you're in compliance with all the different payment systems requirements, which all change at different times and on a regular basis, et cetera. Investment in infrastructure, it's something which you have to have focus on doing and have to do well, because especially if you're an online merchant, your conversion rates, your final conversion rate, the bottom of the funnel, basically checkout, is highly sensitive to losing sales. It's something that is difficult to build, difficult to do well. I'm not sure that it's quite as straightforward as maybe some people think. That doesn't mean to say that some of the large merchants, particularly the online, let's say, marketplaces, won't try and do it, and some of them will and are going to anyway. There's nothing new in that because we knew they were going to do it anyway. The market is big enough to accommodate all sorts of different players, especially if they're unaffiliated like us. This doesn't do anything to dent our enthusiasm about payments. Over time, there's definitely going to be downward movement in interchange, and this is something everybody expects, and it's something we'll have to deal with. In terms of volume scale, this is a business that we love and will be highly profitable as we go into the future. Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrew Keeley of Sber CIB. Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for the call. A couple of questions. First of all, just a quick clarification, sorry, on the international business. Your international payments project is completely separate from the Asian neo banking. Can you just remind us, where will that be? I mean, is that stuff like CloudPayments in Kazakhstan, the kind of CIS-based or other locations? I'll ask another question after. Thank you. Sure. Hi, Andrew. Thanks. I realize that I rather rudely didn't answer Gabor's third question, which is a product entry strategy into the Philippines. I'll deal with that in just 1 second. Sorry to hijack your question. Your question is on international payments, and it's an acquiring/payments move internationally, which could include the CIS. I'll keep it broad. We'd like to do a test in a particular market. We can't tell you what that market is yet, and that's about all we can say. It's, as you say, and this is worth re-emphasizing, completely separate from the other international project, which is neobank, where we're starting in the Philippines. In the Philippines, what does neobank mean? Coming back to Gabor's question, which I forgot to answer. Sorry. This is hopefully a licensed entity, assuming we can get a license, and we think we have visibility and a path to getting a license, digital banking license in the Philippines. It's a balance sheet business. It draws on the strengths and expertise of Tinkoff Group in Russia. We're not wedded to credit cards, but we like credit cards or credit card-like products. It could be something else. If you take a step back from a consumer-driven, let's say consumer lending-led entry into a market with a strong debit card offering launched in parallel or soon thereafter. In other markets, for example, it could be an SME-led strategy, it could be a broker-led strategy. It really depends on the market and what we think is going to fly and where, and obviously results of tests as well. That's not me explaining or describing to you our product entry strategy for the Philippines. Just is letting you into how we think about it. Andrew. Okay. That's right. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. I have two other questions. One is on Tinkoff Pro. Over 750,000 users, it looks like you're gaining some nice traction there. Yeah, any thoughts on where you would be hoping user numbers to be on this kind of product, the next, I don't know, year or two? I'm interested whether you have any kind of color in terms of how it's impacting your revenues. There's obviously various different kind of things at play here in terms of the monthly subscription, but lower kind of specific product fees, higher cash backs, et cetera. Funding costs as well, kind of slightly higher deposit rates. Just any kind of thoughts on how you actually see that impacting your financials would be good. The second or third question is on costs, which your message on the staff cost is very clear. Wondering what your thoughts are on the kind of strong growth in the kind of marketing driven customer acquisition costs, whether you talked about a kind of big marketing project on the Tinkoff Investments side, whether you expect any kind of slowdown in those in the second half of the year? Thank you. I'll take the first question then. Tinkoff Pro, our subscription program. You mentioned that we have 750,000. It's actually probably not long before it's going to be 1 million. The penetration of that product or that subscription program in our customer base is growing. We recently had a deep dive into this to understand the economics, but it's still pretty raw in terms of the data. It's still very new. Obviously the reason why we're doing this is because we think this will positively affect lifetime value. It affects cross-sell, stickiness, retention, activity, and behavior in all sorts of different ways. We think that this is something which will cement our relationships, drive engagement with core parts of our customer base, and therefore we're going to continue promoting it. It's a little bit early to tell you exactly how it influences the economics of our business, because as you implied in your question, in some areas, we give a bit more, but in some other areas, it enables us to optimize some of our costs related, transactional costs, for example, or other costs, funding costs related to customers. Now, for example, to qualify for the higher rates on the deposit, you have to be a member of Tinkoff Pro or Tinkoff Premium, the subscription programs. If not, you don't get the higher rates on the deposit. There's certain, as yet, not let's say definitively or clinically proven, but early signs that this could help us manage our economics in a number of different ways. That's basically all we have to say on it at the moment, but we like it, and that's why we're pushing it further. Any other second question? Costs. Well, the second question was what was the cost trajectory in terms of marketing and certain marketing actions will be in the second half of the year. I would say that apart from the lending, we have certain plans to at least keep marketing effort on the same level for many of our products, for many of our business lines, including investments and current account business, to the same level or even maybe even intensified during the high season at the end of the year, basically fourth quarter, starting probably from September already. In terms of lending, yes, we already said that probably we won't be growing that fast in the second half compared to the first half. Therefore, the customer acquisition costs on lending business should be a bit lighter because of that. In general, we do not want to reduce our marketing effort. Okay. That's clear. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you. Thanks, Andrew. Our next question today comes from Ravi Vish of Limiar. Thank you. Congratulations on the excellent results, guys. My question has already been answered. It was on the Philippines. It is already been answered. Thank you. Thanks, Ravi. We can move on to Mehmet Sevim of JP Morgan. Yes, good afternoon. Thank you very much for the presentation, and congratulations also from my side. I have 3 questions, please. First of all, on the investment business. Although the growth looks very solid, it does look like there is some deceleration in the trend compared to the previous quarter. Especially looking at customers, the ratio of active to total customers is coming down now for a Q2. I'm just trying to understand what's driving this widening in the gap between active and total. Do you think that's a natural development after the bumper growth seen last year, or is there a visible difference in behavior of the different customer cohorts? Would you say, for example, that people who joined last year were more active versus the ones joining this year? Any color on that would be quite helpful. Secondly, on BNPL, so buy now, pay later, could you please share any color from your initial experience with the product so far? Are customers liking it? Are the merchants liking it? Oliver, I think you mentioned earlier that you could see that product as a customer acquisition channel rather than a monetization channel in the long term. With the experience so far, is there any change in your thinking? Finally, on growth and capital, with the size of your balance sheet today, what do you think is the possibility that Tinkoff could be recognized as a systemically important financial institution sometime soon? If that's possible, would that be within your capital budget? Thank you very much. Thanks, Mehmet. On investments. We had a bumper, let's say anomalous first quarter. That means that it's not maybe a good baseline to judge the Q2 from. That was because of the global situation as opposed to anything that has happened inside Tinkoff Investments. Actually looking at it now, despite the Q3 being a seasonally slower quarter for investments in general for brokerage businesses, the third quarter is picking up. I wouldn't read too much into the Q2, to be honest with you. In terms of actives as a% of the total customer numbers, total accounts opened, brokerage accounts, for sure, that's happened a little bit, but that's because we've done some whopping marketing campaigns. When you do big marketing campaigns, especially things like bring a friend and whatnot, that brings in, let's say, for want of a better term, a bit of noise, where you get accounts which are not then activated. The number of actives has been growing nicely, continues to grow with a very good growth dynamic. As a share of the total accounts opened, it goes up and down depending on what we're doing with mass marketing campaigns. That's normal. What's important are the% of funded accounts from active. You get an account that's opened, and it's activated, and then it's funded in order to be utilized. Yeah. We look at funded accounts. That's the number that I track most. That as a proportion of opened accounts and active, activated accounts, that's continued to more or less at the same level despite the large marketing campaign we've done. That was very encouraging in terms of looking at the vintages and looking at the funnel. Maybe just to add a little bit more color. The volumes dipped in the Q2. The AUC was flattish, if I recall, maybe grew a little bit. In terms of what we're seeing in quarter three, AUC is growing nicely at the moment. Yeah. Obviously, we're only just into the Q3, but just to put your mind at rest, there's nothing untoward happening there in terms of the growth dynamic or the metrics. On the second question, BNPL, Dolyami, which means pay in bits, basically. It's very early days. We're now in tens of thousands of applications received, it's certainly not hundreds of thousands. It's very early in our development. It's actually accelerating very quickly. We're getting more and more data and more and more informational points in terms of the metrics, the funnel acquisition cost, which categories we're seeing the uptake in, what customers think of it, what merchants think of it. We've signed up 20 big merchants. I've been very active in this myself. I've been talking to the partners, talking to merchants, in terms of trying to get them recruited and get them up and running. I think this is a really nice product line. It's a new muscle for us. We have lots of B2B businesses, but this is a very different B2B business. This is obviously more akin to our point-of-sale lending program, but it's a very different proposition. We're developing that muscle. Working out. Far, I think merchants like it because they can see what's happening in other markets, and therefore, they think if the same thing happens in Russia, then this is obviously something that can drive their business. It drives customer take-up. It drives average transaction size. It drives repeat purchases. Your question as to whether this will be something which we use as an acquisition channel or monetization, it's definitely going to be something we use as an acquisition channel. It's not going to be a monetization business line for certainly some time to come, if ever. The only maybe slight footnote there is that we said that about point-of-sale lending and longer installments. When we talk about point-of-sale lending, it's classic sales finance, about 20% of the volume we do, and 80% installments, but they're longer installments. They're over six months as opposed to BNPL, which is basically six weeks. When we launched that, just one other interesting piece of information as a quick aside, is that we are now, I believe, number one in terms of point-of-sale loan disbursements. We don't talk about it much, but we've actually become the biggest in the market, and it's a really nice business line for us. When we launched that, or relaunched it, let's say, five years ago, four years ago, and talked to you guys about it on a more regular basis, it was a loss leader for us. It was basically an acquisition channel for us to bring in customers with negative NPV, typically it's about minus two and a half- minus three percent on those customers, in order to cross-sell them other products, first and foremost, credit cards. Since then, it's become profitable in its own right. As a standalone business line, point-of-sale lending is becoming increasingly profitable and actually makes a nice contribution to operating income. As well as being a big channel for bringing customers for cross-sell of other products. Actually debit cards now as well, not just lending products. Who knows? Over time, maybe BNPL will become that kind of a product, but that's not what we're launching it for at the moment, certainly not for the foreseeable future. Over to Ilya on growth and capital. Right. I guess that's the first time during our investment calls when someone mentioned the systemically important banks, and that's a requirement of the central bank. Not requirement, it basically means that systemically important banks have to have more higher capital adequacy. We certainly will have to prepare to be included into the systemically important banks in the future. It's also important to understand that the central bank has developed a specific methodology, how it calculates when the bank has to be included or invited, let us say, into this group. Actually, there is a mathematical formula for that, again, it's in the public domain, where you have to calculate certain classes of your activities, including lending, including borrowing, including interbank, including your non-resident foreign activities. Again, the formula is very elaborate, and then you have to sort of mix all these results together, and then it should be more than one percent of total banking market in this mix. We sort of course, have this calculation, and in our forecast, in our business plan, we see that we will reach that magic number somewhere in 2023. Unless Central Bank changes this regulation somehow. We want to be prepared ahead and satisfy for all the requirements. It's not only capital requirements, but some administrative requirements as well. We want to be ready for that elite club somewhere one year from now. Maybe just to add to that. Thanks, Ilya. To us, the formal list of criteria that Ilya was just explaining, there seems to be a kind of less formal trigger, if you like, which is when you cross the RUB 1 trillion asset threshold, which we're probably just about to do. Formally, it'll probably take place in 2023. Maybe it'll happen a bit sooner. But your question is spot on, Mehmet Sevim. Great. That's all very helpful. Thanks very much. If I may just follow up also on your comment, Oliver, on POS loans. Quite interesting to see that some of the growth uptick is in cash loans and POS, which were previously not very much maybe the focus areas. Is that an active push from your side, or is that just related to demand currently because of the market dynamics? Thank you. Sometimes it's difficult to say where push and pull start and end. They're very different beasts. Cash loans is predominantly sold to our existing customers in our existing customer base. It predominantly sold to Tinkoff Black customers who are our debit card customers, but they also borrow from different institutions across the market. They take mortgage, they take personal loans, cash loans, as well as credit cards, et cetera. We basically learned how to cross-sell in a very seamless way with a very good product to our existing customer base. Basically, in the mobile app, a customer can just press a button, and they get a cash loan. Obviously, we underwrite them, but a lot of it's pre-approved. Most of our cash loan, personal loan volume is done organically to our internal customers, to our existing customers. There it's not pushed. It's something which happens organically. It's something we like. It's something that will grow of its own accord. We're certainly not going to be pushing that because as Ilya explained in an earlier answer, we're actually going to probably slow down a little bit in the second half. Point of sale lending is very different because it's a B2B2C product. Again, when I talk about point of sale lending, it's 20%-30% classical sales finance, so let's put a loan with interest charged. The other 70%-80% are installments where it's interest free to the customer, and it's subsidized by the merchant with a longer dated loan than the BNPL product. BNPL is basically deferred payment as opposed to a loan. There, we've learned how to do it, learned how to calibrate it with the partners. We're the biggest in online sales finance. We're big in offline partners where it's appropriate or where it's economically interesting to be so. We have our own broker, Tinkoff Investments, which is high-tech, use it offline and online. We have paperless process which helps us move volume. Basically, we have the technological edge. We move quicker with better UX for the merchant staff who we're underwriting because we don't have anybody in the field of our own. That's enabled us to quietly take over this market basically. It's something we're pushing on the B2B side, but we'd like to push it on the B2C side, if you see what I mean. They've become big businesses, and they're growing very nicely with very positive economics. Great. Thanks very much. All very helpful. Thanks again. Our next question comes from Ondrej Novacek of HSBC. Thank you for the call. My questions have been answered, but I still would like to follow up on the brokerage business simply because there's lots of moving parts here. You mentioned trading volumes dropped, which is true. There's also something else happening, I think. The retail share in equity trading on markets has been declining for a while. It was 42% in Q1, 40% in Q2, and in July, just 38.5%. I just wonder, is this declining engagement level by retail investors is a reflection of the rising interest rates perhaps? You say revenue growth is to resume in H2 based on what you're seeing in July, but what really gives you this confidence over a longer term? Thank you. No, I really don't think so. I think it's global markets related. The volumes of trading have dropped across the market and across the globe because of what's happening in equity markets. Nothing to do with local deposit markets. If deposit rates have doubled, then maybe your comment would hold water. The fact that deposit interest rates have gone up a little bit, and in our case, they really hardly gone up at all. Across the market, they haven't gone up much. I really don't think that's a driver. People are not suddenly returning to deposits. Okay. How do you explain the decreasing retail share of total trading? Retail or declining retail share of what, sorry? Equity trading for specifically. My colleagues I hope will jump in here. My feeling is that when there's volatility, you get higher volumes generated by a smaller number of very active traders. When there's movements in the market, either way, they tend to be much more active. You've got gross over simplification, but you've got three segments, if you like. You've got your high net worth, buy and hold, diverse instruments type of customers. Let's call them for the sake of argument, private banking customers. You've got your retail buy and hold, lower ticket, longer-term customers. In between them, you've got your high-frequency traders who are professionals or just people who do it as a hobby or an interest, let's put it that way who jump in and out of the market depending on what's happening in the market. When VIX is going in one direction, that means That'll be coming in. This is just a sign of what's happening in the wider market. Again, I reiterate that what we've seen now over the last month or so basically talks to us returning to the longer-term trend without the noise that we saw as a result of volatility in the second quarter. You'll see this coming in through the numbers in the third quarter yourself. Thank you. Will follow it. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Olga Veselova of Bank of America. Good day. Thank you very much for the presentation. I have several questions. My first question is a follow-up on questions about capital. Given the high loan growth, and the regulatory changes, and potentially inclusion into the list of systemically important banks, do you think that an SPO could be considered in 2022, maybe 2023, or you would rather avoid considering this option? Again, I'll tell you that. Hi, Olga. Well, you're right. The balance of options available to us is pretty broad. We can triangulate between the various growth rates on our credit side, and we can, of course, place another subordinated issue. We can do an SPO. All those sort of options are theoretically available to us. As you have gathered from our prior history, SPO would not be our first choice under any circumstance. Basically, dependent on what growth opportunities we see ahead of us in 2022, we will decide the optimal way to manage our capital position. We'll find an optimal growth rate. We'll see what dynamics there will be with respect to the CBR requirements related to secured and unsecured lending, and we'll find the right balance between the two types of products in our portfolio, and we'll take it from there. Should we see reasonably attractive ways for us to step function our growth strategies? Yeah, of course, we'll come back to this SPO idea, but it's not in the cards for now, for sure. Perfect. That's very clear. Thank you. My second question is about your net interest margin. We were very pleased to see a nice pickup in margin, in the second quarter, helped mainly by the yield on treasuries, but also we noticed that the yield on credit portfolio was flattish quarter-over-quarter. Could you comment, please, on the pricing competition these days, and in the next quarters maybe? Do you think the average yield will be flattish for some time, or the pricing competition is still there, and the average yield will likely be going down? Thank you. I'll probably answer this question. First of all, I'll touch on why our net interest margin is largely dependent on our growth yield. That's really what we have to talk about, not about the funding cost. Actually, we were surprised as well, as our growth yield was sort of resilient in the second quarter, while my personal feeling that it should still continue to go down slightly every quarter because of the changing portfolio mix. I attribute this to the really high growth of our loan portfolio in this quarter. Basically, newer vintages, especially in the credit card business, they usually tend to hold higher growth yield. In terms of the price competition, it certainly exists in several products within our lending product mix. For example, if you talk car loans, for example, and when in the dealership, you sit alongside with other credit organizations and obviously you have to compete for price as well. Probably the same relates to the point of sale business, for example, where the merchant dictates the rate sometimes. In some products, for example, credit cards, which is still our biggest product, we mainly use push channels, and therefore we feel less of the competition here. Obviously, there is a general understanding what the total price of the credit card should be. It differs from channel to channel, from person to person, depending on the credit quality of people. It's also the product, which is purpose-driven and need-driven. Different people use credit cards in different ways, and some sit in a grace period and pay nothing, and some pay interest because they are revolvers. In this product, for example, very important, the size of the loan, because some of the parts of our credit revenue is structured as commissions. For example, I don't know, cash withdrawal commission or annual fee. Therefore, on the smaller balance and credit card, and we like our approach of being a low and grow approach, where we really issue small-ticket credit card loans. The yield is optically higher, especially in the beginning of the life of your newly acquired customer. Another interesting product is personal installment loans, and where we mostly cross-sell to our current account customers. Again, here, in a sense, we can dictate the price ourselves. Again, to reiterate, it's different in different products and in different channels. If we find some sort of weighted average, I would say that the price competition is less important for us, less a problem for us than for the general market. Mm-hmm. Thank you. That's great. My third question is about the regulatory changes from the Central Bank from October. Have you assessed the share of loans for which risk weight will go up? Is it meaningful at all? I think it's mostly for the credit cards. It relates to the new lending, it sort of have to migrate over time. It's certainly mostly limited to half of our portfolio, which are credit cards. Again, it will take some time to migrate. Initial burden won't be very high, it will grow over time. Difficult to give granular information on this right now. That's fine. Yeah. That's fine. My last question, if I can ask that as a question, have you made an assessment of TCS share traded by your brokerage client base? If this is possible to track anyhow at all. Last time we looked, the last time I looked at this, which was probably a year ago, maybe longer, it was around 30%, if I recall. Ilya? Around 30% of daily trading volume. If I recall, it was like 40%-50% of daily trading volume was Moscow. Half of that, roughly speaking, was Tinkoff customers in Tinkoff Investments. Don't quote me on that. We need to update that. This would be great to see the recent numbers. Would be interesting to track. Sure. Thank you very much. Perfect. Thanks. The next question today comes from Andrey Mikhailov of Sova Capital. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the call. I have several questions. I'll ask them one by one. The first question is on your loan growth targets. Do I understand correctly that these are essentially targets for organic loan book growth, and any M&As or loan book acquisitions are not accounted for in these targets? Thank you. Sure. It's organic, considered there's no M&A in there. All right. Thank you. My second question is on funding costs. We've discussed the yields, what are your expectations for the funding costs going to next year in 2022, when the pressure of higher rates should be the highest? What scenarios for the CBR key rate are your expectations based upon? Thank you very much. It will obviously depend on this key rate. If it will go up, then obviously it will have certain pressure on our cost of funds. Right now, we do not see any significant upward pressure for our cost of funds. In our planning, we plan for a slightly higher cost of funds next year. Again, there are lots of moving parts there. I personally, we don't see funding costs as a significant part of our overall equation for our profitability. There are much heavier components that might change the profitability of our product and our organization in general. Thank you very much for this. The third question is perhaps on something even more minor, on the fee for credit protection, whose growth basically is quite modest compared to the growth of the loan book. Of course, that's comparing flows to balances, but still. How could you explain that? What are your expectations for this line going forward? Is it tied to credit cards? As the share of credit cards falling, this line is also stagnating. Maybe perhaps customers are less willing to take part in credit insurance programs, credit protection programs. Do you actually still view this line as a core line, or would you be happy to see it fully dry out? Thank you. Sure. I might need to double-check this, but my understanding is that penetration of the credit protection product is not falling, so it's pretty stable. Obviously you have initial take-up, then you have take-up within the first couple of months, additional take-up, and then you have attrition over a period of time. The attrition rate from credit protection, again, we could double-check this, but I'm pretty sure it's stable. What you're seeing is total loan book growth versus growth in the credit protection fee income, which relates mainly to the credit card business, which is only part of the total loan book growth. I think that's the answer to your question, which I think you answered yourself, but maybe Ilya wants to add something to that. I think that's basically it. Thank you. Anything else, Ilya? you. Anything else, Ilya? Thanks, Andrey. We seem to have one more question from Mikhail. Yep. Our final question today comes from Mikhail Butkov of Goldman Sachs. Yes, good day. Thank you very much for the presentation. My first question is actually on retail trading. Actually, Moscow Exchange had recently outlined plans to increase the number of international securities traded on its platform to 500 by the end of this year, and more than 1,000 by the end of next year. Maybe could you provide some color how your cooperation in international securities looks like with MOEX right now? Is that any way different with how it traded with local securities and maybe what can be the developments there? Yeah. Thank you. Well, thanks, Mikhail. Obviously, we welcome the fact that MOEX, the Moscow Exchange, is increasing its catalog of foreign equities. That's excellent because it wasn't long ago when they had none. We're obviously in close contact with the Moscow Exchange on a regular basis. I meet Yury Denisov regularly, we're very much in lockstep there, obviously, the more they increase their catalog, the more we'll be able to offer. Our primary partner, simply because we started with them earlier and because they've got a larger catalog of foreign equities, is obviously the St. Petersburg Exchange, as Sergey mentioned earlier in an earlier question. Over time, there may be a bit of a redistribution as Moscow Exchange grows its catalog. If you kind of take a step back from that, there's a question as to the split, not between Moscow and St. Petersburg, the split between equities and within equities of foreign versus domestic, and then between equities and other instruments, obviously, first and foremost, bonds. It's something, obviously, we work with at the level of our broker, Tinkoff Investments, and longer term, you would expect there to be a far greater share of bonds. The longer a customer's with us in the retail buy and hold segment, the more likely they are to move from equities to bonds, and certainly from foreign equities to domestic equities and bonds. The older a retail customer is, the more likely they are to have bonds, and the longer they are with us, the more likely they are to have bonds. I think that kind of goes a long way to answer your question. Thank you for the color on this. Another question here on retail trading is that the policy rate had been increasing since the last year so far. The deposit rates, like reported by CBR, were broadly flat, not really increasing just at the same pace. One might debate that there can be some negative correlation between retail investor interest in trading and the average rate for the deposit rates. So far, probably, this could not be seen, but did you make any polls or research among your retail trade investors? What are the biggest drivers for them to trade, and how important for them might be the average policy rate for the country? To be honest with you, that would be a question that we can follow up on to our colleagues in Tinkoff Investments. I'm not aware that they made something like that, but they probably did. I don't know the answer in terms of specific surveys of our customers. I can just reiterate that we don't see any changes because I really don't think that our customers who are Tinkoff Black customers, potentially with deposit are also simultaneously Tinkoff Investments brokerage customers, I don't think they're sensitive to a tick up of deposit rate by half a percent, doesn't change behavior. As I said earlier, if it goes up by five percent, then maybe it will change the behavior, but not now. We're seeing this drift and move of funds from deposits to investments. All right. Yeah. Thank you for the color on this. The final question from me, usually you put quite a good chart in your presentation on the page 31. It is on the retail loan share on the market up to three years. For the first time quite in a bit, we can see some step up in the market share of other banks. Do you see that as competition for you? Probably what is driving the demand there? How do you see this going forward? Do you see this, yeah, as a competition by any means? Thank you. Yeah. Our market share has been going up over time, as you can see, 2019 to 2020, 2018 to 2019. Our market share has remained the same for the first six, seven months of this year. You can see that other banks, some of the leading banks in Russia, have come out of the COVID crisis and have restarted their lending programs, which probably means that our market share has remained flat. I don't think there's really any read-across that you can make, meaningful read-across, in six months' worth of data. As you can see, we're growing our loan book very actively in all of the lending products without exception. This just shows that other banks are as well, which shows that it's a healthy market. Well, I think the question really is about the gray part of this chart, other banks. They, yeah, they increased after 2020. If you look on a longer-term trajectory, then it's actually the same as in 2019 and a little bit less than 2018. I think the question really is why other banks went down significantly in 2020 and then rebounded. I think that the answer here is because of the pandemic crisis. It's probably especially important for the banks who are not consumer lenders and not the biggest players in the market. They work through the branches, and it has to do something with it, I think. There's also some big banks in that gray box, yeah? There's Gazprombank, there's Rosselkhozbank, Russian Agricultural Bank, there's Pochta Bank, and a few others. Sovcombank. They've just picked up again. That basically explains the numbers. As Ilya says, long term, that number's going down and has been and will continue to. Maybe as a follow-up here, do you think that the latest Central Bank decision on the increase of PTI PSK ratios relates more to this box? Yeah, and I think relative to you, the question had already been asked. Sorry, I'm not sure I understood the question, Mikhail. In what way does PSK relate to this box? Yeah. I mean, in terms of the relative increase of the risk weights for unsecured loans, which should be in power from October. They were highlighted some loans with the particular area of concern for Central Bank were their loans at very high interest rates and for consumers with a higher level of credit indebtedness levels. Do you think it is mostly relates to this part of the segment, other banks, which is 25% market share, and not really to you and the rest of the named banks? Sure. I think basically, irrespective of the relative shares within this column on slide 31, if you look at the number in absolute terms, yeah, RUB 3.5 trillion is that. It's got a lot of zeros on it, which is a lot larger than the previous year's disbursements in total. It's not about the gray box or the green box or any other box. It's about the total market that the Central Bank's looking at. There's a bounce back effect after the COVID crisis, as Ilya's explained, which is, I'd say, Central Bank believes is normal. There's been a catch-up, but it's kind of like a pent-up demand. There's also an element of lots of different players in the market speeding up their lending programs in a market that is good for lending and not wanting medium-term the markets overheat, which is why the Central Bank is increasing cooling measures across the market. I suppose by implication, we would expect, generally speaking, the players in the gray box to have less capital or less ability to deal with those risk weights. They don't have organic capital generation capacity, they don't have the ability to raise capital, and they tend to have less adequate capital buffers, and therefore, it will affect them maybe disproportionately compared to the other colors in this column. We'd have to go down into the details, into the weeds, to understand that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much for the color. Thank you. you. Thanks very much indeed to everybody. Have a good evening and day. Bye now. Ladies and gentlemen, that will conclude today's conference call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.